A class-action suit against Amazon may show where California courts stand on reimbursement for costs workers shouldered while working from home during the pandemic. 

Amazon is among several companies facing lawsuits over remote employees’ added expenses, such as telephone and Internet costs, office supplies, and additional energy costs. During the months of the pandemic, those expenses could have potentially reached thousands of dollars per employee.

David Williams, a senior software development engineer for Amazon, needed physical space, Internet and electricity to continue to do his job while at home, and he wants to be reimbursed. He also wants other Amazon workers from California who found themselves in similar situations to be reimbursed as well.

Amazon’s defense: The government’s stay-at-home orders caused the expenses, not Amazon. 

The court denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss the case. The court’s opinion found that,  “Amazon, a major tech company, surely knew — or at the very least, had reason to know — that its software development engineers who worked from home during the pandemic were incurring basic costs related to that work.”

Federal law only requires reimbursement for work-related expenses when those costs cause the employee’s earnings to dip below minimum wage. However, California and several other states require reimbursement for all reasonable business-related expenses. 

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in court — and what that could mean for other remote workers who found themselves paying out-of-pocket to work at home.

If this situation sounds painfully familiar, Keller Grover can help. Our experienced employment lawyers offer free consultations to help you understand your rights, protections and options. In more than 25 years litigating fraud and employment cases, we have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for clients and class members.

 

The state of California is appealing a judge’s 2021 ruling striking down a voter-approved ballot measure exempting certain app-based workers from legislation requiring them to be classified as employees. 

The case, Castellanos et al. v. California, has to do with Proposition 22, also known as the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, a 2020 ballot measure which received heavy financial backing from Uber, Lyft and other app-based companies. The law passed with 59 percent of the vote. 

Prop 22 was an industry response to 2019 state legislation, Assembly Bill 5, which set standards for classifying such workers as employees. In AB 5, the state legislature codified a California Supreme Court decision which put the burden on employers through the so-called “ABC test” to show that someone was an independent contractor and not an employee.

The question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is important because while employees are entitled to minimum wages, overtime, and work expenses, independent contractors are not. The issue of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor is one that both California and other states have gone back and forth on. 

Prop 22 exempts app-based companies’ drivers from the standards of AB5 that classified them as employees, offering them alternative benefits instead. After the law went into effect, plaintiff Hector Castellanos and other workers challenged the measure, arguing it violates the California Constitution. Last year, a California Superior Court judge agreed, finding the initiative unconstitutional and unenforceable. 

Specifically, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Prop 22 conflicts with the legislature’s power to create and enforce a worker’s compensation system and violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers and single-subject provisions. 

The state has appealed the ruling to the First District Court of Appeal. In the state’s opening brief, California Attorney General Rob Bonta argued Judge Roesch’s decision was erroneous. He asserted that  the measure does not conflict with the legislature’s power to create a system for workers’ compensation because Prop 22 does not seek to modify the worker’s compensation system. 

“The initiative merely impacts the threshold classification test to determine whether individuals engaged in a particular type of work are employees or independent contractors,” he said. “This is well within the authority of the electorate under initiative power.”

Additionally, the state argued the law does not violate other aspects of the Constitution. 

The case has prompted outside groups and individuals to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of both workers and the state, including actor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said he supports keeping Prop 22 in place because it received the support of the voters. 

As of mid-June, the appeals court had not yet set a date for arguments in the case. Keller Grover continuously monitors for updates in the law that could affect app-based workers and we will provide future updates on the law, should it change. 

If you work for an app-based company you believe you’ve been misclassified as an independent contractor, you may be able to challenge your employment status in court. 

Keller Grover is here to help workers with their employment-related disputes. If your employer isn’t treating you fairly, we can help you better understand your rights, protections and options. In more than 25 years litigating fraud and employment cases, we have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for clients and class members. 

Contact us today for a free, confidential consultation. 

 

Americans can expect to see more orange cones as construction workers begin to tackle $1.2 trillion in infrastructure investments approved by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden late last year. 

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provides funding for rebuilding roads and bridges, replacing lead pipes and providing high-speed internet to more Americans, among other priorities. It is also expected to provide employment to tens of thousands of Americans across the country.

The creation of so many new jobs is good news for hourly workers but raises the potential for a variety of wage-and-hour issues, including prevailing wage disputes. It’s important for workers to understand what prevailing wages are, how they work and remedies available to them if they’re not being paid what they’re owed.  

What are prevailing wages?

The Davis-Bacon Act is the federal law requiring any contractor on a government contract to pay workers a prevailing wage. Congress enacted the law in 1931 to prevent non-local contractors from obtaining federal construction contracts by underbidding local workers.

Under the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors and subcontractors are required to pay individuals performing work on federally funded construction projects a wage that is comparable to work on similar projects in their area which is a prevailing wage. 

How do prevailing wages work?

The law applies to every federal government contract exceeding $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works. The U.S. Department of Labor uses local surveys to set prevailing wages, and prevailing wages take both union and non-union labor into account. 

When contractors or subcontractors with federal infrastructure contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act fail to pay prevailing wages, they run the risk of being sued by employees under the Act. 

Failing to pay prevailing wages can also get these contractors in trouble under another law: the False Claims Act. Contractors are required to certify to the federal government that workers have not been paid less than prevailing wages. Failing to do so can open them up to liability for submitting false claims for payment to the government. 

What remedies are available to me?

The False Claims Act includes a way for someone with knowledge of a fraud on the government to report it and to secure recovery of the money to the government. By statute the whistleblower is entitled to between 15-30% of any successful recovery. 

If you are working one of the federal government’s infrastructure contracts and you believe you are not being properly compensated for your work, you may have a claim against your employer. Additionally, if you know your employer is reporting false wage information to the federal government, like reporting that it is paying workers prevailing wages when it isn’t, you may have grounds for a whistleblower action.

Consulting with an employment attorney is important to ensure your rights are protected and to determine whether you have a basis for a lawsuit. If you are considering reporting any wrongdoing to the government, it’s critical to consult with a knowledgeable attorney to better understand your rights and the potential outcomes of becoming a whistleblower. 

In either situation, the attorneys of Keller Grover are here to help. With more than 30 years combined experience in both fraud and employment law, Keller Grover is uniquely positioned to help clients with both types of claims. The firm has helped its clients recover billions of dollars.  

Keller Grover is committed to helping whistleblowers report wrongdoing and helping workers get the pay they are owed. If you want to report wrongdoing or discuss a potential prevailing wage claim, contact us today for a free, confidential consultation.