Company Allowed to Make Politics-Based Assignments
Q: I am an exempt employee who is responsible for selecting several vendors for a large privately owned firm in the financial service industry.
Recently, all of the associates who perform this and similar functions were called into a meeting and told that the owner of the company supported a certain political candidate. We were told to contact the vendors with whom we place business and ask them to make cash contributions to this politician’s campaign.
While it was never stated verbally, the implication was that if these vendors wished to continue getting business from our company, they had better contribute.
While I felt uncomfortable with the ethics of this, I complied. Is this legal? If I am asked to do this again and refuse, can I be terminated or reprimanded without recourse?
--M.W., Orange
A: This kind of fund-raising for political candidates is quite common. It is not illegal, and you could be subject to discipline if you refused to perform the assignment.
Though California law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on employees’ political beliefs or activities, it is unlikely that this law would be applied so as to permit employees to refuse to perform politically based assignments while on company time.
No law, moreover, prohibits businesses from choosing not to do business with other companies based on political considerations.
Your employer is free to buy products and services from whichever vendors it chooses, and it may attach these sorts of conditions to the business relationship--just as vendors may choose not to sell to companies with which they disagree politically.
--James J. McDonald Jr.
Attorney, Fisher & Phillips LLP
Labor law instructor, UC Irvine
No Company Deadline on 401(k) Transfers
Q: Does a company have a legal deadline for transferring funds in a 401(k) plan to an employee rollover account after the employee resigns?
--J.W., Redondo Beach
A: Except for certain individuals who have reached retirement age, there are no statutory rules that impose a deadline by which a company must pay benefits under a Section 401(k) plan.
Some employees have sued employers because of a delay in paying the benefits. However, the courts have generally found for the employer for two reasons:
* The funds in a Section 401(k) plan are meant for retirement purposes, not for current spending.
* The amounts remain invested at all times.
--Kirk F. Maldonado
Employee benefits attorney
Riordan & McKinzie
Meal Break Required by California Law
Q: I work at a business that employs fewer than 200 people. My employer sometimes assigns high-priority work to me during morning hours, with a lot of pressure to get the work done before taking any kind of break.
Doesn’t the law require that employees be given a meal break after six hours of work? In the past I have had to work as much as eight hours straight on a project, with no meal break.
--W.H., Topanga
*
A. Effective Jan. 1, California law provides that employees may not be required to work more than five hours without a half-hour meal break, unless their work period for the day is six hours or less.
In that case, the meal period can be waived but only by the mutual consent of the employer and the employee.
--Michael A. Hood
Employment law attorney
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
Mileage Expenses May Be Claimed
Q: If an employer is required by law to pay all expenses an employee incurs in carrying out his duties, why is there a line on tax schedule A (itemized deductions) for unreimbursed employee expenses?
I’m reimbursed 20 cents a mile for the use of my car. I wrote off the difference on my schedule A form. Am I doing the correct thing? Is the employer required by law to pay me 32.5 cents a mile for the use of my car in my duties?
--D.T., Valencia
A: An employer must reimburse all reasonable expenses incurred by an employee in performing employment duties, according to the California Labor Code.
Do not confuse California law with federal law. And not all states have that rule.
The Internal Revenue Service allows a taxpayer to claim “unreimbursed employee expenses” when itemizing deductions. California taxpayers likewise might be able to claim some of these unreimbursed expenses if they fail to ask for reimbursement or the employer fails to provide reimbursement.
Though some expenses are indisputably the employer’s responsibility under California law, other expenses may not be so clearly subject to state law but may still be claimed as unreimbursed employee expenses.
The IRS has established a mileage reimbursement that it changes periodically. It currently is 32.5 cents per mile. If an employer reimburses an employee that amount, it will normally not be subject to dispute by the IRS. It doesn’t mean that an employer can’t pay less than that amount if that is the appropriate level of the employee’s car expense.
It is difficult for an employer to determine an employee’s actual car expenses, which can involve the car’s value, maintenance costs, gas prices and insurance costs. The expenses would vary, for example, for a ’57 Volkswagen versus a new Rolls-Royce. An employer can restrict an employee from driving a car on behalf of the employer if the cost is excessive.
If you calculate the costs of using your car for business purposes and determine that the employer’s policy of paying 20 cents per mile is inadequate, you could request a higher amount.
Although the employer has the right to limit excessive costs, it is not legal to retaliate by demoting or firing you for raising reasonable complaints about expense reimbursement.
--Don D. Sessions
Employee rights attorney
Mission Viejo
