California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 2802 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.

(b)All awards made by a court or by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for reimbursement of necessary expenditures under this section shall carry interest at the same rate as judgments in civil actions. Interest shall accrue from the date on which the employee incurred the necessary expenditure or loss.

(c)For purposes of this section, the term “necessary expenditures or losses” shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.

(d)In addition to recovery of penalties under this section in a court action or proceedings pursuant to Section 98, the commissioner may issue a citation against an employer or other person acting on behalf of the employer who violates reimbursement obligations for an amount determined to be due to an employee under this section. The procedures for issuing, contesting, and enforcing judgments for citations or civil penalties issued by the commissioner shall be the same as those set forth in Section 1197.1. Amounts recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected employee.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 466 cases (261 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Fred Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., Inc., 60 F.4th 459 (9th Cir. 2022).
Ayala (S.D. Cal. 2026). · cites it 2×
Belman v. Los Bagres Corp. CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
Ayala-Ventura v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
Thornhill (N.D. Cal. 2026).
Phan v. Knight Sacramento SU CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
Parks v. City of Los Angeles CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5×
Krug v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4×
Nicole Sanchez de Basurto v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 4×
Webb v. Rejoice Delivers LLC (N.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 4×
Benyamin v. TopGolf Payroll Servs., LLC (E.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 3×
Benyamin v. TopGolf Payroll Servs., LLC (E.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 3×
Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. (9th Cir. 2025). · cites it 3×
— Cal. Labor Code § 2802(a) — 35 cases
Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 267 F.R.D. 625 (S.D. Cal. 2010).
Takacs v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (S.D. Cal. 2006).
United States v. Stein, 495 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Hammitt v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., 19 F. Supp. 3d 989 (S.D. Cal. 2014).
James v. Dependency Legal Grp., 253 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2015).
— Cal. Labor Code § 2802(c) — 3 cases
Stuart v. Radioshack Corp., 259 F.R.D. 200 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Lucas Ramirez v. Cookson (E.D. Cal. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.