Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “[n]othing in the language of section 2802 restricts the methods that an employer may use to calculate reimbursement”
• noting that DLSE advice and opinion letters are “entitled to no deference” but adding that “this court may adopt the DLSE’s interpretation if we independently determine that it is correct”
• under California’s job expense reimbursement statute, Cal. Lab. Code § 2802, “[i]f an employer wants to pay less than the established IRS rate, it bears the cost of proving the employee’s cost of operating the vehicle for work is actually less.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).