A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Covering costs at work? You should expect to be compensated

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

I recently published a white paper explaining what your rights are when you cover expenses on the job in California. If you have not yet taken look at it, I encourage you to take a few minutes and do so now. It could save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

If your boss requires you to purchase your own uniform, use your own car or cellphone, or cover other job-related expenses at work, there is a very good chance that you have a legal right to reimbursement. However, just because your employer is required by law to pay you back does not necessarily mean they will. This white paper explains:

  • How to tell if you might be entitled to reimbursement
  • What your rights are if your boss owes you money for work-related expenses
  • How much time you have before your rights expire

Sometimes companies fail to reimburse employees due to honest mistakes or misunderstanding of the law, while other times it is a deliberately unlawful and unethical tactic to increase profits.

Either way, the bottom line is that when you cover costs on the job, it is taking money out of your pocket and using it to cover your employer’s operating expenses. Therefore, you should expect to be compensated. Learning about your reimbursement rights and how to protect them is the first step toward making sure your boss doesn’t shift the company’s overhead costs onto you.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.