Expense Reimbursement: Required Remote Work Creates Liability

Belief: remote expense reimbursement is about optics or “credibility.”

It is not. It is legal liability. The practical dividing line is whether the employer required remote work or whether employees had a meaningful, workable option to perform the job on-site.

Here are the scenarios that matter in practice. If the employer runs a 3/2 hybrid schedule but employees can come in five days and the office is fully workable, remote work is optional. If “Monday is remote” but the office is open and employees can come in, remote work is still optional. If the office is closed and employees must work remotely, remote work is required.

Liability shows up when the employer’s language says “optional,” but schedules, access, and management expectations make remote work mandatory in practice. That is when reimbursement disputes develop, because the company’s operating costs are being pushed onto employees.

Solve it as a workflow: define what is optional and what is required, document what “office available” means in real terms, and apply one consistent reimbursement rule for required-remote situations.

This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts — no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication. This post may be attorney advertising.

Michael Trust Law, APC, 703 Pier Avenue, Ste. B367, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254: michaeltrustlaw.com