In Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137, California’s Second District Court of Appeal answered a question that still drives cell phone reimbursement claims statewide: if an employee must use a personal cell phone for work, does Labor Code section 2802 require reimbursement even when the worker has an unlimited plan or did not buy a more expensive plan because of the job?
The court said yes. Reimbursement is always required when personal cell phone use for work is mandatory, and the employer must pay some reasonable percentage of the employee’s cell phone bill.
What Happened
Colin Cochran sued Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. in a putative class action on behalf of about 1,500 customer service managers who allegedly were not reimbursed for work-related use of their personal cell phones. He alleged violations of Labor Code section 2802, unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200, declaratory relief, and PAGA penalties under Labor Code section 2699.
The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied class certification. It reasoned that liability turned on individualized facts—such as whether each manager actually incurred an extra expense, whether a third person (like a girlfriend) paid the bill, and whether the employee changed plans because of work use. The court also rejected Cochran’s proposed survey and statistical sampling as a way to manage those issues.
Cochran appealed.
What the Court of Appeal Held
Writing for the court, Acting Presiding Justice Ashmann-Gerst held that section 2802 requires reimbursement whenever employees must use personal cell phones for work-related calls. Key points from the opinion:
- Reimbursement is always required for mandatory personal cell phone use. The obligation is not limited to situations where the employee incurred an “extra” cost that would not have existed without the job.
- Unlimited plans still count. Whether the employee has unlimited or limited minutes, the employer must reimburse a reasonable percentage of the cell phone bill. Otherwise the employer gets a windfall by shifting operating costs onto workers.
- Who pays the bill is irrelevant to liability. It does not matter if a family member, friend, or third party pays the phone bill, or even if the bill goes unpaid.
- Plan changes are irrelevant to liability. Employers cannot defeat a claim by arguing the worker would have had the same plan anyway.
- Liability is simple; damages are more complex. To show liability under section 2802, the employee need only show required personal cell phone use for work-related calls and a failure to reimburse. The amount of reimbursement is a damages question left to the trial court and parties in each case.
Because the trial court’s certification denial rested on erroneous legal assumptions about section 2802, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for reconsideration—including application of the sampling principles in Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1.
Why This Matters
Cochran is the leading California case on personal cell phone expense reimbursement. It confirms that section 2802’s purpose—“to prevent employers from passing their operating expenses on to their employees”—applies even when the worker’s monthly bill does not go up dollar-for-dollar with each work call.
For employees who use personal phones for customer calls, scheduling, apps, or other job duties, the decision supports reimbursement of a reasonable share of the bill. For employers, it undercuts the argument that unlimited plans or third-party payment wipe out liability, and it pushes companies toward clear expense policies and stipends rather than silence.
Related topics include broader work expense reimbursement and mileage reimbursement under the same Labor Code framework.
Practical Takeaways
- If your job requires personal cell phone use for work calls, California law generally requires some reasonable reimbursement—even on an unlimited plan.
- Employers cannot avoid liability by pointing to who pays the bill or by claiming the worker would have had the same plan anyway.
- Liability and damages are different: proving you were required to use your phone and were not reimbursed establishes liability; the exact dollar amount is calculated separately.
- A flat stipend or clear expense policy can help employers comply, but wages and expense reimbursements should be kept distinct.
- Workers generally cannot waive section 2802 rights; attempts to do so in an employment contract are typically void.
If your employer requires personal cell phone use for work and does not reimburse you, contact Jonny Law to discuss your options. This post is general information only and is not legal advice about any specific case.
Case: Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed Aug. 12, 2014), No. B247160. Read the court opinion.
