independent contractor mileage reimbursement

#Independent contractor mileage reimbursement code

This list is not exhaustive, nor is it necessarily controlling on Illinois employers.

#Independent contractor mileage reimbursement code

While the Illinois Department of Labor has not clarified what types of expenses are reimbursable, the statute closely tracks California’s Labor Code 2802, which has been interpreted to require reimbursement for: personal vehicle use at the IRS rate or the actual costs if higher (in order to cover mileage and fuel) personal mobile phones and related service used for work (even where minimal) training business travel tools equipment and uniforms (including apparel and accessories of distinctive design and color). Under the law, employees must have at least 30 calendar days to submit supporting documentation, or a signed statement as to why such support is nonexistent, missing, or lost in order to be entitled to the reimbursement. But, if the employer authorizes or requires the employee to incur an expense, or fails to comply with its own policy, then the expense will become reimbursable. While the law requires reimbursement of expenses which are for the primary benefit of the employer, employers are not responsible for expenses due to (i) the employee’s negligence, (ii) normal wear and tear, or (iii) theft (unless the theft was the result of the employer’s negligence).Īdditionally, an employee is not entitled to reimbursement if he/she fails to comply with an established written expense reimbursement policy. The policy may set guidelines and specifications on what is reimbursable, as long as the reimbursement is not de minimis or nonexistent. U.S.Effective January 1, 2019, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act requires employers to reimburse “necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee within the employee’s scope of employment and directly related to services performed for the employer.”Įxpenses related to vehicle usage, that primarily benefits the employer, must be reimbursed.Real Estate, Land Use & Environmental Law Blog.New York Commercial Division Round Up Blog.Government Contracts and Investigations Blog.SCOTUS Issues Decision Allowing State Court Lawsuit Against Union for Property Damage Caused During Labor Dispute.The End of Non-Competes in New York? State Legislature Passes Non-Compete Ban Moving One Step Closer to the Edge.Buyer Beware: Delaware Courts Continue to Refuse to Enforce Deal-Based Non-Competes.Supreme Court Eases the Ability for Employers to Appeal Denials of Motions to Compel Arbitration in Federal Court.

Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Title VII Religious Accommodations.Topics Select Category Archives Select Month Recent Updates Sheppard Mullin’s Labor & Employment Law Blog is designed to provide employers with breaking news, insights, and legal analysis on virtually every labor and employment law issue facing employers. Continue Reading Employers Can Now Stand Firmly On Not Paying Employees For The Cost Of Slip-Resistant Shoes Matthew Sonne and Jason Guyser of Sheppard Mullin represented BJ’s Restaurants in this matter. This is the first published opinion in California to adopt the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (“DLSE”) interpretation of a “uniform” and to hold that an employer is not required to reimburse employees for the cost of “non-uniform” work clothing. On July 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal granted BJ’s request and ordered the opinion certified for publication. Due to the lack of California case law addressing the issue, BJ’s requested the opinion be published in the Official Reports. holding that BJ’s Restaurants was not required to reimburse its employees for the cost of black, slip-resistant, closed-toe shoes that BJ’s required its restaurant employees to wear. On June 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District issued an unpublished opinion in Krista Townley v.