Comments on: Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gattuso-v-harte-hanks-shoppers-inc-2/ The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Original reporting. Cradle-to-grave law tracking. Since 2004. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:28:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: ucla2k3 http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gattuso-v-harte-hanks-shoppers-inc-2/comment-page-1/#comment-400 ucla2k3 Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:52:28 +0000 http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gattuso-v-harte-hanks-shoppers-inc-2/#comment-400 If the employer is allowed to reimburse its salespeople through increased commission to cover expenses related to the performance of the job as is the case here, what happens if there is no commission? What happens if no sale is made? The salesperson does not get paid yet expenses are still accrued? How do you account for a situation like that? I'm in sales myself - some weeks are good, some weeks are bad. Expenses will always be there regardless of my performance. Does anyone have an opinion on this? If the employer is allowed to reimburse its salespeople through increased commission to cover expenses related to the performance of the job as is the case here, what happens if there is no commission? What happens if no sale is made? The salesperson does not get paid yet expenses are still accrued? How do you account for a situation like that? I’m in sales myself - some weeks are good, some weeks are bad. Expenses will always be there regardless of my performance. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

]]> By: James Peters http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gattuso-v-harte-hanks-shoppers-inc-2/comment-page-1/#comment-351 James Peters Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:15:23 +0000 http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gattuso-v-harte-hanks-shoppers-inc-2/#comment-351 The only question I still have about the decision is how these plans are administered for withholding/income tax purposes. I assume that the employer has to withhold from the amount of the "lump sum" in excess of actual expenses incurred each pay period, but if they're not keeping track then how do they know what that amount is? The other side of the coin is if there is withholding on the full amount of the "lump sum" component, in which case the employee is getting cheated, since the difference is not "income," so how can there be withholding for income, SDI, social security, etc. taxes? These are probably all rhetorical questions that will have to be worked out by the courts or DOR, but it is interesting how the Court glossed over this issue in Gattuso. My take on Gattuso: http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2007/11/06/california-supreme-court-decides-lump-sum-expense-reimbursement-is-ok/ Keep up the good work! James Peters California Employee Rights Blog The only question I still have about the decision is how these plans are administered for withholding/income tax purposes.

I assume that the employer has to withhold from the amount of the “lump sum” in excess of actual expenses incurred each pay period, but if they’re not keeping track then how do they know what that amount is?

The other side of the coin is if there is withholding on the full amount of the “lump sum” component, in which case the employee is getting cheated, since the difference is not “income,” so how can there be withholding for income, SDI, social security, etc. taxes?

These are probably all rhetorical questions that will have to be worked out by the courts or DOR, but it is interesting how the Court glossed over this issue in Gattuso.

My take on Gattuso:
http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2007/11/06/california-supreme-court-decides-lump-sum-expense-reimbursement-is-ok/

Keep up the good work!

James Peters
California Employee Rights Blog

]]> By: Employers Get Break on Reimbursement of Employee Expenses | The California Blog of Appeal http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gattuso-v-harte-hanks-shoppers-inc-2/comment-page-1/#comment-344 Employers Get Break on Reimbursement of Employee Expenses | The California Blog of Appeal Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:08:36 +0000 http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gattuso-v-harte-hanks-shoppers-inc-2/#comment-344 [...] can read about this important case at WageLaw or at What’s New in Employment Law?  Storm’s California Employment Law promises some coverage later this week. Posted in Labor & [...] [...] can read about this important case at WageLaw or at What’s New in Employment Law?  Storm’s California Employment Law promises some coverage later this week. Posted in Labor & [...]

]]>