Remote Workers and California Employment Law: What Still Applies When You Work from Home
Working from home does not change your employment rights. California’s wage and hour protections, anti-discrimination statutes, and expense reimbursement requirements apply to remote employees with the same force they apply to employees at a desk in the employer’s office.
The shift to remote work changed where millions of Californians perform their jobs. What it did not change is the legal framework that governs how they are paid, how their time is tracked, and what protections they are entitled to. An employer that fails to pay overtime, denies meal and rest breaks, refuses to reimburse business expenses, or retaliates against an employee for exercising a legal right has violated the law — regardless of whether the employee works in a corporate office or at a kitchen table.
The practical challenges of remote work are real. Tracking hours is harder when the employee is not punching a time clock. Meal and rest breaks are harder to monitor when no one is watching. The line between work time and personal time blurs. But these challenges belong to the employer. The legal obligations do not relax because compliance is inconvenient.
Overtime and hours worked
California’s overtime requirements apply to remote employees who are non-exempt. The rules are the same: overtime at one and a half times the regular rate for hours worked beyond eight in a day or forty in a week, and double time for hours beyond twelve in a day.
The challenge for remote workers is that “hours worked” can be difficult to define when the employee is available intermittently throughout the day — responding to a few emails in the morning, attending a video call in the afternoon, finishing a report in the evening. Under California law, “hours worked” includes all time during which the employee is subject to the employer’s control or is suffered or permitted to work. If the employer knows or should know that the employee is performing work — answering emails, completing tasks, attending calls — that time must be counted and compensated, even if the work occurs outside of scheduled hours.
An employer that benefits from remote employees’ after-hours work without tracking or paying for that time is violating the overtime provisions. The responsibility to maintain accurate time records belongs to the employer, and the difficulty of tracking remote work does not excuse the failure to do so.
Meal and rest breaks
Non-exempt remote employees are entitled to the same meal and rest break protections as in-office employees. A thirty-minute duty-free meal period before the end of the fifth hour. Ten-minute paid rest breaks for every four hours worked. The employer must make these breaks available and must not impede the employee from taking them.
In a remote setting, the employer’s obligation is to ensure that the employee knows they are entitled to breaks, that the workload and meeting schedule permit the breaks to be taken, and that the employee is not penalized for taking them. An employer that schedules back-to-back video calls from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. without a break has failed to provide a compliant meal period, whether the employee is in a conference room or on a laptop at home.
The employer cannot argue that because the employee is at home, they can eat whenever they want. The meal period must be duty-free — the employee must be relieved of all obligations. If the employee is expected to remain available for calls, messages, or tasks during the break, it is not compliant.
Expense reimbursement
Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties. For remote workers, this includes expenses the employee incurs because they are working from home rather than from the employer’s office.
The categories of reimbursable expenses for remote workers typically include: a reasonable portion of the employee’s home internet service; a reasonable portion of the employee’s personal cell phone bill, if the phone is used for work; office supplies, printing costs, and other consumables; and, in some cases, a portion of the cost of a home office setup — a desk, a chair, a monitor — when the employer requires the employee to work remotely and does not provide the equipment.
The key word is “necessary.” The expense must be incurred as a consequence of the employment. An employee who chooses to upgrade to a faster internet plan for personal reasons cannot charge the difference to the employer. But an employee who needs internet access to perform their job, and who would not otherwise need a particular level of service, is incurring a necessary business expense.
Employers handle reimbursement in various ways — a monthly stipend, reimbursement of documented expenses, or provision of equipment directly. Any of these can satisfy the statute, provided the reimbursement covers the employee’s actual necessary expenses. A stipend that is materially less than the employee’s actual costs may not be sufficient.
The obligation under section 2802 is not waivable. An employer cannot require employees to sign an agreement waiving their right to expense reimbursement, and a provision in an employment agreement purporting to do so is unenforceable.
Which state’s law applies
A question that arises frequently for remote workers is which state’s employment law governs their relationship — particularly when the employee lives and works in California but the employer is headquartered elsewhere.
The general rule is that California employment law applies to work performed in California by California-based employees. An employee who lives in California and works remotely from California is performing work in California, and California’s wage and hour, anti-discrimination, and other employment protections apply — regardless of where the employer is located.
This means a remote employee working from Los Angeles for a company headquartered in Texas is generally entitled to California’s overtime protections (including daily overtime, which Texas does not require), California’s meal and rest break requirements (which Texas does not have), California’s expense reimbursement obligations, and California’s anti-discrimination protections under FEHA.
The analysis can become more complex when the employee splits time between states, or when the employer argues that the employment relationship is governed by another state’s law. Labor Code section 925, which prohibits employers from requiring California employees to agree to a choice of law or venue that would deprive them of California’s protections, reinforces the general rule. But the specifics are fact-dependent, and an employee with a multi-state arrangement should seek advice about which state’s law applies to their particular situation.
Anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation protections
FEHA’s protections against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation apply fully to remote employees. An employer that discriminates against a remote worker on the basis of a protected characteristic, that allows harassment to occur through digital channels, or that retaliates against a remote worker for protected activity has violated the statute.
Remote harassment is a recognized and litigable form of harassment. Sexually explicit messages on workplace communication platforms. Racist comments in video meetings. A supervisor who targets a remote employee with hostile conduct through email, chat, or phone. The medium is different; the analysis is the same. The conduct must be unwelcome, based on a protected characteristic, and severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.
The employer’s obligation to prevent and correct harassment extends to the remote workplace. An employer that is aware of harassing conduct occurring through digital channels and fails to take corrective action has violated FEHA, just as it would if the conduct occurred in a physical office.
Reasonable accommodation for remote work
Remote work itself can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA’s disability provisions. An employee with a disability that makes commuting to an office difficult — or that is better managed in a home environment — may be entitled to remote work as a reasonable accommodation, provided they can perform the essential functions of the job remotely.
The interactive process applies. The employer must engage in a good-faith discussion about whether remote work is a feasible accommodation, what modifications might be necessary, and whether the employee can perform the job’s essential functions from home. A blanket refusal to consider remote work — without engaging in the interactive process — is itself a violation of FEHA, independent of whether remote work would ultimately have been a reasonable accommodation.
This issue has taken on new significance in the post-pandemic workplace. Many employers that successfully operated with remote workforces for years are now mandating full-time return to office. For employees with disabilities who can perform their jobs remotely, a return-to-office mandate may trigger the employer’s obligation to consider remote work as a reasonable accommodation — an obligation that the employer’s own pandemic-era experience may make difficult to deny.
If you work remotely in California, your employment rights are not diminished by the distance between you and your employer’s office. Overtime, meal and rest breaks, expense reimbursement, and protection against discrimination and retaliation all apply. The employer’s obligation to comply with California law follows the work, not the building.
This article is general information about California law and is not legal advice. Every situation turns on its particular facts.