Ex-Staffer Sues Amazon for Unreimbursed Home Office Costs Incurred During COVID-19
An Amazon employee sued the company and “John Does” 1-10 for engaging in a “systematic scheme” of failing to pay current and former employees who lived and worked from home in Seattle for a “reasonable portion” of their personal home internet or cell service bills for business-related purposes during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, said a Dec. 6 class action (docket 23-2-24124-0) in Washington Superior Court for King County in Seattle.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Plaintiff Zachary Hooper, a Seattle resident, worked for Amazon from June 29, 2020, to Nov. 3, 2023, as a senior project manager, the complaint said. While Amazon’s Seattle offices were closed during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders until February 2022, Hooper worked remotely from his Seattle home and “incurred necessary business expenses in direct consequence of the discharge of his duties” for Amazon, though he wasn’t reimbursed, the complaint said.
Hooper seeks damages for Amazon’s failure to reimburse “necessarily incurred business expenses" under the City of Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance, Seattle Municipal Code (SMC), sections 14.20.020 and 14.20.090(A), the complaint said.
Section 14.20.020 provides that for employees who worked in Seattle, the “employer shall pay all compensation owed to an employee by reason of employment on an established regular pay day at no longer than monthly payment intervals,” said the complaint. The SMC defines “compensation” as “reimbursement for employer expenses” and requires that “an employer shall indemnify the employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s duties, or of the employee’s obedience to the directions of the employer,” it said.
During the class period, Hooper, at the direction of Amazon, “incurred necessary home office related expenses,” including home internet expenses and personal home or cellphone expenses, “in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties, of their obedience to the directions of Defendant, or that foreseeably occurred because of Defendant’s instructions,” the complaint said. Hooper wasn’t able to work on premises in Amazon’s Seattle offices, which were closed during that time, it said.
Amazon’s Seattle office closures began in March 2020, and Hooper’s work from home recommendations were extended repeatedly until Feb. 28, 2022, the complaint said. During that period, Amazon expected Hooper and class members “to pay for, and have personally paid for, among other things, home internet service and personal home or cell phone service.” Those home office expenses of about $50 per month “were required and necessary for work to be performed,” it said.
Amazon “had no policy to reimburse” Seattle-based employees who were forced to work from home during the pandemic, said the complaint. Amazon’s expense-related practices “required and expected” Hooper and class members to pay for their home office expenses incurred while on the job “without reimbursement by Defendant for such expenses, or a reasonable portion of such expenses, as required by the SMC,” it said.
Hooper asserts a claim of wage theft under the SMC and seeks an award of damages to himself and class members in the amount of their unreimbursed home office expenses, the complaint said. The complaint defined those as a “reasonable percentage of their home internet and home or cell phone expenses” they incurred while working for Amazon in Seattle during the class period, plus liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.