A Washington federal court recently analyzed expansive language under the Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance, SMC 14.20, that requires employers to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses. Arnold v. Marriott International[1] represents the first time a court has analyzed this language with respect to employees’ personal cell phone use at work.
The court found that claims for reimbursement could be made under the Seattle Ordinance, even for expenses that were not expressly required by the employer, if they were reasonably necessary for the employee to perform their job. The court also found that expenses could be subject to reimbursement even if employees did not incur charges for work-related tasks above and beyond their personal usage.
Below, we summarize the background of the Ordinance and key takeaways for employers.
At-a-Glance
- A recent court decision suggests cell phone usage (and similar expenses) could be subject to reimbursement under the Seattle Ordinance.
- This is significant because it could expose employers to penalties associated with failure to pay all compensation owed.
- Seattle employers should carefully review policies and practices related to employee use of personal devices, reimbursement, and remote work.
Background
The Seattle Ordinance requires that employers reimburse employees for “all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s duties.” The language closely mirrors that of a similar California law. Importantly, the Ordinance includes this language in its definition of “Compensation.”
Prior to this decision, Seattle’s Office of Labor Standards (OLS) issued guidance about how the Ordinance applies to cell phone expenses.
OLS guidance indicates that an employer does not necessarily need to require an employee to incur an expense for it to be liable for reimbursement—and cell phone costs could qualify. OLS focuses on whether the expense is “reasonably necessary” to perform the employee’s job duties and foreseeably occurs because of the employer’s instructions. The guidance notes that expenses that were “explicitly or implicitly necessary, or required by the employer” require reimbursement. The guidance also provides that expenses incurred for “optional” telework could require reimbursement if the teleworking and associated costs were reasonably necessary to perform the employee’s job duties. According to OLS, relevant considerations include:
whether the employee was encouraged to work at home, whether the employer has provided sufficient space at its physical location for the employee to perform their work, how clearly the employer communicated that telework was voluntary, and whether other factors that benefit the employer made work at home necessary even though the overall telework policy was voluntary on its face.
OLS clarifies employees need not incur actual expenses beyond their personal expenses to qualify for reimbursement. Instead, reimbursement should include the “the portion” of the employee’s “cell phone plan that would be reasonably required to perform work (based on some reasonable calculation)….”
California decisions analyzing analogous law employed similar reasoning. They have articulated a similar analysis to OLS regarding whether expenses were “necessary,” depending on “the reasonableness of the employee’s choices.”[2]
California case law similarly has held employers should pay a portion of employees’ phone bills, noting that reimbursement should be for a “reasonable percentage” of cell phone bills.[3] This is true whether the employees have unlimited or limited minutes. Subsequent California cases took similar approaches to internet bills.
Decision
The decision in Arnold relied on the authorities above to hold that a plaintiff does not need to show that an employer “required” them to use their personal cell phones for work-related matters in order to be eligible for relief under the Ordinance, and they could be eligible for reimbursement even if they did not incur expenses beyond those under their personal plans due to work.
The court analyzed whether cell phone use was “reasonably necessary” under the circumstances, even if not explicitly required. Because the plaintiff’s supervisor had texted him on his personal cell phone for work-related matters on several occasions, the court considered it a “logical inference” that the cell phone use was reasonably necessary. Although the court noted that plaintiff’s claim was subject to additional discovery, this evidence was enough for the claim to survive a motion to dismiss.
The court similarly found that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to plead facts about their phone plan or expenses incurred beyond their personal phone usage in order to state a claim for reimbursement under the Ordinance. The court appeared to agree with OLS guidance that employers are responsible for the portion of the employee’s cell phone plan that would be reasonably required to perform work, based on a reasonable calculation.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Arnold suggests cell phone usage (and similar expenses) can be subject to reimbursement under the Seattle Ordinance, and such expenses do not need to be expressly required by the employer or exceed what the employee would incur for their own personal usage to qualify for reimbursement.
This is significant because it exposes employers who fail to comply to the penalties associated with failure to pay all compensation owed under the Ordinance.
Penalties for violations could include:
- Full payment of unpaid compensation plus interest and “other equitable relief;”
- Liquidated damages escalating based on the number of violations;
- Civil penalties escalating based on the number of violations; and
- Reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees.
Seattle employers should carefully review policies and practices related to employee use of personal devices, reimbursement, and remote work. Employers can mitigate risk by having clear parameters around the use of personal devices at work and being mindful of how employees are actually using their personal devices in practice. Employers should also carefully evaluate whether stipends may be required for the use of personal devices and for remote work expenses, including potential reimbursement for things like home internet. For help navigating the Seattle Ordinance as applied to your workforce, contact a member of the Stokes Lawrence employment team.
[1] NO. 2:24-cv-00221-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Mar. 2, 2026).
[2] Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc., 953 F.3d 1063, 1077 (9th Cir. 2020).
[3] Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1140, 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 407, 409 (2014).
