Company Pays Me Medical Reimbursement - Do I Have to Show Proof After 2 Years

[cybordolphin]

My question involves employment and labor law for the state of: California

My employer feels they are overpaying me after 2 years... and is trying to get me to quit.

They have been paying me a Medical Reimbursement on my paychecks for the past 2 years. $525 per month. Now they are saying that I have to show them that I have actually been using that money for health insurance. If I don't provide receipts they are going to stop paying me. I negotiated this money as I needed them to pay me more for me to take the position.

Can my employer demand I show where I spend this money? The amount they pay me is taxed each pay period. My employer does not offer any health insurance.

Thanks for any help on this.

[jk]

They have been paying me a Medical Reimbursement

You do realize what reimbursement means, right?

Can my employer demand I show where I spend this money?

they can't force you to prove anything to them but just the same, you cannot force them to continue paying that money or actually, any money over minimum wage. Heck, you can't force them to keep you as an employee.

[cbg]

So they pay you this amount with the understanding that it will be used for a specific purpose, and you find it unreasonable that they should require proof that you are actually using it for the purpose in question?

I see...

[cybordolphin]

There was no real understanding of any kind. I needed them to come up on the pay negotiation..... and we came up with this as a way to boost the income for me to be able to take the job. I had no intention of using that money for health insurance. The company does not offer health insurance themselves.

The company feels they are overpaying me, their contract expired a year ago, and now they want to find a way to replace me. They feel if they hit my pay I will want to leave. They don't want to fire me because they don't want to pay unemployment. The company never used a Performance report although I asked them to when I started (I wanted to make sure we were on the same page and that my performance was acceptable) They salaried me..... and have never paid overtime. I devote 120 hours per week to the company. I work a 40 hour week and am on call and must stay on the premises 5 days and 5 nights per week (they provide residence).

I do not fall under the overtime exempt rule. I do not hire, fire, nor have any input on whom is hired or fired. I do no supervisory nor administrative duites. I only spend a few minutes in the office in the morning if that. So I could sue them for 2 years of overtime and NO breaks. I only take an hour for lunch each day of the 5 days of 24 hours work time.
The company JUST started 2 days ago using a "Performance Report". I got acceptable or above on everything.

So you tell me..... who's being screwed here.

[jk]

cybordolphin;634246]There was no real understanding of any kind. I needed them to come up on the pay negotiation..... and we came up with this as a way to boost the income for me to be able to take the job. I had no intention of using that money for health insurance. The company does not offer health insurance themselves.

so you lied?

They salaried me..... and have never paid overtime. I devote 120 hours per week to the company. I work a 40 hour week and am on call and must stay on the premises 5 days and 5 nights per week (they provide residence).

I don't know what you do but being salaried does not mean you do not get paid overtime. Whether you are exempt or non-exempt determines if you do not have to be paid overtime.

I do not fall under the overtime exempt rule. I do not hire, fire, nor have any input on whom is hired or fired. I do no supervisory nor administrative duites. I only spend a few minutes in the office in the morning if that. So I could sue them for 2 years of overtime and NO breaks. I only take an hour for lunch each day of the 5 days of 24 hours work time.

well, you might want to look into that as it looks like you might not have a job much longer. You need to understand those are not the only criteria to determine if you can be treated as exempt.

So you tell me..... who's being screwed here.

Everybody is choosing to be where they are doing what they are. So, either nobody is being screwed or if they are being screwed, they are enjoying the screwing.

bottom line: Since they apparently are under the understanding it is for reimbursement of medical insurance costs, they can demand proof of that. If you refuse, they can fire you. If you cannot prove it was used for that, they can fire you. Even if you can prove it and it was used for medical insurance, they can fire you.

[eerelations]

If the company gave you money to purchase medical insurance and you didn't use it for that purpose then the company is within its legal rights to demand the money back. Based on the information you've provided, if the company sues you, it will most likely win.

[cybordolphin]

I get that the company can fire me. I just don't like them trying to do it in a way they avoid paying unemployment benefits. Especially in todays job environment. I find it sleazy, underhanded, unethical, and wrong. When they hired me.... they did not want to bring on board those traits. I don't blame them. But then to project the things the company did not want to bring in.... just stinks.

The gentleman who hired me did all that he could to get the pay up to where I would be able to take the job. The medical reimbursement was just his way of going back to his people to get the pay up to what I needed. That was the understanding from the beginning. Thus there was never any request for Health Insurance information any time over the past 2 years. They could have asked for the health insurance I suppose 2 years ago? No.... they are just doing it now.... as a tool to get me to quit. I really did not expect them to show it on my pay stubs.... but rather just include it in my pay. It was taxed.

But hey.... fair is fair. I should probably sue them (approx $135,000.00 per each year worked for overtime and breaks), and they can sue me for the $500 per month. I guess I could live with that. It has been confirmed that I am not/was not exempt. It looks like I am supposed to stay until after the company is served? Something about then if they fire me.... they get in trouble for retaliation. But the fact that I cannot afford to stay sort of dictates when I exit. But was I not being put into an extreme financial hardship as a result of the actions being taken by the company..... I certainly would stay.

I guess I would not be bothered so much...... however now I have to uproot my family and move, and the job availability environment is in a state whereby I find the tactics of trying to get me to quit.... irritating (mildly put)

I do not believe that my family and I are enjoying being screwed. In fact we are quite upset. The prospect of finding work and having to move, etc., is nothing enjoyable.

Fortunately I may have landed another postion eleswhere (going in for 2nd interview). But it is going to be quite expensive moving, etc..

Here's an idea. How about the company just stop trying to fuss with me? I mean my performance report is solid. And they can cut $500 out of their budget someplace else (they really can). And since my prior contract is expired..... renegotiate in an honest fashion. Or not and fire me because they just don't want to pay me. Then hire someone for less. Oh wait.... then they would have to pay unemployment benefits......

One more question (ok 2)....

If the company itself does not afford health insurance for any of its employees...... and the amount they paid as reimbursement for medical was taxed, does that change anything?
And if they did sue me..... how would the paid tax on the amount paid be recouped (would the IRS just keep taxes collected on monies not actually paid/or paid back)?

[eerelations]

One more question (ok 2)....

If the company itself does not afford health insurance for any of its employees...... and the amount they paid as reimbursement for medical was taxed, does that change anything?
And if they did sue me..... how would the paid tax on the amount paid be recouped (would the IRS just keep taxes collected on monies not actually paid/or paid back)?

The fact that the company doesn't provide health insurance for its employees does not have any bearing whatsoever on your case.

The amount paid to you for medical insurance was taxed because they were providing you with a taxable benefit.

When the company wins its lawsuit against you, you will be required to repay the gross amount and then get your tax money back from the IRS. The company will probably have to provide the IRS with some kind of form or notification of this.

You will probably also be required to pay at least part of the company's court costs and legal fees.

Regardong OT pay, if your job with this company was non-exempt, then the appropriate action for you to take would be to file a claim with the CA DLSE. If your job was exempt, then you are not legally entitled to OT pay and cannot sue for it.

Finally, all this business about you and your family "not enjoying" the way you're being treated is all down to you. If you had purchased medical insurance as you told the company you would, none of this would be happening.

[free9man]

The company feels they are overpaying me, their contract expired a year ago, and now they want to find a way to replace me. They feel if they hit my pay I will want to leave.

Just curious, what contract expired? Your employer's contract with their client or you?

[cbg]

I just don't like them trying to do it in a way they avoid paying unemployment benefits. Especially in todays job environment. I find it sleazy, underhanded, unethical, and wrong.

And I find it sleazy, underhanded, unethical and wrong that they provided you with extra pay to be used for a specific purpose, you did not use it that way, resent being called on it, and think there's something wrong with the company following up to be sure you are adhering to the agreement. But that's just me.