Thursday, April 30, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Says Hybrid Work Does Not Turn Home Into Office at All Times, for Every Purpose
Opinion Rejects Claim That Driver, Who Allegedly Caused Crash While Commuting, Was Traveling Between ‘Worksites’ Because She Regularly Performed Tasks at Her House
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that an employee’s hybrid schedule, under which she regularly worked from home, did not turn her residence into a second office for purposes of a rule allowing employer liability for accidents that happen between worksites but not for crashes that happen during commutes, saying the fact that she always appeared in person on the day of the week at issue meant that she was not acting in the course of her duties.
At issue is the judicially-created “going-and-coming rule” under which employers are generally found exempt from liability for tortious acts committed by employees while on their way to and from work so long as they are acting outside the scope of their duties at the time of the incident.
In an opinion filed on April 9 and certified for publication on Tuesday, Justice Helen I. Bendix, writing for the court, declared:
“The question for respondeat superior liability is whether the employee committed the tort within the scope of employment. A hybrid worker who works both in-office and at home is no more acting within the scope of employment when driving to and from work on in-office days than is a nonhybrid worker who drives to and from work every day.”
Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild and Justice Michelle C. Kim joined in the decision.
The question arose after Brittany A. Doremus collided with a cyclist, Kai-Lin Chang, in West Hills on Monday, September 12, 2022, at approximately 8:40 a.m., after suddenly making a left turn in front of the biker. Chang was injured and transported to the hospital.
Two months later, Chang filed a complaint asserting negligence causes of action against Doremus and her employer, Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“SCPMG”), under a theory of respondeat superior. In May 2024, SCPMG moved for summary judgment, pointing to deposition testimony by Doremus, who swore that she was dropping her children’s Halloween costumes off at the dry cleaners before work when she collided with Chang.
Doremus also testified that she was a palliative care doctor employed by SCPMG and worked a hybrid schedule under which she reported for duty to the company’s Woodland Hills location on Mondays but regularly worked from home on other days of the week and whenever she was on call after hours.
Chang opposed the motion, pointing to an employment agreement that purportedly does not restrict where she can work. He also asserted that the going and coming rule did not apply because SCPMG “derived an incidental benefit from Dr. Doremus’ use of her personal vehicle because it allowed her to commute seamlessly from her two primary locations where she conducted work—her home office, and her office at Kaiser Woodland Hills.”
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gary I. Micon granted SCPMG’s motion in August 2024.
Exceptions to Rule
Bendix acknowledged exceptions to the rule governing commutes, saying that an employer may be held liable if the trip includes an incidental benefit to the company, the use of a personally-owned vehicle is a condition of employment, or the worker is running a special errand at the direction of her supervisor. Chang argued that “triable issues of fact” remained as to whether SCPMG obtained at least an “incidental” benefit from “literally everything Doremus did that was anything other than purely personal” because the group could reach her by phone “at any time of the day or night” and “the hybrid nature of Doremus’ work situation is more akin to traveling between worksites than it is to a ‘common commute.’ ”
Unconvinced, the jurist remarked:
“Assuming arguendo her home at times could be deemed a worksite, that was not the case on the day of the accident, on which she was scheduled to work at her medical center office and not at home. Doremus was not shuttling between worksites but simply driving to work in the morning.”
Benefits to Company
Addressing workers’ compensation cases cited by Chang for the proposition that a regular commute may be considered part of a hybrid worker’s employment if the employee is allowed to work from home because of benefits to the company and not merely convenience to the staff member, she said:
“Our holding does not conflict with these authorities, all of which concern transit between worksites. As we have explained, Doremus worked at the medical center on Mondays, and therefore her home, to the extent arguendo it could ever be deemed a worksite, was not a worksite the morning of the accident. None of Chang’s cited authorities suggests that, if an employee sometimes works from home, the home becomes a second worksite for all purposes, even when the employee is not working from home.”
Rejecting the view that allowing employees to work both from home and the office provides a benefit to employers, in the form of increased productivity and worker satisfaction, such that it makes sense to hold employers liable for travel between the two locations, Bendix commented:
“[T]he employee is providing no benefit to the employer apart from traveling to work, a benefit that under the going and coming rule does not trigger respondeat superior liability. To conclude otherwise would eviscerate the going and coming rule for employees who sometimes work from home, thereby discouraging employers from allowing employees that flexibility. We fail to see what policy this serves.”
The case is Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 2026 S.O.S. 1145.
Jeffrey S. Yong of the Sherman Oaks-based Alexander & Yong and Sharon J. Arkin of The Arkin Law Firm, located in Los Angeles, acted for the plaintiff. Representing the defendant were Brent M. Karren, Carrie S. Lin, and Eli J. Drummond of the Los Angeles office of Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company