> For example, one court found that when an employee had to use his personal cell phone to make work calls, his employer was required to reimburse him for a por

> For example, one court found that when an employee had to use his personal cell phone to make work calls, his employer was required to reimburse him for a portion of his phone bill even though the employee did not incur any additional expenses because he had an unlimited data plan. The court found that any other interpretation would result in an unfair windfall to the employer. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle, but this seems like an accounting headache that's more trouble than it's worth. Especially for bills that are at a fixed monthly cost - I already am paying for internet, the marginal cost to me is nothing. And furthermore, if I knew someone who was so insistent on penny pinching their employer in such a way, I would ask if they really want to give their employer such "hooks" into their personal life and finances? Do I really want to be in a situation where I go to my employer and say "as you can see, 40% of my time online was spent working" and then they get to audit my records and find that 50% of the time I was spent working was also on Netflix? Is that change in precedent worth the few bucks you save?