This is Handel on the Law, marginal legal advice, where I tell you you have absolutely no case.

Excuse me on that one, a little froggy there.

A lawsuit against IBM here in California, and I don't know how the lower court ruled for IBM on this one.

Boy, you got me on this one. So the lawsuit had to do

with covering from work from home expenses that were incurred by employees during COVID. And here is

what it's about. You have a class action lawsuit and you have a lead plaintiff,

which is what happens when the lead plaintiff sues on behalf of the entire class, and this class

is thousands of IBM employees. So they had to work at home because under state declaration, emergency declaration, the governor issued this declaration

saying, unless you are an essential employee, you have to be there, you work from home.

And certainly people that work from IBM, since IBM does not send out boxes like UPS does,

and IBM is not in the medical industry,

it's hard to do operations on patients from your house.

Nobody really is an essential employee.

So what happens is you have these people who work for IBM and say, okay, here's what we want.

We want reimbursements for our computer, our Internet, payment for all of our accessories, the telephone service we have to pay for, a telephone headset that I'm using, and what does IBM say, no, thank you.

Why not? You would ask. Because IBM's position is it did not ask the employees to stay home. The governor

mandated, the government of the state of California mandated that the employees to stay home. The governor mandated, the government of the state of California

mandated that the employees stayed home. And IBM didn't have anything to do with that decision.

So if you have expenses, go to the government. Don't go to us. And so, of course, the lawsuit went forward.

The lower court gave it to IBM.

I don't get that.

Well, on the appeals level, the California First District Court of Appeals,

...