Plaintiff Winning Exempt Employee Misclassification Dispute Entitled to Full Fee Recovery Without Need for Apportionment.
Winning a civil suit for wage/hour violations usually allows the prevailing plaintiff to recover mandatory attorney’s fees. However, what if there are related claims that do not carry a basis for fee recovery? What is a court to do? That raises the apportionment issue frequently encountered when there are mixed claims, some allowing for fee recovery and some that do not.
Such a situation was faced by the Court of Appeal in Regalado v. Latitudes International Fragrance, Inc., Case No. B212618 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 10, 2010) (unpublished).
There, plaintiff prevailed in an exempt employee misclassification action based on numerous provisions of the Labor Code as well as California’s Unfair Competition Law. However, plaintiff also was unsuccessful on certain of his claims. Plaintiff was awarded $14,763 in damages, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and $87,120 in attorney’s fees (the entirety of his fee request). Apparently not happy with the end result, defendant former employer appealed.
The appellate court affirmed because the trial court has discretion to award all or substantially all of a party’s fees even if the court did not adopt each contention raised—and this principle applies where a plaintiff wins substantial relief and plaintiff’s various claims involve a common core of facts/related legal theories. (Downey Cares v. Downey Community Development Com., 196 Cal.App.3d 983, 997 (1987); Drouin v. Fleetwood Enterprises, 163 Cal.App.3d 486, 493 (1985).) The lower court’s conclusions that all of plaintiff’s claim were interrelated and arose out of the misclassified exempt employee theory were correct. The fee award was well within the trial court’s discretion.
Somewhat applicable cultural reference: “Don’t tug on that – you never know what it might be connected to.” From The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the Eighth Dimension.