Cases: Employment

Employment: Employers Requiring Repayment, Collection, Or Penalties Tethered To Employment Termination Can Be Sued, With Liquidated Penalties And Reasonable Attorney’s Fees Assessed Against Violating Employers

Cases: Employment

There Are Some Specified Exclusions. Assembly Bill No. 692, adding Business and Professions Code section 16608 and Labor Code section 926 to the statutory law effective January 1, 2026, prohibits employers from entering into employment contract containing terms that require repayment, collection, or penalties triggered by termination of employment. Employees have the right to bring […]

Employment, Ethics:  $576,000 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Cross-Defendant On FEHA Claim Allowed As An Amendment On The Eve Of Trial Was Affirmed Where The Cross-Complainant Recovered $1.4 Million In Damages

Cases: Employment, Cases: Ethics

Cross-Complainant Sought $1.25 Million In Fees; Fees Were Appropriate Despite The Delay In Adding The FEHA Cross-Claim. This case is interesting to show how procedural rulings to add a claim at trial—such as a FEHA cross-claim—can make or break the affirmance of a subsequent fee award to the prevailing FEHA cross-complainant. Pak v. Rassman, Case

Employment, Prevailing Party:  Employee Winning $11,594.80 In Labor Code Violations Had $163,440 Fee Award Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Reason Was That The Lower Court Applied The CCP § 1032 Prevailing Party Rigid Test, Rather Than A More Pragmatic Approach Which Governed Statutory Violations. In German v. La Floure, LLC, Case No. D086600 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 10, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff won wage/hour violations against defendants to the tune of $11,594.80 in damages,

Employment: DLSE Can Impose Triple Civil Penalties For Unpaid Wage Judgments 180 Days After The Appeal Period Expires On Employers . . . .

Cases: Employment

Plus Employees, the Labor Commissioner, And Public Prosecutors Are Entitled To Mandatory Fees And Costs For Judgment Enforcement Efforts Under SB 261, Effective January 1, 2026. Employers who received adverse wage/compensation judgments in Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) proceedings now face civil penalties and mandatory fee/costs awards unless they satisfy or reach an accord

Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions: Trial Court Correctly Determined That Employer Breached Parties’ Arbitration Agreement By Failing To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees Where Employer Argued 30-Day Deadline Was Never Triggered Because Employer’s Counsel, Not Employer, Was Served With The Arbitration Invoice

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Sanctions

However, The 4/3 DCA Reversed And Remanded For The Trial Court’s Determination As To Whether Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees Should Be Excused Pursuant To Hohenshelt. In Springs v. SBM Site Services, Case No. G063924 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2025) (unpublished), the trial court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration because

Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions: Trial Court’s Grant Of 1281.98 Motion To Return Case To Court When Employer Failed To Pay Arbitration Fees Within 30 Days And Award Of Related Monetary Sanctions Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Sanctions

Section 1281.98 Was Inapplicable Because The Arbitration Agreement Was Governed By The Provisions Of The Federal Arbitration Act. In Howitson v. Evans Hotels, Case No. D085078 (4th Dist., Div. 1 October 20, 2025) (unpublished), defendant employer failed to pay an arbitration retainer within 30 days, leading Plaintiff to successfully move under CCP section 1281.98 of

Employment, Private Attorney General: Labor Code Section 432.6 Polygraph Rights Provision Did Not Justify Fee Award For September 2018 Firing And Where Waiver Of Employment Rights Was Not Involved

Cases: Employment, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

CCP Section 1021.5 Was Inapt Because Plaintiff Was Only Vindicating Personal Wrongs. In McDoniel v. Kavry Mgt., LLC, Case No. D084660 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2025) (published), plaintiff was not advised of rights to refuse to submit to a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment under Labor Code section 432.2 and

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees:  Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding Almost $4.9 Million In Attorney’s Fees To Successful FEHA Plaintiff

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Defense Litigating Long And Hard, If Unsuccessful, Can Anticipate Large Fee Award Against It. Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Case No. B329890, et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 17, 2025) (published) illustrates how a defendant litigating hard by bringing multiple unsuccessful motions, prosecuting an unsuccessful merits appeal, and rejecting a lower CCP section

Employment, Prevailing Party: FEHA Plaintiff Did Not Prevail For Fee Award Purposes Where Employer Won A Same Decision Defense And No Damages Were Awarded To Plaintiff . . . .

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Despite Plaintiff Proving Disability Discrimination Was A Substantial Motivating Factor In The Termination Decision. Because FEHA contains a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision, plaintiff claimed she was the prevailing party, in Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Case No. B328357 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 9, 2025) (unpublished), because a jury found that disability discrimination was a

Scroll to Top