Cases: Employment

Employment, POOF!: $1.691 Million Fee Award Gets Reversed Upon Reversal Of A Merits Determination On A Wage/Hour Statement Merits Judgment

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Generally, Fee Award Does Not Stand If A Serious Merits Judgment Reversal Occurs. In Palamino v. Northrup Gruman System Corp., Case Nos. H051676 et al. (6th Dist. Oct. 14, 2026) (unpublished), the appellate court was reviewing a wage hour statement sizable award to plaintiff of about $2 million for class damages, $3.16 million for PAGA

Employment, Multipliers: Plaintiff Prevailing Under California’s Whistleblower Statutes Correctly Was Awarded Over $2.92 Million In Fees And $210,000 In Costs

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers

Defendant’s Challenge To Application Of A 1.5 Positive Multiplier Was Rebuffed On Appeal. The California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA), Gov. Code section 8547 et seq., has a mandatory prevailing party fee-shifting provision allowing reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by law to a party prevailing on a cause of action under CWPA.  (See section 8547.10(c).)  This

Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Where Plaintiff Won On 2 Out Of Eight Claims In CFRA/FEHA Case Against Defendant, Reduced $770,310 Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

The Request Was $2.6 Million (Lodestar Plus 2.0 Positive Multiplier), With Lower Court Reducing Some Hourly Rates And Applying A Further 25% Reduction For Flawed Discovery Motions, Administrative Work, Travel Time, Block Billing, And Limited Success In A Case Where Plaintiff Won A $600,000 Emotional Distress Jury Verdict. In Gallegos v. University of La Verne, Case

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Taduran Decision Recently Certified For Publication

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

Opinion Affirmed A Negative Multiplier And Rejection Of A Positive Multiplier When Prevailing Employee Challenged The Fee Award As Too Small Under The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard. In our May 29, 2026 post, we discussed Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G06478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026 filed;

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: Reduced $733,440 Fee Award In PAGA/Labor Violations Case, From Requested $1.047 Million Lodestar, Was Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Non-Complexity Of Issues, Lack Of Success From Stated Goals, And Upward Adjustment Of Past Hourly Rates To Future Periods Of The Litigation Justified The .07 (Negative) Multiplier And No Award Of A Positive Multiplier. Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G064718 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026) (unpublished) is a

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

Scroll to Top