Cases: Employment

Employment: Second District, Division 8 Concludes Labor Code Section 1194 Is Specific Statute Preventing Two Way Fee-Shifting For Overtime Compensation Claims That Are Joined With Other Claims

Cases: Employment

Section 1194 Harmonized With Labor Code Section 218.5; But Routine Costs Are Available For Winning Employer.      Here is an interesting case involving statutory interpretation of interest to employment practitioners who follow us.      In United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases, Case No. B221709 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 24, 2011) (certified for publication),

Employment: Regents Of The University Of California Cannot Be Socked With

Cases: Employment

  Fee Recovery In Pension Eligibility Funds Dispute Regents Is Constitutionally Immune from Labor Code section 218.5 Exposure in this Context.      In a first-impression case, the Fourth District, Division One decided that the Regents of the University of California cannot be saddled with fee exposure under Labor Code section 218.5, a normal mandatory fee-shifting

Employment: Winning Corporate Individual Owner Sued As Alter Ego Entitled To Fee Shifting Under Labor Code Section 218.5

Cases: Employment

  First District, Division 3 Applies Analogous Civil Code Section 1717 Principles.      Labor Code section 218.5 allows for recovery of attorney’s fees by the prevailing party in certain wage/hour/benefits disputes. However, what happens if a plaintiff sues a corporate owner as an alter ego and loses? Does the winning individual defendant get fees?     

Employment: $7,475 In Fees Awarded To Plaintiff Employee For Recovering $3,289.90 In Wage/Hour Dispute

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Plaintiff’s Request for Over $58,500 In Fees Is Firmly Rejected.      Labor Code section 218.5 holds that a prevailing party in an action for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health/welfare/pension fund contributions must be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. It was that pesky word “reasonable” that resulted in a much diminished fee award than

Civil Rights And Prior Decision Update: Silguero Court Still Denies Fee Recovery Under A Petition For Rehearing

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

FEHA-Based Fees Not Allowable to Other Defendants.      In our July 30, 2010 post, we reviewed Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., Case No. B215179 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2010) (certified for partial publication), where a fee award went POOF! upon reversal of a demurrer sustained in favor of certain defendants.      However, apparently other

Poof! On Appeal, Employer Is No Longer the Prevailing Party, and Award of $23,532.50 in Fees and Costs is Vacated

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Second District, Division One Holds that a Tameny Claim Exists When Subsequent Employer Honors Putatively Invalid Restraint on Competition Entered Into Between Employee and Previous Employer – and Reversal of Attorney’s Fee Award Follows.      A Tameny claim is a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,

Scroll to Top