Cases: Employment

Employment: On Remand, Appellate Court Determines That Employer Did Not Bear Penalties Or Fee Exposure Under Labor Code Section 226 Because Failure To Pay For Meal/Rest Breaks And Failure To Report Same On Wage Statements Was Not Intentional

Cases: Employment

Employers May Be Happy With Many Aspects Of This Opinion.             We have posted already on Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., 13 Cal.5th 93, 102 (see our December 18, 2022 post on top 2022 decisions), which determined that meal/rest break premium charges and failure to report on wage statements could give rise to fee […]

Arbitration, Employment: Where Defendant Employer Lost Small Merits Award And Fee Award After Reconsideration By Arbitrator, But Did Not Timely File Motions To Correct Or Vacate, Fee Award Had To Be Affirmed

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

Bright-Line Rules On Arbitration Procedures Adopted, With Plaintiff Employee Entitled To Fees On Appeal.             This case may have more tips for practitioners and jurists when it comes to deadlines for parties seeking to correct and vacate arbitration awards, especially where a timely motion to confirm an arbitration award is made.  However, we briefly summarize

Costs, Employment: Costs Award, Mainly, Affirmed On Appeal In Case Where Plaintiff Employee Suffered A Summary Judgment Loss On Whistleblower, Retaliation, And Breach Of Contract Claims

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Breach Of Contract Costs Were Distinct, So That They Were Warranted Versus Costs On FEHA-Related Claims Never Determined To Be Frivolous.             In Hussain v. Peralta Community College District, Case No. A164189 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 5, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff employee lost his retaliation, whistleblower, and contract claims against defendant through summary

Employment: $54,780 Fee Award To Two Ex-Employees Affirmed On Appeal Under Labor Code Section 98.2

Cases: Employment

Result Reminds Employers To Carefully Request A De Novo Review Of An Adverse Labor Commissioner Ruling In Favor Of Ex-Employees.             Chilpa v. American Concrete Polishing Co., Case No. B294648 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 4, 2022) (unpublished) is another opinion with a cautionary warning for employers suffering an adverse wage/hour Labor Commissioner

EMPLOYMENT: Betancourt Opinion Published

Cases: Employment

2/8 DCA Reinstates Fees Award Under Wage/Hour Statutes After California Supreme Court Remand.             On August 26, 2022, we posted on Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, Case No. B293625 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 25, 2022), which was unpublished at the time.  We can now report it was published on September 12, 2022.  Here

Employment: Nonprevailing Employees May Not Be Assessed With Routine Costs Under California’s Fair Pay Act

Cases: Employment

Court Of Appeal Follows Analogous Reasoning Which Relates To Labor Code Section 1194.             In Lohman v. City of Mountain View, Case No. H046681 et seq. (6th Dist. Sept. 7, 2022) (unpublished), the Sixth District reversed a $10,082 routine costs award—a sixth of the ask—against a nonprevailing employee plaintiff under a California Fair Pay Act,

Employment: $280,000 Labor Code Fee Award Affirmed, After Remand From California Supreme Court, Where Plaintiff Employee Recovered On Missed Break Claims

Cases: Employment

Naranjo Decision Changed The Landscape.             In Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, Case No. B293625 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 25, 2022) (unpublished), the 2/8 DCA had to revisit its denial of attorney’s fees to a plaintiff employee alleging missed rest and meal break violations and waiting penalties even though the lower court had

Fees, Civil Rights, Employment: USDC Central District Judge Awards Full Freight Fee Award In Waiting-Time Penalties Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Record

Judge Finds That Fee Award Of $342,782.50 Is Reasonable In Waiting-Time Penalties Case.         On June 17, 2022, the Hon. R. Gary Klausner issued a fee award to the prevailing plaintiff in a waiting-time penalties case. Caley Rae Pavillard v. Ignite International, Ltd. et al., USDC Central District No. 2:21-cv-01306-RGK-Ex.        

Employment: Defendant Winning Heavily Contested Commission Dispute Was Correctly Denied Wage/Hour Attorney’s Fees Because Plaintiff’s Case Was Not Frivolous

Cases: Employment

Even Though Plaintiff Principally Brought The Case Based On Greed/Anger, Objective Factors Showed The Denied Commission Calculation Was Complex Such That No Frivolity Was Involved.             We have discussed this issue in the past—Labor Code section 218.5 wage/hour cases allow fees to prevailing plaintiffs liberally, but only allow prevailing defendants to recover if a case

Scroll to Top