Cases: Employment

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 […]

Costs, Employment: $17,274.23 Costs To Prevailing Defendant In FEHA Case Affirmed Because Plaintiff’s Case Was Frivolous

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Rosenman Written Finding Requirement Did Not Apply To Statutory Costs Award, With 2/1 DCA Articulating A Split In Thinking On The Written Requirement Dictate of Rosenman.             In Schoensiegel v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case Nos. B312628/B314633 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 24, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff lost her FEHA action based on a successful summary judgment

Employment: Plaintiff Winning A Determination That He Was An Employee Hit With Adverse Attorney Fees Award Of $34,505 Under Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Employment

Lower Court, Determining That The $25,753.25 Paid To Plaintiff For His Work Exceeded The Minimum Wage Rate He Was Entitled To, Awarded Plaintiff $0 On His Wage Claim – Opening The Door For Defendant To Seek Fees Under Labor Code § 98.2(c)             In Gantman v. Stephan, Schreiber & Tabachnick CPA’s, Case No. B291932 (2d

Employment: $625,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Plaintiff Under California Family Rights Act Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Employment

Lower Court Correctly Awarded Lodestar Fees And Properly Denied The Multiplier Request.             The California Family Rights Act allows eligible employees to attend to family serious health conditions and bond with a newly born child.  Government Code section 12965(b)(6) allows a trial judge discretion to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff, much like the

Employment: Plaintiff Prevailing On 10% Of Primarily FEHA-Based Claims Properly Awarded $320,000 In Attorney’s Fees Out Of A Requested $2.1 Million Based On Overlitigation Of The Case, Limited Success, And Unexceptional Nature Of The Case

Cases: Employment

However, Denial Of Expert Fees Remanded Because Trial Judge May Have Believed He Had No Discretion To Award.             Herron v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B295184 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 8, 2021) (unpublished) is an interesting case which shows how trial judges have wide discretion in awarding attorney’s fees of a reasonable

Employment: Even Though Wage Statement Penalty Award Is Reversed, $944,860 Fee Award To Prevailing Flight Attendants Sustained Upon Review

Cases: Employment

Penalties Will Be Recalculated And Likely Still Result In A Sizeable Penalty Award Despite Reversal, So Fee Award Was Not Disturbed.             In Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Case No. D077313 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 1, 2021) (partially published; fee discussion published), Alaska Airlines was found to be in noncompliance with California state wage

Arbitration, Civil Rights, Employment: Employee’s Petition For Writ Of Mandate Granted Where Employer Was Awarded $6,912 In Attorney Fees For Successfully Bringing Motion To Compel Arbitration Of FEHA Claims

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

Based On The Standards Set Forth For Imposition Of Fees Under FEHA, Employer’s Arbitration Agreement Did Not Authorize Recovery Of Attorney Fees Absent A Finding That Employee’s Opposition To Motion To Compel Arbitration Was Groundless.             California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) provides that a prevailing FEHA defendant

Employment, Multipliers, Reasonableness of Fees: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Award Of Attorney Fees To Prevailing Plaintiffs In DJOA Action

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Amount Of Fee Award Was Justified Given Trial Court’s Analysis Of The Complexity Of The Case, Results Achieved By Plaintiffs, And Plaintiffs’ Showing To Support The Fee Request.             The Displaced Janitors Opportunity Act (Lab. Code, §§ 1060–1065) “requires contractors who are awarded contracts for janitorial or building maintenance services at a particular site to

Employment: Employee Winning About $23,646 In Compensatory Damages In Wage Hour Dispute Properly Awarded $41,000 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Employment

Fee Award Was Reduced From The “Asked” $63,550 In Requested Fees.             In Bastida v. Zairi, Case No. B301319 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 29, 2021) (unpublished), an employee (although that characterization was disputed) won about $23,646 in compensatory damages under wage/hour claims.  Plaintiff then sought $63,550 in attorney’s fees under California wage/hour fee-shifting statutes,

Employment, Section 998: Section 998 Offer Is Invalid If Employer Did Not Attempt To Pay Undisputed Wage Amounts Before Sending Section 998 Offer

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Timing Is Everything—Pay Undisputed Amount Before The 998 Offer Or Pay Later/Issue A New 998 Offer.             Wasito v. Kazali, Case No. B308826 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 31, 2021) (published) is must reading for employers wishing to resolve unpaid wage claims through a CCP § 998 offer where undisputed wages are due.             In

Scroll to Top