Cases: Employment

Costs, Employment: Plaintiff Obtaining Only $900 In Statutory Penalties And A Minor Statutory Fees Award On A Single Claim Properly Denied Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Defense, Also, Properly Denied Costs Because Plaintiff’s Claims Were Found To Be Nonfrivolous.             In Wergechik v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, Case Nos. G056079/G056318 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 3, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff did prevail on FEHA claims against defendants, but she was only awarded a $750 penalty and $150 in statutory attorney’s fees on […]

Employment: $280,794 Fee Award In Rest/Meal Break Case Reversed As A Matter Of Law On Appeal

Cases: Employment

Case Demonstrates How Fee Claimant Must Have Solid Fee Entitlement Basis (Not Shifting Grounds At The Last Moment) And Discusses When Settlement Demands Are Admissible In Fee Proceedings.             This next opinion discusses several aspects of fee motions, oppositions, replies, and supplemental papers all pointing to a universal truth:  that fee motions primarily involve credibility

Employment, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Undertaking: 1/4 DCA Affirms Labor Code § 98.2 Attorney Fees Award In Favor Of Employees Retaining Labor Commissioner’s Award After Employer’s Notice Of Appeal Dismissed

Cases: Employment, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Undertaking

Appeal To Superior Court Of Labor Commissioner’s Ruling Was Dismissed For Employer’s Failure To Post The Required Undertaking Or Otherwise Obtain A Waiver Of Same.             Labor Code section 98.2(c) provides for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against the unsuccessful party appealing a decision of the Labor Commissioner to the superior court.  Rather than

Costs, Employment, Prevailing Party: $3,881.39 In Routine Costs, Out Of A Requested $38,813.96, To A Prevailing Wage Claim Plaintiff Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Reason Was That Plaintiff Only Had Limited Success, So No Abuse Of Discretion In The Reduction By The Lower Court.             So, a plaintiff prevails on a wage/hour claim for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 218.5, but only gets a minimal award which was limited success when other claims are considered?  Does that plaintiff

Celebrities, Employment, Taxation: 2017 Tax Amendments Do Not Allow Tax Reporter To “Expense” Attorney’s Fees Expended In A Sexual Harassment/Abuse Nondisclosure Settlement

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Employment, Cases: Taxation

“Weinsten Tax” Meant To Disincentivize Sexual Perpetrators/Harassing Employers From Trying To Prevent Reporting By Victims.             As a response to some sexual harassers/abusers requiring use of confidentiality agreements to silence victims, Congress in December 2017 amended the Tax Code in what has been dubbed the “Weinstein tax.”             Several bloggers indicate the repercussions of this.

Allocation, Civil Rights, Employment: No Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Held Employer And VP Jointly And Severally Liable For Attorney Fees With No Apportionment Nor Statutory Fees Cap For CMIA Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

Former Employee Achieved Her Litigation Objectives With Set Of Facts Common To All Causes Of Action.             In Gwin v. Natvan, Case No. B292990 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 1, 2019) (unpublished), former employee sued employer and its vice-president (husband of employer’s owner) asserting 13 separate causes of action – several of which allowed

Appeal Sanctions, Employment, Judgment Enforcement, Undertaking: Employer Fails In Multiple Attempts To Reduce Fee Award, CEO Is Properly Denied Fees Following Successful Alter Ego Challenge, And Attorney Sanctioned $7,765 For Meritless Challenge

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Employment, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Undertaking

The Fees Award Against Employer Had Been Affirmed By The Sixth District Three Years Prior, The CEO Could Not Prove Employee’s Alter Ego Claims Were Frivolous, But Employer’s Motion To Release Surety Bond So Frivolous It Warranted 6th District’s Issuance Of Sanctions On Its Own Motion.             We originally posted on Khanna v. Sonasoft

Class Actions, Employment, POOF!: Class Action Win Of Labor Code Section 226 Penalties And Attorney Fees Against Employer Goes POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Employer’s Failure To Include Premium Pay On Wage Statements For “On Duty” Meal And Rest Periods Did Not Trigger Penalties Because Premium Pay Is A Statutory Remedy For An Employer’s Conduct – Not An Amount “Earned” By The Employee.             A certified class of former and current non-exempt employees brought a lawsuit against their

Arbitration, Employment: 4/3 DCA Affirms Lower Court’s Denial Of Motion To Compel Arbitration Because, Among Other Things, Arbitration Clause Gave Arbitrator Mandatory Authority To Award Fees To Employer Even Where Fee-Shifting Statutes Favored Employe

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

Mandatory Language Of Fee Clause Demonstrated Substantive Unconscionability, Which Was Not Supplanted By More General Reference To JAMS Employment Rules Which Were More Discretionary In Nature.             We commend employment attorneys to read Randall v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G056463 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2019) (unpublished), where a trial judge denied an

Scroll to Top