Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Summary Judgment Grant Under Marijuana Reform Statute Involving Job Applicants.
The next case is an interesting one, although it again illustrates the POOF! principle—if a merits judgment is reversed, the fees award vanishes with it.
Larson v. Casual Male Stores, LLC, Case Nos. D051554 & D052185 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 8, 2009) (unpublished) focused on Labor Code sections 432.7 and 432.8.
Section 432.7(a) prohibits employers from asking job applicants about marijuana arrests that did not result in convictions. Section 432.8 extended the prohibition to requesting information about marijuana convictions that are more than two years old. If an employer violates these prohibitions unintentionally, the employer may be liable for fees and costs to the prevailing plaintiff. (Lab. Code, secs. 432.7(c), 432.8.) However, an intentional violation by an employer results in a mandatory award of fees and costs to the prevailing party. (Lab. Code, sec. 432.7(c).)
In Larson, a class representative won a summary judgment award individually and on behalf of a certified class, garnering an award of $253,800. Plaintiff received a postjudgment attorney’s fees award of $107,000.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, that was before the POOF! principle reared its ugly head.
The Fourth District, Division 1, in a 2-1 unpublished opinion, reversed the merits judgment based on standing—class representative had suffered no actual marijuana conviction (with the dissent arguing vociferously that an actual conviction was not required for standing purposes). The majority followed the similar reasoning of a sister appellate court in Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.4th 1436 (2008).
And the rest was a simple domino effect of the POOF! principle. The reversal of the summary judgment motion also extinguished the attorney’s fees award. (Merced County Taxpayers’ Assn. v. Cardella, 218 Cal.App.3d 396, 402 (1990).)
Domino Effect. Source: Wikipedia.
