A recent California appellate decision is a stark reminder to employers of just how costly employment litigation has become in the Golden State: Bronshteyn v. California Department of Consumer Affairs.

Diana Bronshteyn, who had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, sued her former employer, the California Department of Consumer Affairs (the “CDCA”), for disability discrimination and related claims under the California Fair Employment Housing Act—a statute that allows successful plaintiffs to recover their attorneys’ fees.

As the Court of Appeal put it, “the [CDCA] fought the case hard from the start.”  Among other things, the CDCA failed to settle the case before the litigation was filed; unsuccessfully opposed Bronshteyn’s motion for leave to amend her pleadings; filed an unsuccessful challenge to the complaint; filed an unsuccessful motion for summary adjudication; and filed, opposed and lost multiple motions to compel discovery responses.  To cap it off, after more than three years of hard-fought litigation, the CDCA rejected Bronshteyn’s pretrial settlement demand of $600,000. The case proceeded to trial, and a Los Angeles jury awarded Bronshteyn in excess of $3.3 million—five-and-a-half times more than Bronshteyn’s pretrial settlement demand that the CDCA had rejected.

In their prevailing-party attorney’s fee application, Bronshteyn’s counsel applied for and was awarded $4.9 million in attorney’s fees, including a 1.75 multiplier for fees incurred up to and including the jury verdict and a 1.25 enhancement for hours worked after the verdict.  Over the objection of the defense, the trial court approved fees for Bronshteyn’s counsel in excess of $1,000 per hour, which the appellate court characterized as: “Los Angeles market rates.”

The Court further noted:

When the plaintiff files a case with the prospect of recovering attorney fees, the defense is fully entitled to fight hard. But the defense does so knowing it might end up paying for all the work for both sides. Filing a flood of unselective and fruitless motions can be counterproductive if the plaintiff ultimately prevails, for the bill for that flood will wash up on the defense doorstep. Then the court may look with a wary eye at defense complaints about a whopping plaintiff’s bill.

We will continue to monitor this case for any further developments.  In the meantime, we would be happy to discuss efficient and streamlined litigation strategies with any California employer facing employment claims that may end up costing more than anticipated.