Attorney's Fees

Subscribe to Attorney's Fees via RSS

San Jose is the third northern California city to enact a scheduling ordinance that further regulates employers’ scheduling and hiring practices.  Following on San Francisco and Emeryville’s lead, San Jose recently passed “The Opportunity to Work Ordinance” (Ordinance No. 2016.1, codified at Chapter 4.101 of the San Jose Municipal Code), which went into effect on February 6, 2017.

The primary aim of the Ordinance…

We recently blogged about Governor Brown signing S.B. 1241, which is now codified as Section 925 of the California Labor Code. The law, which affects venue and choice of law provisions in agreements entered into as a condition of employment, will begin applying to agreements entered into, modified, or extended beginning on January 1, 2017. The text of the law (posted directly below) might appear relatively straight forward, but certain ambiguities and questions concerning the law’s implementation raise several issues, which are discussed in this blog post.

In recent years, some employers doing business in the Golden State have required their employees to sign arbitration and employment agreements that require the employee to sue or arbitrate in – or under the law of – another state.  After January 1, 2017, this practice will be illegal unless the employee was represented by legal counsel who assisted in negotiating the out-of-state venue, forum or…

Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480 (2016)

An objecting class member in a wage and hour lawsuit challenged the trial court’s award of an attorney’s fee calculated as a percentage (one-third) of the overall settlement amount of $19 million. The objector asserted that pursuant to Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977) (“Serrano III“), every attorney’s…

Ramos v. Garcia, 2016 WL 3537366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)

Rogelio Ramos sued his former employers for unpaid overtime, minimum wages and other compensation and obtained some of the monetary recovery he requested. Ramos also sued Manuel Garcia (Ramos’s former manager) under the same theories and lost on the ground that Garcia was a co-employee and not the owner/employer; the trial court awarded Garcia…

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1642 (2016)

The EEOC filed suit against CRST (a trucking company) alleging that over 250 female employees and prospective employees had been subjected to sexual harassment. However, the district court dismissed all of the claims on various grounds, including that the EEOC had not adequately investigated or attempted to conciliate its claims on…

Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 245 Cal. App. 4th 1302 (2016)

William A. Davis brought suit against Farmers, claiming he had been wrongfully classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee and asserting that he had been wrongfully terminated on the basis of his age. The trial court directed a verdict in Farmers’s favor on the wage claim, and the jury found for Farmers…

DeSaulles v. Community Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula, 62 Cal. 4th 1140 (2016)

Maureen deSaulles agreed to dismiss her causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in exchange for a settlement payment from her former employer in the amount of $23,000. The trial court subsequently exercised its discretion and awarded $12,731.92 in…

USS-POSCO Indus. v. Case, 197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)

Floyd Case voluntarily enrolled in a three-year, employer-sponsored educational program. Case agreed in writing that if he quit his job within 30 months of completing the program, he would reimburse his employer (UPI) a prorated portion of the program costs. Two months after completing the program, Case went to work for…

Sharif v. Mehusa, Inc., 2015 WL 5969679 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)

Mahta Sharif sued her former employer (Mehusa) for unpaid overtime, unpaid wages and violation of California’s Equal Pay Act (“EPA”). While Sharif prevailed on her EPA claim, Mehusa prevailed on the overtime and wage claims. Sharif sought reimbursement of her attorney’s fees pursuant to Labor Code § 1197.5(g), and Mehusa sought reimbursement of…