Recent Employment Law Decisions

California Courts of Appeal

Practitioners need to be extremely careful about what appears in CCP §998 offers when they accept them. Attorney’s fees were lost in this important case that deserves your immediate attention.

LINTON v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

PLAINTIFF LINTON ACCEPTED A CCP §998 OFFER IN AN UNRUH ACT AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT CASE

Plaintiff Linton, who uses a wheelchair, sued Defendant Contra Costa County when she alleged she was injured while riding a paratransit van operated by the county. She sued under California’s Unruh Act and Disabled Persons’ Act (“DPA”).

After years of litigation, Plaintiff Linton accepted a settlement offer pursuant to CCP §998 for $250,001, “[p]lus costs under Code of Civil Procedure §1032 and attorney’s fees allowed by law as determined by the court.”

THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE ATTORNEY’S FEE APPLICATION

Plaintiff Linton subsequently filed an application for attorney’s fees with the trial court. The court denied the application, finding that, because there was no admission of a violation of either statute, there was no legal entitlement to attorney’s fees.

THE APPELLATE COURT RULED THAT THERE WAS NEITHER A STATUTORY NOR CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling. Looking at the language of the Unruh Act and Disabled Persons’ Act, the court found that both required a finding of a violation of that act for an award of attorney’s fees.

Civil Code section 52, which provides for attorney’s fees under the Unruh Act, only allows them to a person “denied the rights

under” that statute or other, similar ones. Likewise, the DPA allows attorney’s fees only against entities that “den[y] or interfere[] with admittance to or enjoyment of the public facilities as specified . . . or otherwise interfere[] with the rights of an individual with a disability . . . . “

Here, the 998 offer neither admitted nor denied any violation of either act. Without such an admission, the court said, attorney’s fees could not be awarded under the statute’s plain language.

Neither did the 998 offer create a separate right to attorney’s fees. Because it did not provide for attorney’s fees, but rather qualified the right to attorney’s fees to those “allowed by law,” there was no separate contractual basis under the 998 for attorney’s fees.

CONCLUSION

This is an important decision for CELA members to study. We operate extensively with statutes that include fee-shifting provisions. For example, FEHA provides for attorney’s fees for “the prevailing party” (although a prevailing defendant may only receive such an award for frivolous, unreasonable or groundless cases). Be very careful of 998 offers that allow attorney’s fees “as allowed by law,” but do not assign a prevailing party, deny liability, or state that neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party.

This case seems to run counter to the goal of CCP §998 to promote settlement. What defendant will issue a 998 if it must admit liability, and what plaintiff will now accept such an offer for an Unruh or DPA claim without such an admission? This case means we must all be careful as we negotiate these resolutions, and it may require a legislative fix.

COA, 1st Dist. Div. 1, Filed 1/23/19, Opinion by Justice Margulies.

Read More

Read All Decisions

Legislative Update
By Mariko Yoshihara, CELA Legislative Counsel & Policy Director

CELA Introduces Bold Legislative Agenda for 2019

Mariko Yoshihara

Bolstered by the overwhelming success in the last election and the new progressive leadership under Governor Newsom, lawmakers and advocates are kicking off this new legislative session with a flurry of new (and renewed) bill proposals that address many of the issues our members care deeply about. Indeed, CELA is harnessing this incredible political momentum to push forward a bold legislative agenda that will expand the rights of workers in California and improve access to justice.

Last year’s wins for the #MeToo movement was not a passing trend. The appetite for change has only grown as Californians continue to clamor for better workplace rights.

Google’s missteps with secret settlements led to tech workers upending the company’s forced arbitration policy. The energy of #GoogleWalkout workers arguably has fed others to demand more advancements in employee protections.

To build on this progress, CELA will partner with key allies including the California Labor Federation, the Consumer Attorneys of California, Legal Aid at Work, Equal Rights Advocates, Center for Workers’ Rights, and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Together we will fight forced arbitration, worker misclassification, and wage theft. We will work to strengthen our family leave laws, boost equal pay, and ban oppressive settlement terms.

Specifically, our legislative agenda this year will include:

  • Extending the filing deadline for harassment and discrimination claims under FEHA (AB 9, authored by Asm. Reyes, Friedman, and Waldron);
  • Banning “No Re-Hire” clauses that restrict employment opportunities for workers settling a sexual harassment or other employment dispute (AB 749, authored by Asm. Stone);
  • Allowing workers to recover penalties when they are not paid on time (AB 673, authored by Asm. Carrillo);
  • Establishing pay data reporting requirements to boost equal pay (SB 171, authored by Sen. Jackson);
  • Expanding the California Family Rights Act so that more workers can take Paid Family Leave without risking their job (SB 135, authored by Sen. Jackson);
  • Providing individuals who have been forced into arbitration with procedural options and remedies when the company refuses to pay the required arbitration fees (SB 707, authored by Sen. Wieckowski and Hertzberg)
  • Preserving the “ABC Test” for employment status established in the unanimous California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 903 (AB 5, authored by Asm. Gonzalez)

Be part of CELA’s legislative efforts by joining us on March 6th when our members will be lobbying lawmakers on these important measures. The deadline to register for Lobby Day is Friday, March 29th. Details and registration info are available at www.cela.org/lobbyday.

Read More

Read Full Article