Recent Employment Law Decisions

California Courts of Appeal

In Cases Where There Has Been An Award of Less Than $300 In Unpaid Minimum Wages, The Provisions Of Labor Code §1194(a) Control, Not The Conflicting Provisions Of CCP §1031, And The Successful Plaintiff’s Attorney Fees Are Not Limited To 20% Of Her Awarded Wages

MORENO v. BASSI

AN AWARD OF UNPAID WAGES, HOWEVER SMALL, ENTITLES THE EMPLOYEE TO ALL OF HER REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES, AND SHE IS ENTITLED TO HER COSTS EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THOSE COSTS WERE INCURRED SOLELY IN CONNECTION WITH PLAINTIFF’S CONCURRENT, UNSUCCESSFUL FEHA CLAIMS.

In cases that include both wage and FEHA claims, a loss on the FEHA claims may preclude the plaintiff from recovering costs attributable solely to those unsuccessful claims. However, all reasonable fees should be fully awarded. A loss on the FEHA claims will only result in an award of costs to defendant if defendant can establish that the FEHA claims were frivolous. [Note: This case has interesting commentary on the admission of evidence and commentary regarding related criminal proceedings/outcomes, but those were part of the non-published portions of the decision.]

IN ENACTING LABOR CODE 1194, THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO PROTECT AN EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO ATTORNEYS FEES EVEN IN CASES WHERE MINIMAL DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT.

Plaintiff Moreno brought claims for (1) unpaid minimum wages (a total of $16 for two hours of alleged farm work); and (2) FEHA violations based upon her alleged rape by Bassi,

the supervisor/owner of the farm at which she had briefly worked. [Bassi was criminally charged but not convicted prior to the civil suit.]  After a lengthy jury trial (during which the prior criminal proceedings and Moreno’s immigration status came up during voir dire, opening statement, and testimony), the jury awarded Moreno $16 in lost wages (for the two hours she claimed she had worked for Bassi) and $16 in penalties, but ruled against her on all of her FEHA claims. The trial judge then determined that CCP §1031, which by its express terms applies to cases seeking unpaid wages of less than $300, constrained him from awarding Moreno all of her attorney fees and issued an award of fees amounting to 20% of her recovered wages ($3.20). The trial court then concluded that because Moreno had obtained a monetary judgment against Bassi, albeit a small one, she was the prevailing party under CCP §1032(a)(4) and awarded nearly all of her costs.

On appeal, the Fifth District issued a unanimous opinion holding that Moreno’s fee award was not limited by CCP §1031 because the fee provision in FEHA was more specific and post-dated §1031 and remanded to the trial court to determine what her reasonable fees were. The appellate court also noted that because the trial court had already determined Moreno’s FEHA-based claims were not frivolous (in remarks made while addressing Moreno’s new trial motion), Bassi could not recover fees after prevailing on those claims, as Gov. Code §12965(b) now provides.  The appellate court also found that any costs related solely to litigating the unsuccessful FEHA claims could not be recovered, even though Moreno was a “prevailing party” under §1031.

CELA INVOLVEMENT

Congratulations to CELA member Estella Cisneros of California Rural Legal Assistance.

COA 5th District. Filed 6/8/21, as modified 6/30/21. 65 Cal.App.5h 244. Opinion by Justice Franson.

Read More

Read All Decisions

Practice Guide
By Wendy Musell, Co-Chair CELA Elimination of Bias in the Judiciary Committee

California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) has been a leader in addressing concerns of bias in the judiciary. In response to our members’ concerns heard over many years of instances of bias experienced by our members and by workers, and the subsequent difficulty in addressing such bias, CELA created the Elimination of Bias in the Judiciary Committee.

Through our research, in the spring of 2020, we discovered nearly all of the Superior Courts in California were out of compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 10.20, Court’s Duty to Prohibit Bias. CRC 10.20 described the courts’ duty to support the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system and to promote a courtroom environment free of bias or the appearance of bias.  Within CRC 10.20 is a duty to establish local bias committees staffed by diverse members of the local bar community, along with court designees to accept complaints of bias and to investigate and address them. CRC 10.20 was initially created after the 1987 Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts established by Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird.

After widespread attention to the issues of nearly total non-compliance statewide regarding CRC 10.20, proposed changes to CRC 10.20 have been made to simply eliminate the existing requirement for the complaint procedure maintained by local bias committees, rather than assess their efficacy or bring them into compliance.

On June 24, 2021, CELA, along with thirty other civil rights, bar, consumer, and legal aid organizations, signed onto a letter

opposing the proposed edits, specifically the elimination of the requirement for the complaint procedure. We also asked that a rewrite of CRC 10.20 be conducted with a more diverse Work Group including employment attorneys, civil rights attorneys, and members of diversity bar associations. The organizations who signed onto the letter included the following:

CELA
Equal Justice Society
ACLU California Action
Equal Rights Advocates
Legal Aid of Marin
Public Counsel
Open Door Legal
Impact Fund
Disability Rights Advocates
Legal Aid At Work
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Church State Council
Wage Justice Center
California Women’s Law Center
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Bet Tzedek Legal Services
Centro Legal de la Raza
Los Angeles LGBTQ Center
Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
National Employment Law Project
Alameda County Bar Association
Marin Trial Lawyers Association
San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
Asian American Bar Association of Greater Bay Area
East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association
Alameda Contra Costa County Trial Lawyers Association
Queen’s Bench Bar Association
San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association
Women’s Section of the Contra Costa County Bar Association
Mexican American Bar Association

Many of our members also provided letters detailing concerns with the proposed edits to CRC 10.20. CELA deeply thanks our coalition partners, who are committed to a robust, fair and impartial judiciary.

We are hopeful that the Court system will fulfill the promise made in 1987 by the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts and come into compliance with CRC 10.20’s requirement of local bias committees staffed by diverse members of the local bar community to fully address concerns of bias and impartiality in the judicial system.

CELA has offered our expertise to assist in the development of complaint systems that address minimum standards to address bias and processes to ensure transparency and fairness. While this offer has not yet been accepted, CELA will continue to work on these issues and will keep our members updated and involved.

In solidarity,
Wendy Musell
Co-chair Elimination of Bias in the Judiciary Committee
Board Member

Read More

Read Full Article