You have no items in your shopping cart.

Employment Damages and Remedies

What is that employment case worth? How much will it cost my client? Employment Damages and Remedies helps attorneys on both sides of an employment dispute. This comprehensive and practical tool explains each remedy and item of damages, covering its availability and limitations, and identifying specific items of recovery.

What is that employment case worth? How much will it cost my client? Employment Damages and Remedies helps attorneys on both sides of an employment dispute. This comprehensive and practical tool explains each remedy and item of damages, covering its availability and limitations, and identifying specific items of recovery.

  • Breach of contract remedies
  • Damages for wrongful termination and other tort claims
  • Remedies under state and federal antidiscrimination and other employee rights statutes
  • Equitable remedies
  • Punitive damages
  • Civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act
  • Attorney fees, costs, and interest
  • Tax considerations in settlements and judgments
OnLAW CP94250

Web access for one user.


$ 310.00
Print CP34250

approx. 500 pages, looseleaf, updated 5/19


$ 310.00

What is that employment case worth? How much will it cost my client? Employment Damages and Remedies helps attorneys on both sides of an employment dispute. This comprehensive and practical tool explains each remedy and item of damages, covering its availability and limitations, and identifying specific items of recovery.

  • Breach of contract remedies
  • Damages for wrongful termination and other tort claims
  • Remedies under state and federal antidiscrimination and other employee rights statutes
  • Equitable remedies
  • Punitive damages
  • Civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act
  • Attorney fees, costs, and interest
  • Tax considerations in settlements and judgments


Approaching Employment Remedies

Honorable Alexander H. Williams, III (Ret.)

    • A.  Thinking Broadly
      • 1.  Employment Remedies Are Broad  1.2
      • 2.  Remedies Discussed in This Book  1.3
    • B.  Most Cases Settle  1.4
      • 1.  Settlement as Choice  1.5
      • 2.  Settlement as Process  1.6
      • 3.  Trial Preparation as Settlement Preparation  1.7
    • C.  Planning the Work, Working the Plan  1.8
    • A.  Assessing the Case  1.10
    • B.  Determining Client’s Position
      • 1.  What Does Client Want?  1.11
      • 2.  Understanding Reasons Underlying Goals  1.12
    • C.  Determining Available Remedy or Result  1.13
    • D.  What Does Client Need?  1.14
    • E.  Attorney Fees and Costs  1.15
    • A.  Judge  1.17
    • B.  Jury  1.18
    • C.  Appellate Court  1.19
    • D.  Arbitrator  1.20
    • E.  Mediator or Settlement Judge  1.21
    • F.  Opposing Counsel  1.22
    • G.  Opposing Party  1.23
    • H.  Insurer or Risk Manager  1.24
    • A.  Timing  1.27
    • B.  Premediation Communication  1.28
    • C.  Brief  1.29
    • D.  Chronology  1.30
    • E.  Causes of Action  1.31
    • F.  Copying Opposing Counsel  1.32
    • G.  Personal Attendance  1.33
    • H.  Draft Settlement Agreements  1.34
    • I.  Preparing Client  1.35
    • J.  Following Up  1.36


Breach of Contract Remedies

Cara Panebianco

    • A.  Existence of Employment Contract Must Be Shown  2.1
    • B.  No Contract Claims for Public Employees  2.2
    • A.  Benefit of the Bargain  2.3
      • 1.  Application in Employment Cases  2.4
      • 2.  Damages Must Be Proximately Caused or Reasonably Foreseeable  2.5
      • 3.  Damages Must Be Clearly Ascertainable  2.6
    • B.  Liquidated Damages
      • 1.  Validity  2.7
      • 2.  Factors Considered  2.8
    • A.  Emotional Distress Damages Generally Not Available  2.9
    • B.  Punitive Damages Not Available  2.10
    • C.  Plaintiff’s Duty to Mitigate Damages  2.11
    • A.  Back Pay
      • 1.  Nature of Relief  2.13
      • 2.  Time Period
        • a.  Generally  2.14
        • b.  Events Terminating Back Pay Liability
          • (1)  Expiration of Contract  2.15
          • (2)  Unconditional Reinstatement Offer  2.16
      • 3.  Components of Back Pay  2.17
    • B.  Front Pay (Lost Future Earnings)  2.18
      • 1.  Availability  2.19
      • 2.  Time Period
        • a.  Fixed-Term Contract  2.20
        • b.  Indefinite-Term Contract  2.21
      • 3.  Employee’s Duty to Mitigate  2.22
      • 4.  Reduction to Present Value  2.23
    • C.  Reliance Damages  2.24
    • D.  Prejudgment Interest  2.25
      • 1.  When Damages Are Certain (Civil Code §3287(a))  2.26
      • 2.  When Damages Are Unliquidated (Civil Code §3287(b))  2.27
    • E.  Specific Performance  2.28
    • F.  Litigation Costs  2.29
    • A.  Unconditional Reinstatement Offer  2.30
    • B.  Good Cause for Termination
      • 1.  Known at Time of Termination  2.31
      • 2.  Learned After Termination (“After-Acquired Evidence”)  2.32


Damages for Wrongful Termination and Other Tort Claims

Hillary Jo Benham-Baker

    • A.  General Damages  3.2
    • B.  Special Damages
      • 1.  Lost Wages/Back Pay  3.3
      • 2.  Health Insurance and Other Benefits  3.4
      • 3.  Medical Expenses  3.5
    • C.  Future Wages/Front Pay  3.6
    • D.  Prejudgment Interest  3.7
    • E.  Punitive Damages  3.8
    • F.  Tax Consequences  3.9
    • G.  Attorney Fees and Costs  3.10
    • A.  Limitations
      • 1.  Exclusivity of Statutory Remedies  3.11
      • 2.  Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and Other Preemption Issues  3.12
      • 3.  Government Claims Exhaustion Issues  3.13
    • B.  Employee’s Duty to Mitigate Damages  3.14
    • C.  Employee Conduct That May Limit Damages  3.15
    • A.  Witnesses
      • 1.  Plaintiff  3.16
      • 2.  Family, Friends, and Coworkers  3.17
      • 3.  Medical Professionals and Other Expert Witnesses  3.18
    • B.  Documentary Evidence  3.19
    • A.  Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
      • 1.  Overview of the Tort  3.20
      • 2.  Specific Items of Recovery  3.21
    • B.  Infliction of Emotional Distress (Intentional and Negligent)
      • 1.  Overview of the Tort  3.22
      • 2.  Specific Items of Recovery  3.23
    • C.  Misrepresentation and Fraud
      • 1.  Overview of the Tort
        • a.  Misrepresentation and Fraud Under CC §1710  3.24
        • b.  Misrepresentation of Employment Conditions Under Lab Code §970  3.25
      • 2.  Specific Items of Recovery  3.26
    • D.  False Imprisonment
      • 1.  Overview of the Tort  3.27
      • 2.  Specific Items of Recovery  3.28
    • E.  Defamation
      • 1.  Overview of the Tort
        • a.  Elements of Tort  3.29
        • b.  Employment-Related Issues  3.30
      • 2.  Specific Items of Recovery  3.31
    • F.  Invasion of Privacy
      • 1.  Overview of the Tort  3.32
      • 2.  Specific Items of Recovery  3.33
    • G.  Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations or Prospective Economic Advantage
      • 1.  Overview of the Tort of Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage  3.34
      • 2.  Overview of the Tort of Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations  3.35
      • 3.  Specific Items of Recovery for Interference With Contractual Relations or Prospective Economic Advantage  3.36


Remedies Under Antidiscrimination and Other Employee Rights Statutes

Pamela M. Sayad

Brenda F. Biren

    • A.  Prohibited Acts  4.2
    • B.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Required  4.3
    • C.  Title VII Remedies  4.4
      • 1.  Back Pay  4.5
        • a.  Accrual of Back Pay  4.6
        • b.  Components of Back Pay  4.7
          • (1)  Wages and Salary  4.8
          • (2)  Missed Promotions or Raises  4.9
          • (3)  Bonuses and Commissions  4.10
          • (4)  Tips  4.11
          • (5)  Overtime Pay  4.12
          • (6)  Pension and Retirement  4.13
          • (7)  Health Insurance  4.14
          • (8)  Life Insurance  4.15
          • (9)  Vacation  4.16
          • (10)  Stock Options  4.17
          • (11)  Other Nonmonetary Benefits  4.18
        • c.  Deductions From Back Pay Award  4.19
          • (1)  Duty to Mitigate  4.20
            • (a)  Reasonable Steps  4.21
            • (b)  Comparable Employment  4.22
          • (2)  Severance Pay  4.23
          • (3)  Government and Other Benefits
            • (a)  Collateral Source Rule  4.24
            • (b)  Unemployment Insurance  4.25
            • (c)  Social Security and Medicare Benefits  4.26
            • (d)  Workers’ Compensation  4.27
            • (e)  Disability Benefits  4.28
          • (4)  Inability to Work  4.29
        • d.  Adjustment for Tax Effects  4.30
        • e.  Unconditional Offer of Reinstatement  4.31
        • f.  After-Acquired Evidence  4.32
      • 2.  Front Pay (Lost Future Earnings)  4.33
        • a.  Monetary Equivalent of Reinstatement  4.34
        • b.  Availability  4.35
      • 3.  Compensatory Damages
        • a.  When Available  4.36
        • b.  Compensatory Damage Ceilings  4.37
      • 4.  Punitive Damages
        • a.  When Available  4.38
        • b.  Vicarious Liability for Manager’s Actions  4.39
        • c.  Punitive Damage Ceilings  4.40
      • 5.  Special Damage Limitation in Mixed Motive Cases  4.41
      • 6.  Injunctive Relief  4.42
      • 7.  Reinstatement  4.43
      • 8.  Purging Personnel File  4.44
      • 9.  Attorney Fees  4.45
    • D.  Considerations in Deciding to Bring Title VII Suit  4.46
    • A.  Protected Categories  4.47
    • B.  Prohibited Acts  4.48
    • C.  Administrative Remedies
      • 1.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  4.49
      • 2.  Administrative Adjudication Under FEHA Eliminated  4.50
    • D.  Remedies in Civil Action Under FEHA  4.51
      • 1.  Back Pay  4.52
        • a.  Components of Back Pay  4.53
        • b.  Duty to Mitigate  4.54
        • c.  Avoidable Consequences Doctrine  4.55
        • d.  After-Acquired Evidence or Unclean Hands  4.55A
        • e.  Deductions From Back Pay Award  4.56
      • 2.  Front Pay  4.57
      • 3.  Compensatory Damages  4.58
      • 4.  Punitive Damages  4.59
      • 5.  Attorney Fees  4.60
      • 6.  Injunctive Relief and Reinstatement  4.61
    • E.  Laws Enacted Relating to Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Effective January 1, 2019
      • 1.  Legal Standard for Sexual Harassment Claims  4.61A
      • 2.  Personal Liability for Harassment  4.61B
      • 3.  Interactive Process Must Be Timely and in Good Faith  4.61C
      • 4.  Expanded Sexual Harassment Liability in Business, Service, or Professional Relationships   4.61D
      • 5.  Expanded Requirements for Sexual Harassment Prevention Training  4.61E
      • 6.  Bystander Intervention Training  4.61F
      • 7.  Human Trafficking Awareness Training  4.61G
      • 8.  Employee Release Agreements  4.61H
      • 9.  CC §1670.11 Limits Use of Nondisclosure Agreements in Contracts and Settlement Agreements  4.61I
      • 10.  CCP §1001 Prohibits Nondisclosure Provisions Related to Sexual Misconduct and Harassment  4.61J
      • 11.  CC §1542 Waiver Language Changed  4.61K
      • 12.  Privileged Communications Regarding Sexual Harassment  4.61L
      • 13.  Attorney Fees Under FEHA  4.61M
    • A.  Prohibited Acts  4.62
    • B.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  4.63
    • C.  Remedies Under ADEA  4.64
      • 1.  Back Pay
        • a.  Components of Back Pay  4.65
        • b.  Duty to Mitigate  4.66
        • c.  Deductions From Back Pay Award  4.67
      • 2.  Front Pay  4.68
      • 3.  Liquidated Damages  4.69
      • 4.  Punitive Damages Not Available  4.70
      • 5.  Equitable Relief  4.71
      • 6.  Emotional Distress Damages Not Available  4.72
      • 7.  Attorney Fees  4.73
      • 8.  Costs and Expert Witness Fees  4.74
      • 9.  Prejudgment Interest  4.75
      • 10.  Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)  4.76
    • D.  Age Discrimination Under FEHA  4.77
    • A.  Prohibited Acts  4.78
    • B.  Reasonable Accommodation
      • 1.  Employer Required to Provide “Reasonable Accommodation” at Its Expense  4.79
      • 2.  Determining What Constitutes Reasonable Accommodation  4.80
    • C.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  4.81
    • D.  Remedies Under the ADA  4.82
      • 1.  Back Pay  4.83
      • 2.  Front Pay  4.84
      • 3.  Compensatory and Punitive Damages  4.85
        • a.  Not Available if Employer Shows Good Faith Effort to Accommodate  4.86
        • b.  Not Available in Retaliation Claims  4.87
      • 4.  Special Damage Limitation in Mixed Motive Cases  4.88
      • 5.  Injunctive Relief  4.89
      • 6.  Attorney Fees  4.90
    • E.  Disability Discrimination Under FEHA  4.91
    • A.  Prohibited Acts  4.92
    • B.  Remedies Under the Rehabilitation Act
      • 1.  Remedies Under Section 501  4.93
      • 2.  Remedies Under Section 503  4.94
      • 3.  Remedies Under Section 504  4.95
    • A.  Prohibited Acts Under Federal Law  4.96
    • B.  California Fair Pay Act and Wage Equality Act  4.96A
    • C.  Administrative Remedies  4.97
    • D.  Remedies Under the Federal and State Acts  4.98
    • A.  Applicability  4.99
    • B.  Administrative Remedies  4.100
    • C.  Remedies Under the FMLA
      • 1.  Economic Damages  4.101
      • 2.  Liquidated Damages  4.102
      • 3.  Equitable Relief  4.103
      • 4.  Attorney Fees, Costs, and Interest  4.104
  • IX.  CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1866 (42 USC §1981)
    • A.  Scope of Act  4.105
    • B.  Remedies Under §1981  4.106
  • X.  CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1871 (42 USC §1983)
    • A.  Applicability  4.107
    • B.  Remedies Under §1983  4.108
      • 1.  Compensatory Damages  4.109
      • 2.  Punitive Damages  4.110
      • 3.  Equitable Relief  4.111
      • 4.  Attorney Fees  4.112
    • A.  Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)  4.113
    • B.  Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)  4.114
    • C.  Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      • 1.  Minimum Standards Established  4.115
      • 2.  Remedies  4.116
    • D.  False Claims Act (FCA)  4.117
    • E.  Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)  4.118
    • F.  Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act)  4.119
    • G.  Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)  4.120
    • H.  Protection for Employee Privacy
      • 1.  Employee Polygraph Protection Act  4.121
      • 2.  Consumer Credit Protection Act  4.122
      • 3.  Bankruptcy Reform Act  4.123
      • 4.  National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)  4.124
    • I.  Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)  4.125
    • J.  Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)
      • 1.  Applicability  4.126
      • 2.  Enforcement and Remedies  4.127
    • K.  Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010  4.127A
    • L.  Executive Order Prohibiting Federal Contractors From Discriminating Against LGBT Employees  4.127B
    • M.  Defend Trade Secrets Act  4.127C
    • A.  Unruh Civil Rights Act; Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976  4.128
    • B.  Bane Act  4.129
    • A.  California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Cal/OSHA)
      • 1.  Applicability  4.130
      • 2.  Enforcement and Remedies  4.131
    • B.  California Family Rights Act (CFRA)
      • 1.  Applicability  4.132
      • 2.  Administrative Remedies  4.133
      • 3.  Remedies Under the CFRA  4.134
    • C.  California False Claims Act  4.135
    • D.  Inducing Employee to Move (Lab C §970)  4.136
    • E.  Protection for Refusal to Commit Illegal Act (Lab C §2856)  4.137
    • F.  Protection for Whistleblowing to Government or Law Enforcement Agency (Lab C §1102.5)  4.138
    • G.  California Whistleblower Protection Act (Govt C §§8547–8547.13)  4.139
    • H.  Legislative Employee Whistleblower Protection Act  4.139A
    • I.  Legislative Discriminatory Harassment Retaliation Prevention Act  4.139B
    • J.  Protection for Exercising Labor Code Rights (Lab C §98.6)  4.140
    • K.  Indemnity for Work-Related Expenses or Losses (Lab C §2802; Govt C §§995–996.6)  4.141
    • L.  Unfair Competition Law (Bus & P C §§17200–17210)  4.142
    • M.  Blacklisting (Lab C §1050)  4.143
    • N.  Discrimination Against Injured Workers (Lab C §132a)  4.144
    • O.  California WARN Act (Lab C §§1400–1408)
      • 1.  Applicability  4.145
      • 2.  Enforcement and Remedies  4.146
    • P.  Prohibition of Retaliation Against Suspected Undocumented Workers (Lab C §§1019 and 1024.6)  4.146A
    • Q.  Employment Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking (Lab C §§230 and 230.1)  4.146B
    • R.  California Paid Sick Leave Entitlement  4.146C
    • S.  Child Labor Protection Act of 2014  4.146D
    • T.  Retaliation Protections for Employees Enrolled in the Medi-Cal Program  4.146E
    • U.  Time Off for Emergency Rescue Personnel (Lab C §230.3)  4.146F
    • V.  School Activity Leave (Lab C §230.8)  4.146G
    • W.  Use of E-Verify for Purposes Not Specified Under Federal Law  4.146H
    • X.  Publicly Held Corporation With Principal Executive Offices in California Must Have Female Board Members  4.146I


Equitable Remedies

Julia Campins

    • A.  No Specific Performance of Personal Services Contract  5.2
      • 1.  Suit for Declaratory Relief Permissible  5.3
      • 2.  Employee Who Has Performed May Seek Compensation  5.4
    • B.  Injunctive Relief to Prevent Breach of Contract
      • 1.  Personal Service Contracts  5.5
      • 2.  Covenants Not to Compete  5.6
      • 3.  Collective Bargaining Agreement  5.7
    • C.  Equitable Relief Provided in Statutes  5.8
      • 1.  Major Antidiscrimination Statutes Authorizing Equitable Relief  5.9
      • 2.  Equitable Relief Under Other Employee Rights Statutes
        • a.  Labor Code §1194.5 (Wage and Hour Laws)  5.10
        • b.  Other Relevant Code Provisions  5.11
        • c.  Anti-Retaliation Provisions  5.12
        • d.  No Injunctive Relief Under Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)  5.13
        • e.  Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
          • (1)  Injunctive Relief  5.14
          • (2)  Back Pay  5.15
        • f.  Whistleblower Protection Statutes  5.16
        • g.  Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)  5.17
        • h.  Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)  5.18
        • i.  National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
          • (1)  Sanctions Available for Unfair Labor Practices  5.19
          • (2)  Employees’ Immigration Status  5.20
        • j.  Other Federal Statutes  5.21
    • A.  Reinstatement  5.22
      • 1.  No Reinstatement for Breach of Contract  5.23
      • 2.  Reinstatement May Be Impracticable or Inappropriate  5.24
      • 3.  Deciding Between Reinstatement and Front Pay  5.25
      • 4.  Effect of After-Acquired Evidence of Employee Wrongdoing  5.26
    • B.  Back Pay
      • 1.  Entitlement to Back Pay  5.27
      • 2.  Equitable Nature of Back Pay
        • a.  Back Pay as Equitable Remedy  5.28
        • b.  Effect on Right to Jury Trial  5.29
      • 3.  Calculating the Back Pay Award  5.30
        • a.  Time Period  5.31
        • b.  Unconditional Reinstatement Offer  5.32
        • c.  Components of Back Pay Award  5.33
        • d.  Reductions in Back Pay  5.34
          • (1)  Duty to Mitigate  5.35
          • (2)  Effect of After-Acquired Evidence of Employee Wrongdoing  5.36
          • (3)  Effect of Employee Resignation  5.37
          • (4)  Collateral Source Rule  5.38
          • (5)  Severance or Separation Pay  5.39
          • (6)  Reinstatement Offer  5.40
    • C.  Front Pay
      • 1.  Entitlement to Front Pay  5.41
      • 2.  Equitable Nature of Front Pay  5.42
      • 3.  Calculation of Front Pay
        • a.  Duration  5.43
        • b.  Duty to Mitigate  5.44
        • c.  Collateral Source Rule  5.45
        • d.  After-Acquired Evidence  5.46
      • 4.  Future Pecuniary Losses  5.47
    • D.  Expungement or Modification of Personnel Records  5.48
    • E.  Promotion or Hiring  5.49
    • F.  Employee’s Duty to Mitigate  5.50
    • A.  Availability of Relief; Cease and Desist Orders  5.51
    • B.  Employer’s Voluntary Cessation of Unlawful Practices  5.52
    • C.  Prior Restraint  5.53


Punitive Damages

Brian J. Mills

Mary-Christine (M.C.) Sungaila

    • A.  Claims for Which Punitive Damages Are Available
      • 1.  State Claims
        • a.  Tort Claims  6.2
        • b.  Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)  6.3
        • c.  California Labor Code Violations
          • (1)  Punitive Damages Recoverable  6.4
          • (2)  Liquidated and Treble Damages Recoverable  6.5
        • d.  California Family Rights Act of 1993 (CFRA)  6.6
      • 2.  Federal Claims
        • a.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964  6.7
          • (1)  Cap on Title VII Awards  6.8
          • (2)  Applicability of Caps  6.9
        • b.  Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 USC §1981)  6.10
        • c.  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  6.11
        • d.  Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)  6.12
        • e.  Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA)  6.13
        • f.  Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)  6.14
        • g.  Rehabilitation Act of 1973  6.15
        • h.  Fair Credit Reporting Act  6.15A
        • i.  Additional Acts Providing Liquidated Damages  6.16
      • 3.  No Punitive Damages in Contract Actions  6.17
    • B.  Prerequisites for Obtaining Punitive Damages Awards  6.18
      • 1.  Intent
        • a.  Malice, Oppression, or Fraud Under CC §3294
          • (1)  Definitions  6.19
          • (2)  Conduct That Is Despicable  6.20
          • (3)  Conduct That Is Not Despicable  6.21
        • b.  Intentional or Reckless Behavior  6.22
      • 2.  Employer Knowledge/Ratification
        • a.  Liable Under Respondeat Superior  6.23
        • b.  Knowledge of Employee Unfitness  6.24
        • c.  Corporation Ratifies Employee’s Improper Act  6.25
        • d.  Improper Act by Officer, Director, or Managing Agent  6.26
      • 3.  Compensatory Damages Award or Constitutional Violation as Prerequisite
        • a.  California Courts  6.27
        • b.  Federal Courts  6.28
    • C.  Standard of Proof  6.29
    • A.  Federal Constitutional Limits  6.30
      • 1.  Excessive Fines  6.31
      • 2.  Procedural Due Process  6.32
      • 3.  Substantive Due Process  6.33
      • 4.  The Guideposts for Determining Constitutional Excessiveness
        • a.  Reprehensibility  6.34
        • b.  Ratio Between Compensatory and Punitive Damages  6.35
          • (1)  Ratios Upheld in Employment Cases  6.36
          • (2)  Factors to Be Analyzed in Determining Reasonableness of Ratio  6.37
          • (3)  What Constitutes “Compensatory Damages”?  6.38
            • (a)  Designation by Legislature  6.39
            • (b)  Function Served by the Award  6.40
            • (c)  What Sums Are Considered to Be Compensatory Damages?  6.41
              • (i)  Prejudgment Interest on Compensatory Damages  6.42
              • (ii)  Statutory Treble Damages  6.43
              • (iii)  Attorney Fees  6.44
              • (iv)  Disgorged Profits  6.45
              • (v)  Prejudgment Interest on Punitive Damages  6.46
              • (vi)  Nominal Damages  6.46A
        • c.  Statutory Penalties  6.47
        • d.  Defendant’s Wealth Not a Factor in Due Process Analysis  6.48
    • B.  State Limitations on Amount of Punitive Damages Award  6.49
      • 1.  Reprehensibility  6.50
      • 2.  Ratio
        • a.  Approved Limits  6.51
        • b.  Defining “Compensatory Damages”  6.52
          • (1)  Prejudgment Interest  6.53
          • (2)  Potential Harm Damages  6.54
        • c.  Effect of Reduction of Compensatory Damage Award  6.55
      • 3.  Role of Defendant’s Wealth  6.56
    • C.  Interplay Between State and Federal Analyses  6.57
    • D.  Independent Review Under Federal Common Law  6.58


Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

Catha Worthman

Hunter Pyle

    • A.  Action Brought in Representative Capacity  7.2
    • B.  Elements of PAGA Claim  7.3
    • A.  Actions Covered
      • 1.  Actions for Civil Penalties for Labor Code Violations  7.4
      • 2.  Common PAGA Claims  7.5
    • B.  Actions Excluded  7.6
      • 1.  Claims for Damages or Injunctive Relief  7.7
      • 2.  Claims for Statutory Penalties  7.8
      • 3.  Explicit Exclusions  7.9
    • C.  Nonexclusive Remedy  7.10
    • A.  Aggrieved Employees
      • 1.  Definition  7.12
      • 2.  Former Employee  7.13
      • 3.  No Economic Injury Requirement  7.14
      • 4.  If Court Finds No Underlying Labor Code Violation  7.15
    • B.  Action Representing Others  7.16
      • 1.  Class Action Not Required  7.17
      • 2.  Article III Standing to Proceed on Representational Basis  7.18
      • 3.  Action Cannot Be Assigned  7.19
      • 4.  No Associational Standing  7.20
      • 5.  Possible Unavailability of Individual Actions  7.21
    • A.  Exhaustion Required  7.22
    • B.  Effect of Citation by State Agency  7.23
    • C.  Exhaustion Procedures  7.24
      • 1.  Exhaustion Requirements for Serious Violations
        • a.  Actions Covered  7.25
        • b.  Written Notice and Online Filing With Labor and Workforce Development Agency  7.26
        • c.  Agency Action  7.27
      • 2.  Exhaustion Requirements for Occupational Safety and Health Violations  7.28
      • 3.  Exhaustion Requirements for Other Violations; Employer’s Opportunity to Cure  7.29
        • a.  Time Limit for Curing and Required Notice  7.30
        • b.  Limits on Curing Violations  7.31
        • c.  Employee’s Right to Dispute Cure  7.32
      • 4.  Contents of Notice to Labor and Workforce Development Agency  7.33
    • A.  Pleading Basics  7.34
    • B.  Right to Amend
      • 1.  PAGA’s Amendment Provision  7.35
      • 2.  Application in Federal Court  7.36
      • 3.  Relation Back  7.37
    • C.  Liability for Corporate Officers or Other Individual Defendants  7.38
    • A.  Amount of Penalties
      • 1.  If Specified by Labor Code  7.40
      • 2.  If Not Specified by Labor Code  7.41
    • B.  Court’s Discretion  7.42
    • C.  Distribution of Penalties Recovered  7.43
    • A.  Duplication  7.45
    • B.  Statute of Limitations  7.46
    • C.  Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel
      • 1.  Use of Collateral Estoppel by Employer  7.47
      • 2.  Use of Collateral Estoppel by Plaintiff Employees  7.48
      • 3.  Resolution of Earlier Class Action  7.49
    • D.  Arbitration
      • 1.  Non-Enforceability of PAGA Waivers  7.50
      • 2.  Arbitrability of PAGA Representative Claims  7.50A
      • 3.  Intersection of Court and Arbitration Proceedings  7.50B
      • 4.  Impact of Supreme Court's Decision in Epic  7.50C
    • E.  Failure to Comply With Exhaustion Requirements  7.51
    • A.  Federal Court Jurisdiction
      • 1.  Class Action Fairness Act
        • a.  Basis for Jurisdiction  7.52
        • b.  Amount in Controversy Under Class Action Fairness Act  7.53
      • 2.  Traditional Diversity Jurisdiction
        • a.  Aggregation of Penalties  7.54
        • b.  Amount Recoverable by Labor and Workforce Development Agency  7.55
    • B.  Discovery  7.56
    • C.  Proof  7.57
    • D.  Trial  7.58
    • E.  Settlements
      • 1.  Notice to the LWDA  7.58A
      • 2.  Superior Court Approval  7.59
      • 3.  Allocation of Penalties in Settlement  7.60


Attorney Fees, Costs, and Interest

Sanford Jay Rosen

Michael Freedman

    • A.  Distinctions Between California and Federal Approaches  8.2
    • B.  Planning Considerations for Attorney Fees in Employment Cases  8.3
    • A.  The American Rule  8.4
    • B.  Fee-Shifting Statutes
      • 1.  Principal California Employment Law Fee-Shifting Statutes  8.5
      • 2.  Principal Federal Employment Law Fee-Shifting Statutes  8.6
      • 3.  Availability of Attorney Fees to Prevailing Plaintiffs Under Fee-Shifting Statutes
        • a.  Prevailing Party  8.7
        • b.  Limitations on Prevailing Party  8.8
          • (1)  Interim Success  8.9
          • (2)  Favorable Statement of Law  8.10
          • (3)  Remand to Administrative Body  8.11
          • (4)  Injunctive Relief  8.12
          • (5)  Success on Fee Motion Only  8.13
        • c.  Differences Between Federal and California Law Concerning Whether a Plaintiff Is Prevailing Party  8.14
          • (1)  Catalyst Theory  8.15
            • (a)  Requirements for Catalyst Theory  8.16
            • (b)  Catalyst Theory Generally Unavailable in Federal Cases  8.17
          • (2)  Public Interest or Benefit (CCP §1021.5)  8.18
            • (a)  Requirements for Obtaining Fees Under CCP §1021.5  8.19
            • (b)  Relationship of CCP §1021.5 to Other Fee-Shifting Statutes  8.20
      • 4.  Parties From Whom Prevailing Plaintiff Can Seek to Recover Attorney Fees Under Fee-Shifting Statutes
        • a.  Any Liable Party  8.21
        • b.  Intervenors  8.22
        • c.  Real Parties in Interest  8.23
        • d.  Amici Curiae  8.24
        • e.  Apportionment Among Liable Parties  8.25
      • 5.  When Attorney Fees Are Available to Prevailing Defendants Under Fee-Shifting Statutes  8.26
        • a.  Two-Way Fee-Shifting Statutes  8.27
        • b.  Frivolous Suit  8.28
    • C.  Contractual Fee-Shifting Under CC §1717  8.29
      • 1.  All Contractual Attorney Fee-Shifting Provisions Are Reciprocal  8.30
      • 2.  Fee Provision Applies to Entire Contract  8.31
      • 3.  For Attorney Fees to Be Available, Action Must Be on a Contract  8.32
      • 4.  Party Prevailing on the Contract  8.33
        • a.  Only One Prevailing Party Per Contract  8.34
        • b.  Settlement Offers  8.35
        • c.  Decision by Court on the Contract Claim Necessary  8.36
        • d.  No Prevailing Party in Case of Voluntary Dismissal  8.36A
        • e.  Procedural Victory That Does Not End the Dispute Is Insufficient   8.36B
        • f.  When Some Defendants Settle and Others Proceed to Trial   8.36C
      • 5.  Contractual Fee Shifting of Noncontract Claims  8.37
    • D.  Special Issues in Arbitration  8.38
    • E.  Attorney-Client Relationships Eligible for Attorney Fees Recovery
      • 1.  Pro Se Attorneys  8.39
      • 2.  Other Fee Agreements  8.40
    • A.  The Lodestar  8.41
      • 1.  Reasonable Hourly Rate  8.42
        • a.  Relevant Legal Community  8.43
        • b.  Market Rate in Relevant Legal Community  8.44
          • (1)  Market Rate Generally Applicable  8.45
          • (2)  Exception to Market Rate  8.46
          • (3)  Work Performed by Nonattorneys  8.47
      • 2.  Reasonable Hours
        • a.  Compensable Activities  8.48
        • b.  Duplicative Tasks  8.49
        • c.  Partial Success  8.50
        • d.  When Different Fee-Shifting Statutes Apply  8.51
    • B.  Upward and Downward Adjustments to the Lodestar  8.52
      • 1.  Upward Adjustment  8.53
        • a.  Federal Law on Upward Adjustments  8.54
        • b.  California Law on Upward Adjustments  8.55
      • 2.  Downward Adjustment  8.56
        • a.  Limited Success  8.57
        • b.  Rejection of Settlement Offer That Exceeded Recovery  8.58
        • c.  Recovery of Only Nominal Damages  8.59
        • d.  Special Circumstances Would Make Full Award Unjust  8.60
        • e.  Unreasonably Protracted Litigation  8.61
        • f.  Factors May Not Be Double Counted  8.62
        • g.  Effect of Defendant’s Status as Public Entity  8.63
    • C.  Fees in Common Fund Cases  8.64
      • 1.  Federal Approach   8.65
      • 2.  California Approach  8.66
    • D.  Settlement Issues
      • 1.  Limitations on Recovery Related to Fed R Civ P 68 and CCP §998 Settlement Offers  8.67
        • a.  Ambiguity of Settlement Offer as to Fees and Costs Is Held Against Drafter  8.68
        • b.  Effect of Informal Settlement Offer  8.69
      • 2.  Other Settlement Issues
        • a.  Fee Waivers Must Be Explicit  8.70
        • b.  Agreement Not to Oppose Plaintiff’s Fee Petition  8.71
  • IV.  TAX ISSUES  8.72
    • A.  Fee Application in Federal Court  8.74
    • B.  Fee Application in California Court  8.75
    • C.  Effect of Appeal of Merits  8.76
    • D.  Fee Motion Does Not Toll Time to Appeal  8.77
    • A.  Standard of Review  8.78
    • B.  Attorney Fee Order Must Be Expressly and Separately Appealed  8.79
    • C.  Finality of Fee Order  8.80
    • D.  Fees for Work on Appeal  8.81
    • A.  Burden of Proof on Fee Motion  8.82
    • B.  Billing Records
      • 1.  Contemporaneous Billing Records Are Best  8.83
      • 2.  Use of Reconstructed Billing Records  8.84
      • 3.  Contents of Billing Records  8.85
      • 4.  Exercising Billing Judgment  8.86
      • 5.  Establishing Reasonable Rates  8.87
    • A.  Ownership of Attorney Fees Award Under Federal Law  8.88
    • B.  Ownership of Attorney Fees Award Under California Law  8.89
    • A.  Costs and Expenses Under Federal Law  8.91
    • B.  Costs and Expenses Under California Law
      • 1.  Statutory and Nonstatutory Costs  8.92
      • 2.  Contracts Providing for Costs  8.93
    • C.  Expert Witness Fees  8.94
    • A.  Interest Under Federal Law  8.95
      • 1.  Date Interest Begins to Accrue  8.96
      • 2.  Interest Rate  8.97
    • B.  Interest Under California Law
      • 1.  Date Interest Begins to Accrue  8.98
      • 2.  Interest Rate  8.99
    • C.  Interest and Public Entities  8.100
    • A.  Drafting Fee Agreements  8.101
    • B.  Particular Provisions Included in Contingent Fee Agreements
      • 1.  Treatment of Attorney Fee Awards  8.102
      • 2.  Fee Work  8.103
      • 3.  If Counterclaim Likely  8.104
      • 4.  Payment of Attorney Fees Under Fee-Shifting Provision  8.105
      • 5.  Attorney’s Charging Lien  8.106
      • 6.  Attorney’s Discharge or Withdrawal for Cause  8.107


Taxation of Judgments and Settlements

Robert W. Wood

    • A.  Recoveries Taxed Based on Nature of Underlying Claim  9.1
    • B.  Significant Developments Affecting Employment Recoveries  9.2
      • 1.  End of Tax-Free Treatment of Emotional Distress Damages  9.3
      • 2.  Attorney Fees Taxation  9.4
      • 3.  Tort or Tort-Type Rights Requirement Deleted  9.5
    • A.  Character of the Payment  9.7
    • B.  Nature of the Claim  9.8
    • C.  General Rule: Gross Income  9.9
    • D.  Damages on Account of Physical Injuries or Physical Sickness  9.10
      • 1.  What Constitutes Personal Physical Injuries?  9.11
      • 2.  Definition of Physical Injury or Sickness  9.12
      • 3.  Redress for Tort or Tort-Type Right Not Required  9.13
      • 4.  Emotional Distress Damages Are Taxable Income  9.14
      • 5.  Medical Expenses Remain Deductible  9.15
    • A.  Wages and Wagelike Recoveries  9.17
      • 1.  Unpaid Wages  9.18
      • 2.  Back Pay  9.19
      • 3.  Front Pay  9.20
      • 4.  Severance Pay  9.21
    • B.  Nonwage Recoveries  9.22
      • 1.  Reimbursement for Medical Expenses  9.23
      • 2.  Emotional Distress  9.24
      • 3.  Wrongful Termination  9.25
      • 4.  Sexual Harassment  9.26
      • 5.  Fraud  9.27
      • 6.  Punitive Damages  9.28
      • 7.  Interest on Award  9.29
    • C.  Discrimination Actions  9.30
    • D.  Award of Attorney Fees  9.31
      • 1.  Issues Raised by Award of Attorney Fees and Costs  9.32
      • 2.  Commissioner v Banks Decision  9.33
      • 3.  Attorney Fee Awards Under Fee-Shifting Statutes  9.34
      • 4.  Deduction for Attorney Fees in Unlawful Discrimination Cases
        • a.  Above-the-Line Deduction  9.35
        • b.  Actions in Which Deduction Is Permitted  9.36
      • 5.  Determining Person Entitled to Attorney Fees (for Taxation Purposes)  9.37
    • A.  Tax Withholding
      • 1.  Withholding Requirements Apply to All Wage Income  9.38
      • 2.  Failure to Withhold and Pay Taxes  9.39
    • B.  Tax Reporting  9.40
      • 1.  Wages or Wagelike Compensation  9.41
      • 2.  Special Rules for Back Pay Reporting  9.42
      • 3.  Nonwage Compensation  9.43
      • 4.  Attorney Fee Awards  9.44
      • 5.  Punitive Damages  9.45
    • A.  Deciding Whether to Allocate Settlement Amounts  9.47
    • B.  Allocating Among Claims  9.48
    • C.  IRS Not Bound by Parties’ Allocation  9.49
    • D.  Using a Tax Advisor  9.50
    • E.  Disclosure on Plaintiff’s Tax Return  9.51


Additional Statutory Remedies

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  10.1
    • A.  Acts That Pertain to Multiple Characteristics
      • 1.  Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Govt C §§12900–12996)  10.3
      • 2.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Amended (42 USC §§2000e—2000e–17) (Title VII)  10.4
      • 3.  Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC §1983)  10.5
      • 4.  Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 (CC §51.7)  10.6
      • 5.  Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (CC §52.1)  10.7
    • B.  Race
      • 1.  Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 USC §1981)  10.8
      • 2.  Additional Acts to Consider  10.9
    • C.  Religion  10.10
    • D.  National Origin, Ancestry, Citizenship
      • 1.  Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)  10.11
      • 2.  Limitation on “English Only” Rules (Govt C §12951)  10.12
      • 3.  Additional Acts to Consider  10.13
    • E.  Physical Disability
      • 1.  Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 USC §§12101–12213)  10.14
      • 2.  Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC §§701–796l)  10.15
      • 3.  Additional Act to Consider  10.16
    • F.  Mental Disability  10.17
    • G.  Medical Condition  10.18
    • H.  Marital Status  10.19
    • I.  Gender
      • 1.  Fair Pay Act
        • a.  State Fair Pay Act (Lab C §1197.5)  10.20
        • b.  Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 USC §206(d))  10.21
      • 2.  Additional Acts to Consider  10.22
    • J.  Age
      • 1.  Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)  10.23
      • 2.  Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)  10.24
      • 3.  Additional Act to Consider  10.25
    • K.  Sexual Orientation  10.26
    • L.  Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions  10.27
    • M.  Gender Identity  10.28
    • N.  Genetic Information
      • 1.  Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)  10.29
      • 2.  Protection for Genetic Information (Govt C §12940)  10.30
    • A.  Psychological Exam  10.31
    • B.  Lie Detector Test
      • 1.  Prohibition Against Applicant Lie Detector Tests (Lab C §432.2)  10.32
      • 2.  Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)  10.33
    • C.  Fingerprints and Photos (Lab C §1051)  10.34
    • D.  HIV/AIDS Testing
      • 1.  Prohibition Against HIV/AIDS Test for Employment (Health & S C §§120975–121023)  10.35
      • 2.  Additional Laws to Consider  10.36
    • E.  Medical Exam  10.37
    • F.  Previous Arrests
      • 1.  Criminal Record (Govt C §12952; Lab C §432.7)  10.38
      • 2.  Specified Marijuana Arrests (Lab C §432.8)  10.39
    • G.  False Representations Inducing Employee to Move (Lab C §§970–977)  10.40
    • H.  Unauthorized Access to Applicant’s Credit History
      • 1.  Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) (CC §§1785.1–1785.36)  10.41
      • 2.  Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) (CC §§1786–1786.60)  10.42
      • 3.  Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (15 USC §§1681–1681x)  10.43
      • 4.  Limitation on Background Credit Checks (Lab C §1024.5)  10.44
    • I.  Prohibition Against Illegal Terms (Lab C §432.5)  10.45
    • A.  Exercising Rights Under Labor Code (Lab C §98.6)  10.48
    • B.  Filing Workers’ Compensation Claim (Lab C §132a)  10.49
    • C.  Exercising Rights Under Worker Safety Statutes
      • 1.  State Law (Lab C §6310)  10.50
      • 2.  Federal Law (29 USC §660)  10.51
    • D.  Refusing to Work in Unsafe Conditions (Lab C §6311)  10.52
    • A.  Jury Duty
      • 1.  State Law (Lab C §230(a))  10.53
      • 2.  Federal Law (Protection of Juror’s Employment Act (28 USC §1875))  10.54
    • B.  Serving as Witness (Lab C §230(b))  10.55
    • C.  Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking
      • 1.  Seeking Relief (Lab C §230(c))  10.56
      • 2.  Seeking Medical/Psychological Help (Lab C §230.1)  10.57
    • D.  Crime Victim Attendance at Judicial Proceedings (Lab C §230.2)  10.58
    • E.  Public Safety Activities
      • 1.  Emergency Duty as Safety Personnel (Lab C §230.3)  10.59
      • 2.  Volunteer Firefighter Training (Lab C §230.4)  10.60
      • 3.  Civil Air Patrol Employment Protection Act (Lab C §§1500–1507)  10.61
    • F.  Visiting Child’s School
      • 1.  Required Appearance After Suspension (Lab C §230.7)  10.62
      • 2.  Participation in School Activities (Lab C §230.8)  10.63
    • G.  Organ and Bone Marrow Donation (Lab C §§1508–1513)  10.64
    • H.  Financial Condition
      • 1.  Prohibition of Discharge for Wage Garnishment
        • a.  State Law (Lab C §2929)  10.65
        • b.  Federal Law (15 USC §1674)  10.66
      • 2.  Protection for Debtor in Bankruptcy (11 USC §525)  10.67
    • I.  Leave for Military Service
      • 1.  State Law (Mil & V C §394)  10.68
      • 2.  Federal Law (Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) (38 USC §§4301–4335))  10.69
    • J.  Discussion of Wages or Working Conditions (Lab C §§232–232.5)  10.70
    • K.  Conduct During Nonworking Hours  10.71
    • L.  Employee’s Political Views  10.72
    • A.  State Law
      • 1.  Whistleblower Protection Acts; Labor Code §§1101–1106  10.74
      • 2.  Additional Acts to Consider  10.75
    • B.  Federal Law
      • 1.  Sarbanes-Oxley Act  10.76
      • 2.  Additional Acts to Consider  10.77
    • A.  Acts That Pertain to Employee Wages and Hours
      • 1.  California Labor Code (§§200–856)
        • a.  Conduct Regulated  10.78
        • b.  Chart of Sample Labor Code Sections Covering Wages and Hours of Specific Employees  10.79
        • c.  Remedies  10.80
        • d.  Chart of Examples of Remedies for Violation of Wages and Hours Statutes  10.81
      • 2.  Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab C §§2698–2699.5)  10.82
      • 3.  Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus & P C §§17200–17210)  10.83
      • 4.  Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 USC §§201–219)  10.84
    • B.  Required Notices  10.85
    • C.  Failure to Pay Wages on Time  10.86
    • D.  Chart of Labor Code Provisions Setting Time or Place of Payment  10.87
    • E.  Method of Payment (Lab C §212)  10.88
    • F.  Wage Statements and Records (Lab C §226)  10.89
    • G.  Compensation
      • 1.  Minimum Wage (Lab C §1197)  10.90
      • 2.  Overtime (Lab C §510; 29 USC §207)  10.91

Selected Developments

May 2019 Update

In Rojas v HSBC Card Servs., Inc. (2018) 20 CA5th 427, the court found that the defendant employer HSBC had violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (Pen C §§630–638) when it recorded over 300 phone calls between one of its employees and her mother. See §3.32.

There is a limited exemption from Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination for religious corporations and associations. In Biel v St. James School (9th Cir 2018) 911 F3d 603, however, the Ninth Circuit held that a Catholic school teacher did not qualify as a “minister” for purposes of the exception. See §4.2.

In Abed v Western Dental Servs., Inc. (2018) 23 CA5th 726, the court of appeal held that a potential employer could be held liable under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for thwarting a pregnant woman from applying for a job by falsely telling her that no position was available. See §4.47.

Effective January 1, 2019, employers who have a workforce of at least five employees are required to provide sexual harassment training to all of their employees by January 1, 2020. Nonsupervisory employees will need 1 hour of training, supervisory employees will need 2 hours of training, and all new employees must receive this training within 6 months of hiring. Training must be provided every 2 years thereafter. Govt C §12950.1. See §§4.55, 4.61E.

A prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under FEHA may be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Govt C §12965(b). A prevailing defendant, on the other hand, may be awarded attorney fees only if the plaintiff’s claims are found to be frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. Govt C §12965(b), as amended by SB 1300. See §4.60.

New Govt C §12923 sets out legislative declarations in connection with how harassment cases are to be litigated in California courts. In a series of findings, the California Legislature:

  • Affirmed its approval of the standard set out in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence in Harris v Forklift Sys. (1993) 510 US 17, 25, 114 S Ct 367 that a plaintiff need only show that the sexual harassment “so altered the working conditions as to make it more difficult to do the job,” rather than being required to show that her productivity has declined as a result of the harassment;

  • Rejected the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Brooks v City of San Mateo (9th Cir 2000) 229 F3d 917, and declared that a single incident of sexual harassment may be sufficient for a hostile work environment case if it has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment;

  • Affirmed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Reid v Google, Inc. (2010) 50 C4th 512, 538, in which the court rejected the “stray remarks doctrine” developed under federal law (i.e., a discriminatory remark, even if not made directly in the context of an employment decision or uttered by a nondecision maker, may be relevant and circumstantial evidence of discrimination);

  • Declared that the standard for sexual harassment should not vary by the type of workplace, and disapproved of the holding in Kelly v Conco Cos. (2011) 196 CA4th 191; and

  • Declared its disapproval of the idea that harassment cases are appropriate for summary judgment and affirmed the decision in Nazir v United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 CA4th 243, which held that hostile work environment cases involve issues “not determinable on paper.” See §4.61A.

The scope of personal liability for harassment has been expanded. See §4.61B.

The Legislature has amended Govt C §12940(n) to clarify that an employer or other covered entity must engage in an interactive process with a disabled employee or applicant regarding effective reasonable accommodations in a manner that is both timely and in good faith. See §4.61C.

A new section has been added discussing “Expanded Sexual Harassment Liability in Business, Service, or Professional Relationships.” See §4.61D.

Under new Govt C §12950.2, employers are authorized to provide bystander intervention training to their employees in addition to the required harassment prevention training. This training would include information and guidance on how to enable bystanders to recognize potentially problematic behaviors and motivate bystanders to take action when they observe such problematic behaviors. See §4.61F.

A new section has been added, discussing the requirement that hotels and motels provide training regarding human trafficking to each employee who is likely to interact with human trafficking victims. The employees at whom training and education efforts are directed include those who work in the reception area, perform housekeeping duties, help customers in moving their possessions, or drive customers. See §4.61G.

An employer may not, in exchange for a raise or bonus, or as a condition of employment or continued employment require an employee to sign a release of a claim or right or require an employee to sign a nondisparagement agreement. This provision does not apply to a negotiated settlement agreement to resolve a claim filed by the employee in court, before an administrative agency, in an ADR forum or through an employer’s internal complaint process. For these purposes, a “negotiated” agreement means the agreement is voluntary, deliberate, and informed, provides consideration of value to the employee, and that the employee is given notice and an opportunity to retain an attorney or is represented by an attorney. Govt C §12964.5. See §4.61H.

Effective January 1, 2019, CC §1670.11 limits the use of nondisclosure agreements in contracts and settlement agreements that preclude a sexual harassment victim from testifying in an administrative, legislative, or judicial proceeding concerning alleged sexual harassment or alleged criminal conduct on the part of the other party to the contract or settlement agreement. See §4.61I.

Effective January 1, 2019, CCP §1001 prohibits (and makes void and against public policy) terms in settlement agreements that prevent the disclosure of factual information relating to claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment, harassment in professional relationships, discrimination based on sex, or retaliation that have been filed in a civil or administrative action. See §4.61J.

Effective January 1, 2019, the language required to waive unknown claims under CC §1542 has been changed. See §4.61K.

Civil Code §47(c) was amended effective January 1, 2019 to add three types of communications regarding sexual harassment that are now considered “privileged” communications (i.e., they cannot be used as a basis for a defamation suit unless they are made with “malice”). See §4.61L.

Government Code §12965(b) has been amended to provide that the prevailing party, including the DFEH, may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs (including expert witness fees) “except that, notwithstanding [CCP §998], a prevailing defendant shall not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.” See §4.61M.

In Nunies v HIE Holdings (9th Cir 2018) 908 F3d 428, the Ninth Circuit considered for the first time since the adoption of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) (Pub L 110–325, 122 Stat 3553) the “regarded-as” definition of disability. See §4.78.

In Alamillo v BNSF Ry. (9th Cir 2018) 869 F3d 916, the court held that an employee who was diagnosed with a sleep disorder failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because there was no record that the sleep disorder was a substantial motivating factor for his disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated by the employer before it knew of the employee’s medical condition. See §4.78.

Prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees. Rizo v Yovino (9th Cir 2018) 887 F3d 453. See §4.96.

In Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v Somers (2018) 583 US ___, 138 S Ct 767, the Supreme Court resolved a split among the Second, Ninth, and Fifth circuits about whether the antiretaliation protections of Dodd-Frank cover only persons who have reported alleged securities violations to the SEC, or whether they also cover persons who have made internal complaints without making a complaint to the SEC. The Second and Ninth Circuits had held that the antiretaliation protections applied to both categories of persons, while the Fifth Circuit restricted them to persons who filed complaints with the SEC. The Supreme Court agreed with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning. See §4.127A.

Effective January 1, 2019, the Ralph Civil Rights Act (CC §51.7) may be cited as the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976. The Bane Act (CC §52.1) shall be known as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. See §§4.128–4.129.

The Federal Arbitration Act preempts the special arbitration provisions in the Ralph Civil Rights Act and the Bane Act. Saheli v White Mem. Med. Ctr. (2018) 21 CA5th 308. See §4.128.

A new section has been added, discussing the “Legislative Employee Whistleblower Protection Act.” See §4.139A.

A new section has been added, discussing the “Legislative Discriminatory Harassment Retaliation Prevention Act.” See §4.139B.

California WARN notice requirements apply to temporary layoffs. International Bhd. of Boilermakers v NASSCO Holdings, Inc. (2017) 17 CA5th 1105. See §4.145.

Effective January 1, 2019, all publicly held corporations with executive offices in California must have at least one female member of the board of directors by the end of 2019. See §4.146I.

A claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab C §§2698–2699.5) for failure to provide or maintain accurate wage statements does not require proof of injury. Raines v Coastal Pac. Food Distribs., Inc. (2018) 23 CA5th 667. See §§7.5, 7.14, 10.89.

The California Supreme Court has granted review of Kim v Reins Int’l Cal., Inc. to consider the following issue: Does an employee bringing an action under PAGA lose standing to pursue representative claims as an “aggrieved employee” by dismissing his or her individual claims against the employer? Kim v Reins Int’l Cal., Inc. (review granted Mar. 28, 2018, S246911; superseded opinion at 18 CA5th 1052). See §7.12.

In Huff v Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. (2018) 23 CA5th 745, 754, relying on the definition of “aggrieved employee,” the court held that an employee aggrieved by one violation has standing to sue on a representative basis on behalf of employees who suffered additional violations by the same employer. See also Carrington v Starbucks Corp. (2018) 30 CA5th 504. See §7.16.

In Canela v Costco Wholesale Corp. (ND Cal, June 15, 2018, No. 13-cv-03598-BLF) 2018 US Dist Lexis 100891, the court granted a certificate of interlocutory appeal as to two issues: (1) whether, absent class certification, a PAGA plaintiff in federal court has Article III standing to represent absent aggrieved employees; and (2) whether a PAGA plaintiff in federal court can represent absent aggrieved employees without qualifying for class certification under Fed R Civ P 23. The Ninth Circuit has accepted Canela for interlocutory appeal. See §§7.17–7.18.

Courts are increasingly focusing on manageability in PAGA actions. See, e.g., Amiri v Cox Communications Cal., LLC (CD Cal 2017) 272 F Supp 3d 1187, 1194 (finding plaintiff’s PAGA claim unmanageable because numerous individualized determinations would be required to try PAGA representative claim). See §7.17.

California state courts have generally held that a PAGA claim can proceed only on a representative basis. See Khan v Dunn-Edwards Corp. (2018) 19 CA5th 804, 810 n1 (holding that individual employee could not pursue PAGA claims individually). See §7.21.

To satisfy PAGA exhaustion requirements, notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) must identify the specific Labor Code violations alleged and the facts and theories supporting the claim. The notice to the LWDA must also indicate that it is being submitted in a representative capacity. In Khan v Dunn-Edwards Corp. (2018) 19 CA5th 804, 809, the court granted summary judgment to the employer because the plaintiff’s notice referred only to his claims against his former employer and did not make any reference to other current or former employees. The court found that this failed to give fair notice to the employer, and therefore failed to comply with the administrative requirements of PAGA. See §7.33.

In Brown v Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 CA5th 824, 837, the court found that the plaintiff’s initial PAGA notice was not adequate with regard to his claims for missed meal and rest periods, or with regard to his claim for failure to pay all wages due, because the notice was “a string of legal conclusions that parroted the allegedly violated Labor Code provisions.” The court noted that it did not state facts and theories supporting the alleged violations. Conversely, the court found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged violations of Lab C §226(a) by stating that the employer failed to include the name and address of the employer on its wage statements. The court also found that an employee wishing to assert a PAGA claim under Lab C §558 need not specify that section in a PAGA notice because §558 merely sets forth a remedy. See §7.33.

In Atempa v Pedrazzani (2019) 27 CA5th 809, 820, the court of appeal affirmed that a party “other than the employer” who is responsible for a violation of Lab C §§558 or 1197.1 is liable for civil penalties “regardless of the identity or business structure of the employer.” See §7.38.

Any arbitration agreement that compels the waiver of representative claims under the PAGA is contrary to public policy and unenforceable as a matter of state law. See, e.g., Juarez v Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 CA5th 1197 (PAGA waiver unenforceable, and lack of severability clause in Spanish version made entire agreement unenforceable). See §7.50.

Courts have split on whether recovery of wages as civil penalties under Lab C §558 are arbitrable. In Esparza v KS Indus., L.P. (2017) 13 CA5th 1228, 1245, the court of appeal held that the recovery of unpaid wages under Lab C §558, even if recovered pursuant to PAGA, is a “private dispute” subject to arbitration. Another court has disagreed with Esparza, holding that claims under Lab C §558, including for wages, “are indivisible claims for civil penalties,” and are therefore subject to the rule that predispute arbitration agreements are unenforceable. Lawson v ZB, N.A. (2017) 18 CA5th 705, 725. The California Supreme Court has granted a petition for review in Lawson. Lawson v ZB, N.A. (review granted Mar. 21, 2018, No. S246711; superseded opinion at 18 CA5th 705). See §7.50B.

A new section has been added discussing the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Sys. Corp. v Lewis (2018) 584 US ___, 138 S Ct 1612. See §7.50C.

An employee aggrieved as to one Labor Code violation can bring PAGA claims on a representative basis for other alleged violations, even if the plaintiff employee was not personally subject to those violations. Huff v Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. (2018) 23 CA5th 745, 754; Carrington v Starbucks Corp. (2018) 30 CA5th 504, 519. See §7.57.

California courts must apply federal precedents when interpreting a federal fee-shifting statute to determine entitlement to fees and costs and what types of costs are recoverable. Quiles v Parent (2018) 28 CA5th 1000, 1010. See §8.2.

A procedural victory by a party that does not end the dispute does not make the party a prevailing party. See, e.g.,, LLC v (2017) 2 C5th 968 (dismissal on forum selection grounds did not make winner of motion prevailing party when loser refiled case in appropriate forum). See §8.36B.

When a court awards complete relief on one claim, rendering it unnecessary to reach alternative claims, the alternative claims cannot be deemed unsuccessful for purposes of calculating a fee award. Ibrahim v U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (9th Cir 2019) 912 F3d 1147. See §8.50.

Effective January 1, 2019, FEHA has been amended so that a prevailing defendant in a FEHA action cannot recover any attorney fees or costs—even if the plaintiff fails to recover more than a rejected §998 offer—unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. See §8.67.

Under CCP §998, an offer of compromise that is silent on whether it includes fees and costs must be interpreted as not including fees and costs, such that in determining whether the offeree’s recovery exceeded the offer, a court must compare the damages plus pre-offer fees and costs to the offer plus pre-offer fees and costs. See Martinez v Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 CA5th 1181, 1185. See §8.68.

On May 10, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an order approving new Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys, which went into effect November 1, 2018. All references to the former Rules in the text have been updated.

About the Authors

HILLARY JO BENHAM-BAKER is a partner in the law firm of Campins Benham-Baker LLP in San Francisco, where she represents employees in discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wage and hour matters. Ms. Benham-Baker is the author of chapter 3 (Damages for Wrongful Termination and Other Tort Claims). She received her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, with Outstanding Achievement in Pro Bono, and her B.A. with Honors from Pitzer College in Claremont, California. Ms. Benham-Baker is a member of the California Employment Lawyers Association, the National Employment Lawyers Association, and the Labor and Employment Law Section of the California State Bar. Ms. Benham-Baker was named as a 2011 Northern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine.

BRENDA F. BIREN is a partner in the law firm Sayad & Biren PC, a boutique employment law firm in San Francisco. Ms. Biren is a co-author of chapter 4 (Remedies Under Antidiscrimination and Other Employee Rights Statutes). She received her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and her A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley. Ms. Biren represents both employees and employers in a wide variety of employment, discrimination, wage and hour, privacy, unfair competition, and compliance matters, both advising and litigating in these areas of the law. Ms. Biren’s litigation experience is extensive and she has handled the representation of clients in mediation, arbitration, and trial as well as administrative proceedings before the California Labor Commissioner, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She has also handled the negotiation of employment and executive compensation agreements and severance packages, and she has conducted investigations. Ms. Biren has spoken frequently regarding employment law issues, written articles on employment law for publication, and appeared on television discussing employment issues.

JULIA CAMPINS is a partner in the law firm of Campins Benham-Baker LLP in San Francisco. Ms. Campins is the author of chapter 5 (Equitable Remedies). She received her J.D. from Columbia University School of Law and her B.A. from Columbia College. Ms. Campins is a member of the American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law and Litigation Sections and the National Employment Lawyers Association. She serves as co-editor of the ABA Section of Litigation Class Actions and Derivative Suits Newsletter, and has also authored several articles for that publication, as well as the ABA Labor and Employment Law Section Employee Benefits Committee Newsletter and the National Employment Lawyers Association’s publication The Employee Advocate. In 2011 Ms. Campins was named a Rising Star among Northern California attorneys by Super Lawyers Magazine. Ms. Campins specializes in representing employees and plaintiffs in employment discrimination, civil rights, and employee benefits actions.

MICHAEL FREEDMAN is an attorney with Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP in San Francisco. Mr. Freedman is a co-author of chapter 8 (Attorney Fees, Costs, and Interest). He received his J.D. from Stanford School of Law, and his B.A. from Claremont McKenna College (cum laude). Mr. Freedman’s practice focuses on complex employment, appellate, and civil rights litigation.

BRIAN J. MILLS is a partner in the Orange County office of Snell & Wilmer in Costa Mesa. Mr. Mills is a co-author of chapter 6 (Punitive Damages). He received his J.D. (magna cum laude) from Loyola University School of Law, and his B.A. from the University of California, Irvine. Mr. Mills is a member of the American Bar Association, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Orange County Bar Association, and the Warren J. Ferguson American Inn of Court. Mr. Mills concentrates his practice in employment litigation and counseling, providing clients with ongoing advice on personnel matters; conducting investigations into workplace disputes and violence; and developing employee handbooks, contracts, and personnel policies tailored to meet clients’ business needs. He represents employers in all areas of litigation in state and federal court and in arbitrations, handling claims of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, reasonable accommodation of disabilities, retaliation, wrongful termination, and class action and individual wage and hour disputes. Mr. Mills practices before state and federal agencies, including the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, the California Employment Development Department, and the California Labor Commissioner. Mr. Mills received the Wiley W. Manuel Certificate for Pro Bono Legal Service from the Public Law Center, and in 2011–2012 was named a Rising Star among Southern California Lawyers in employment and labor law by Super Lawyers Magazine. He serves as a board member on the Orange County Community Tennis Association and helps organize the Top Gun Charity Tennis Tournament. Mr. Mills has also written and spoken on numerous employment law topics.

CARA PANEBIANCO is a founding partner in the law firm of E Squared Law Group LLP in San Francisco. Ms. Panebianco is the author of chapter 2 (Breach of Contract Remedies). She received her J.D. from Golden Gate School of Law and her B.A. from Texas A&M University. Ms. Panebianco is a member of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the State Bar of California. She focuses her practice on employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and accommodation claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Title VII, the California Family Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, pregnancy disability leave, wage and hour claims, and workplace safety and leave issues. In addition to her private practice, Ms. Panebianco is a lecturer at San Francisco State University, where she teaches Legal Basics of Human Resources. Before starting her own firm, Ms. Panebianco was an associate at the Shea Law Offices, and before that she worked with the Fair Employment and Housing Commission on decisions and regulations related to both employment and housing.

HUNTER PYLE is the founder of Hunter Pyle Law in Oakland. He is a co-author of chapter 7 (Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)). Mr. Pyle received his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 1997 and his B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1994. In 2007, he was named “one to watch” in the Daily Journal’s “Top Northern California Law Firms.” In 2009 and 2010, he was recognized as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers. Every year since 2011 he has been recognized as a “Super Lawyer.” In 2014, Mr. Pyle joined both the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum of the Top Trial Lawyers in America. In addition to practicing law full time, Mr. Pyle is a Lecturer at UC Berkeley’s School of Law, where he teaches the Employment Law course to second and third year law students. He has also been a faculty member of the Stanford Law School Trial Advocacy Workshop for several years. Mr. Pyle is also the primary contributor to two blogs, and

SANFORD JAY ROSEN is the senior partner in the law firm of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP in San Francisco. Mr. Rosen is a co-author of chapter 8 (Attorney Fees, Costs, and Interest). He received his LL.B. from Yale Law School and his A.B. from Cornell University. Mr. Rosen is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, COCA, the National Employment Lawyers Association, and the California Employment Lawyers Association. He specializes in general litigation, civil rights and civil liberties litigation, appeals, and attorney fees. Mr. Rosen has been selected to the Northern California Super Lawyers list every year since its inception in 2004. He received the 2008 Diversity Pioneer Award from the Council on Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO) for his work in increasing minority representation in legal education and the profession. In addition, Mr. Rosen has been honored by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (MALDEF), The Prisoners Union, and the City and County of San Francisco. He has also written and spoken on behalf of CEB and other organizations.

PAMELA M. SAYAD is the senior and founding partner of Sayad & Biren PC, a boutique employment law firm in San Francisco. Ms. Sayad is a co-author of chapter 4 (Remedies Under Antidiscrimination and Other Employee Rights Statutes). She received her J.D. from the University of Notre Dame School of Law and her A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley. She is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Ms. Sayad represents both employees and employers in a wide variety of employment, discrimination, wage and hour, privacy, unfair competition, and compliance matters, both advising and litigating in these areas of the law. Her practice includes representation of executives in the negotiation of employment and executive compensation agreements and severance packages. She also represents clients in white collar criminal defense investigations and litigation. She is an experienced and highly regarded mediator, especially in employment mediation. Ms. Sayad regularly speaks on employment issues to both legal and lay audiences and has appeared on television and radio talk shows discussing employment issues.

MARY-CHRISTINE (M.C.) SUNGAILA is a partner in the Orange County office of Haynes and Boone, LLP, in Costa Mesa. Ms. Sungaila is a co-author of chapter 6 (Punitive Damages). She received her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, and her B.A. from Stanford University. Ms. Sungaila is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council, the International Association of Defense Counsel, the American Law Institute, the American Bar Association, the Litigation Section of the State Bar of California, the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the Orange County Bar Association. She is also a member of the Board of Overseers of the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, a member of the National Chamber Litigation Center California Litigation Advisory Committee, State Coordinator of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s online iCivics education program, and California Ambassador for the Vision 2020 Equality in Sight Conference and Initiative. Ms. Sungaila concentrates her practice on appellate matters, advising clients statewide, nationally, and internationally on cutting edge and core business issues and providing clients with a strategic approach during pretrial and trial consultations, especially in situations in which a “key case” outcome may affect a series of cases for a client. She serves as a consultant to CEB’s Civil Appellate Practice, California Civil Writ Practice, and California Civil Discovery Practice. Ms. Sungaila has been repeatedly named as one of California’s Top Women Litigators by the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal, and is a prolific writer and speaker at CEB programs and other legal forums.

THE HONORABLE ALEXANDER H. WILLIAMS, III (Ret.) is a mediator, arbitrator, and discovery referee with ADR Services, Inc. in Los Angeles. Judge Williams is the author of chapter 1 (Approaching Employment Remedies). He received his LL.B. from the University of Virginia School of Law and his B.A. (cum laude) from Yale University. Judge Williams sat on the Los Angeles Superior Court for 24 years, the last three years of which he served as a full-time settlement judge, settling hundreds of major civil cases. In addition to his private practice as a mediator, Judge Williams teaches as an adjunct professor at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law. He is a member of the California Judges Association, the American Bar Association, the Intellectual Property, Labor and Employment Law, and Litigation Sections of the State Bar of California, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, the California Dispute Resolution Council (Board of Directors, 2010), the Southern California Mediation Association, the Judge Advocates Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the Association of the United States Navy. Judge Williams handles mediation, arbitration, and discovery matters for employment, business, personal injury, real estate, and class action cases. He has been an instructor for Los Angeles Superior Court Settlement courses, and regularly teaches and speaks on judicial and dispute resolution matters. He was named Peacemaker of the Year by the Southern California Mediation Association.

ROBERT W. WOOD is the managing partner of Wood LLP in San Francisco. Mr. Wood is the author of chapter 9 (Taxation of Judgments and Settlements). He received his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School and his A.B. from Humboldt State University, and attended the University of Sheffield in England. Mr. Wood is certified as a Tax Specialist by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization and is a former Chair of the Taxation Law Specialization Commission and a former Vice Chair of the Executive Committee of the California State Bar Tax Section. A central part of Mr. Wood’s national practice is advising lawyers, accountants, and litigants on the tax aspects of litigation payments and recoveries, and on appropriate tax planning and documentation of settlement agreements. He also regularly represents taxpayers before the IRS and the courts. In addition to more than 30 other tax books, he is the author of Taxation of Damage Awards and Settlement Payments (4th ed 2009 with 2012 supplement), Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B (2009), and Legal Guide to Independent Contractor Status (5th ed 2010), as well as hundreds of articles dealing with the tax treatment of litigation recoveries. He speaks nationally on this topic to accountants, lawyers, and businesspeople. Mr. Wood is the recipient of the V. Judson Klein Award from the Taxation Section of the California State Bar in 2006, and was named a Super Lawyer (2005–2011) by Super Lawyer Magazine, and one of the Best Lawyers in America (2006–2012) by Woodward/White, Inc.

CATHA WORTHMAN is a partner at the law firm of Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP in Berkeley. Ms. Worthman is the co-author of chapter 7 (Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)). She received her J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she was admitted to the Order of the Coif, and her M.A. in International and Area Studies through a joint degree program, and her B.A. (with highest honors) from the University of California, Berkeley. Ms. Worthman represents employees and retirees in class actions and other public interest litigation, and provides advice and training for unions and other clients. She is a co-editor of the newsletter for the Employee Benefits Committee of the ABA’s Labor and Employment Law Section, and is a contributing author to Employee Benefits Law (BNA). Ms. Worthman is also a supervising attorney with the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center’s Worker’s Rights Clinic. She was named a Northern California Super Lawyer in the field of Plaintiffs’ Employment Litigation in 2015 and 2016, a Super Lawyers Rising Star from 2011–2014, and listed as a Top Woman Attorney in Northern California from 2011–2016.

OnLAW System Requirements:
Desktop: Windows XP, 7 or 8, Mac OS 10.8
Mobile: iOS6, iOS7, Android 4.2
Firefox, Chrome, IE and Safari browsers

Note: OnLAW may work with some devices running older versions of these Operating Systems or Windows RT; however, functionality is not guaranteed.

Please see FAQs for more details.
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Employment Law
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Employment Law