This case decides whether an individual be held personally liable for retaliation under the FEHA.

This is a case every counsel for an employer should use as an example of why compliance is so important.  We can kvetch all we want about the laws, but kvetching doesn’t get financial results.

This case was over a ministerial error of $44.63.  The Defendant settled for $10,500.00 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees to be determined by the Court.

The trial court awarded no fees in response to the Plaintiff’s request for over $46k in fees.  The Court of Appeal reversed and only awarded $500.

While the courts weren’t having any of the exorbitant attorneys’ fee arguments, they still had to award something because that’s what the law requires.  But that’s not what strikes me here.

What strikes me is a $10,500+ (ultimately a nice round $11k) for a $44.63 screw up.  Not to mention all of the attorneys’ fees involved, including on the appeal.

The bottom line is: don’t underpay your employees.  Err on the side of overpayment.  If you don’t like it, write a letter to your state representatives (who really should do something about this.)

I know they settled here so it doesn’t matter–but does anyone think that if this case had ended up in a $10,500.00 judgment that there would be an Eighth Amendment challenge?

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Ma’s bill, AB 2716, would extend paid sick leave to any employee who works for seven or more days each year. Employees would “earn” sick time at the rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked. Sick time would carry over from year to year, but medium-to-large employers could limit annual paid sick days to nine days, small employers to five days.
Sick leave also could be used to care for a sick family member or to recover from domestic violence or sexual assault. Employers who flout the law could face fines of up to $250 per incident.

I hope the committee investigates whether this plan has worked in San Francisco.

Big changes will be coming to this site in the next several weeks.  I want to apologize for the light posting of late.  Much has been going on in my personal and professional life.  I will get a handle on this year’s legislation and gear up for the changes.

Stay tuned.

Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversed in part of judgment in civil action. Issues: (1) Should California law recognize the “stray remarks” doctrine, which permits the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment to disregard isolated discriminatory remarks or comments unrelated to the decision-making process as insufficient to establish discrimination? (2) Are evidentiary objections not expressly ruled on at the time of decision on a summary judgment motion preserved for appeal?  George, C.J., was absent and did not participate. Votes: Baxter, A.C.J., Kennard, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

This one is worth following.