BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 462 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 26, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Roger Hernández, Chair SB 462 (Monning) - As Introduced: February 21, 2013 SENATE VOTE : 26-9 SUBJECT : Employment: compensation. SUMMARY : Makes the award of attorney's fees and costs where the prevailing party is not an employee contingent on a finding by the court that the employee brought the court action in bad faith. Specifically, this bill : 1)Adds, for purposes of an existing attorney-fee provision under the Labor Code, if the prevailing party in the court action is not an employee, attorney's fees and costs shall be awarded only if the court finds that the employee brought the court action in bad faith. 2)Clarifies that the existing attorney-fee provision does not apply to any cause of action for which attorney's fees are recoverable under Labor Code Section 1194. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that in any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney's fees and costs upon the initiation of the action. This section shall not apply to an action brought by the Labor Commissioner, to a surety issuing a bond, as specified, or to an action to enforce a mechanics lien. (Lab. Code Sec. 218.5.) 2)States that the above provision does not apply to any action for which attorney's fees are recoverable under Labor Code Section 1194, which applies to minimum wage and overtime claims. (Lab. Code Sec. 218.5.) FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, to the extent the provisions of this bill remove existing barriers for employees seeking to pursue wage claims, SB 462 Page 2 this bill would result in potential ongoing increased costs to the courts for increased civil filings. For every 500 additional limited civil filings (less than ten filings per county annually), annual costs to the courts are estimated at $230,000. In addition, to the extent a state agency acts as employer, there could be potential future lost recovery of attorneys' fees and costs that a state agency otherwise could have been awarded. COMMENTS : Existing law, Labor Code section 218.5, provides an award of attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action brought for nonpayment of wages (other than minimum wage and overtime), fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions. "Wages" under this statute are defined as straight-time wages above the minimum wage and contractually agreed-upon or bargained-for wages." (Earley v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1430.) This bill would add to this provision that a non-employee prevailing party (presumably the employer) could only be awarded attorney's fees and costs only if the court finds that the employee brought the court action in bad faith. The author argues that existing law is unclear as to the standard for awarding attorney's fees in these types of actions since another attorney fee provision (under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)) requires the suit to be objectively frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation for an award of attorney's fees to a defendant employer. The author further asserts that a recent court case, Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, left open the attorney fee standard for these types of actions. In Kirby, the court analyzed whether meal and rest break claims fell within the scope of nonpayment of other wages under Labor Code section 218.5 to determine whether the prevailing employer defendant could be awarded attorney's fees. The Kirby court found that the claim did not involve Labor Code section 218.5 wages, so the court denied an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing defendant employer because the two-way fee-shifting statute did not apply. History of Fee-Shifting Provisions Under Labor Code Section 218.5 The Legislature reviewed the attorney's fees issue when it SB 462 Page 3 codified the court's holding in Earley v. Los Angeles County (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, which held that the two-way attorney's fees provision under Labor Code section 218.5 does not apply to minimum wage and overtime claims brought under Labor Code section 1194. AB 2509 (Steinberg, Ch. 876, Stats. 2000), among other things, amended Labor Code section 218.5 to provide that the two-way attorney's fees provisions do not apply to Labor Code section 1194 wage claims, which only provides a one-way attorney's fees award in favor of the prevailing plaintiff. As such, the Legislature reaffirmed its intent to limit employee attorney-fee liability for minimum wage and overtime claims, yet it continued the two-way fee shifting provision for Labor Code section 218.5 claims that had been in statute since it was enacted in 1986. (See SB 2570 (Lockyer, Ch. 1211, Stats. 1986).) Clarification of Attorney's Fee Provision Under Labor Code Section 1194 Existing law provides that the two-way fee shifting provisions under Labor Code section 218.5 do not apply to any action for which attorney's fees are recoverable under Section 1194. This bill would clarify that these provisions do not apply to any cause of action for which attorney's fees are recoverable under Section 1194. In doing so, this bill would codify the court's holding in Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 556. In its reversal of the trial court's determination that both of the employee's causes of action, one for reporting time and one for split shift pay, were Labor Code section 218.5 claims, the Aleman court held that only the reporting time claim was a Labor Code section 218.5 claim, while the split shift pay claim was a Labor Code section 1194 claim. (Id. at pp. 582-583.) For purposes of determining the amount of attorney's fees awardable to the defendant employer, the court analyzed whether the phrase "any action" in Labor Code section 218.5 meant "any civil action in which attorney fees are recoverable under Section 1194, or whether 'any action' simply means any cause of action." (Id. at pp. 583-584; emphasis in original.) The court determined that the Legislature intended to prevent an employee, who files a Section 1194 claim in the same action as a Section 218.5 claim, from being unjustly subject to adverse fees awards while another employee, who files one action for a Section 1194 claim and separate action for a Section 218.5 claim, would only be subject SB 462 Page 4 to adverse fees awards on the Section 218.5 claim. Accordingly, the court held that the phrase "any action" means "any cause of action." This bill would codify this holding. Upon passage out of this Committee this bill will be referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes the following in support of this bill: "[The Fair] Employment and Housing Act allows for reasonable attorney's fees to a "prevailing party," (see Cal[.] Gov[.] Code [Sec.] 12965(b)) but this standard has been interpreted by the courts to mean that a prevailing defendant can be awarded attorney's fees only if the suit is objectively "frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation." (See Cummings v. Benco Building Services (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1383.) No court has directly interpreted the attorney's fees standard under [Labor Code] section 218.5. In fact, the question was left open, leading to even more confusion for courts and workers alike, in a recent California Supreme Court decision, Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, 274. Not only is this provision anomalous among all other state and federal wage claim statutes, but it also is one of only two provisions in the California Labor Code that provides attorney's fees for a prevailing defendant. Most provisions of the Labor Code allow only a prevailing employee to recover attorney's fees. [This bill] would provide clarification making the award of attorney's fees and costs where the prevailing party is not an employee contingent on a finding by the court that the employee brought the court action in bad faith." The sponsor, California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA), further argues that the two-way fee shifting provision in Labor Code section 218.5 has a chilling effect on contractual wage claims. Although these claims may be relatively small (as noted by this Committee when this statute was added to the Labor Code), CELA asserts that the attorney's fees racked up by employers as the case goes up and down the court system repels plaintiffs (and attorneys) from bringing these types of claims SB 462 Page 5 (that are typically filed with other claims, such as for overtime, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty). CELA further asserts that many times, plaintiff attorneys do not bring claims under Labor Code section 218.5 but instead file wage claims for minimum wage and overtime because an unsuccessful plaintiff employee would not be liable for the defendant employer's attorney's fees. In support of this bill, the California Labor Federation states that "California is one of only three states with a 'prevailing party' standard where a worker may unconditionally be liable for the employer's attorney's fees in a wage claim action. Given the realities of wage and hour litigation for a worker, this rule is unfair. A worker may have a totally legitimate wage claim, but lack access to the records needed to prove it. In the underground economy, where workers are often paid 'off the books' and in cash, records are few and far between and proving what an employer did or did not do is nearly impossible. Workers in those kinds of jobs should not be saddled with the employer's attorney's fees simply because they were not able to prevail." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Construction Employers' Association, in opposition, argues that "[t]his bill would limit the ability for employers to be awarded attorney's fees and costs in any action of wages, fringe benefits or health and welfare or pension fund contributions unless the court finds that the employee brought the court action in 'bad faith.' As you know, the 'bad faith' standard is very subjective and this measure would make it exceedingly difficult for employers to collect attorney's fees in all but the most egregious court actions. This will likely prompt a flood of costly new litigation because the potential downside for employees is so low." CSAC Excess Insurance Authority also asserts that"[i]f an employer is successful in their efforts to defend against an action, they should equally be entitled to seek recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs without first having to satisfy an additional burden of whether an action was in bad faith. Not only does this take away the equal right to employers, but it also desensitizes plaintiffs and their counsel SB 462 Page 6 from adequately considering the merits of the intended action prior to filing." A coalition of opposition argues that this bill "undermines the Supreme Court and the clear language of the Labor Code that has been in place since 1986, in order to provide a one-sided attorney fee provision that will incentivize further meritless wage and hour litigation. . . . [Existing law's] two-way attorney's fee shifting provision was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, 53 Cal.4th 1244 (2012). SB 462 alters [Labor Code] section 218.5 and the Court's holding by providing that an employer may only obtain its attorney's fees if the employer can prove the action was brought in bad faith. 'Bad faith' is a difficult standard to prove and will substantially limit an employer's ability to recover its attorney's fees for defending litigation that lacked merit. . . . SB 462 disrupts this balance by limiting an employer's ability to recover its attorney's fees for meritless claims, which could create more frivolous litigation." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Conference Board of Amalgamated Transit Union California Conference of Machinists California Employment Lawyers Association (sponsor) California Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers California Immigrant Policy Center California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Nurses Association California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. California Teamsters Public Affairs Council Engineers and Scientists of California, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers Local 20 International Longshore and Warehouse Union Professional and Technical Engineers, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers Local 21 United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council UNITE-HERE Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132 Wage Justice Center Opposition SB 462 Page 7 Acclamation Insurance Management Services Air Conditioning Trade Association Allied Managed Care Associated Builders and Contractors of California Associated General Contractors Brea Chamber of Commerce California Apartment Association California Chamber of Commerce California Chapter of American Fence Association California Fence Contractors' Association California Framing Contractors Association California Grocers Association California Lodging Industry Association California Manufacturers and Technology Association California Retailers Association California Special Districts Association Camarillo Chamber of Commerce Construction Employers' Association CSAC Excess Insurance Authority Culver City Chamber of Commerce Engineering Contractors' Association Flasher Barricade Association Fullerton Chamber of Commerce Grater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Greater Fresno Chamber of Commerce Marin Builders Association National Federation of Independent Business Oxnard Chamber of Commerce Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce and Convention-Visitors Bureau Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce Southwest California Legislative Council Tulare Chamber of Commerce Valley Industry and Commerce Association Western Electrical Contractors Association Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 SB 462 Page 8