Damages

30 Oct You’re Unlikely to Pay Defendant’s Expenses

Posted at 17:53h in Attorney's Fees, California Law, Federal Law, FEHA

You're unlikely to pay defendant's expenses, even if you lose your harassment, discrimination, or retaliation case. This is a concern many people have when they consider suing their employer. While it's not technically impossible, it's very unlikely in practice. In general, you're unlikely to pay defendant's expenses (at least their attorney's fees) in the United States Many non-lawyers assume that if you lose a lawsuit, you have to pay for the opposing party's expenses. But this is generally not the case in the United States. Under the American Rule, each party pays their own attorneys. This default rule applies unless a statute or contract says otherwise. Statutes that require a losing party to pay for the winning party's expenses are called shifting statutes. Shifting statutes: Exception to the American Rule Shifting statutes apply to certain types of legal claims. For example, you can get attorney's fees if you win a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. That's because that law specifically says you can. If it didn't, both sides would pay their own attorneys, regardless of outcome. Conversely, if you're injured in a car accident and sue the other driver for negligence, you'll probably have to pay your own attorney, even if you win. Likewise, if you lose, the other driver will still pay her own attorneys. That's because no shifting statute applies to negligence lawsuits in California. Another exception to the American Rule is contracts. Some contracts say that if one party sues the other in connection with the contract, the loser pays the winner's expenses. But this more common in commercial settings. If you're suing your employer for discrimination, you're not suing to enforce a contract, so this less of a concern in a typical employment case. Lastly, as a practical matter, most cases settle before trial. Shifting statutes only apply once trial is over. But very few cases make it that far. So even when a shifting statute applies, the case usually settles before it comes into play. If a case settles before a verdict, each side typically pays their own attorneys. Asymmetrical fee and cost shifting in Title VII and FEHA Even if an exception to the American Rule applies, there is an exception to the exception for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases in California. If you're bringing a lawsuit in California for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at work, you're likely bringing it under Title VII or the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA). Title VII is federal law and the FEHA is state law. They have some differences, but both prohibit discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at work. Title VII and FEHA both provide for asymmetrical fee and cost shifting (fees are what you pay your attorney, costs are other expenses). Asymmetrical shifting schemes make it easier for one side to recover fees and costs. Under both Title VII and FEHA, a victorious plaintiff can recover both fees and costs from the defendant. But a victorious defendant cannot recover fees or costs from a plaintiff unless the plaintiff's case is frivolous (courts very rarely find that a case is frivolous). This gets a bit tricky because California has a statute that allows prevailing parties to collect costs (but not attorney's fees) from the losing party. But Title VII and the FEHA are exceptions to this rule. Accordingly, while California's default rule entitles a prevailing defendant to costs, this is not the case with non-frivolous Title VII or FEHA claims. Talk to an employment attorney about your potential discrimination, harassment, or retaliation case In summary, Title VII or FEHA plaintiffs are unlikely to pay the defendant's expenses, even if they lose. As such, the risk of bearing the employer's expenses should not prevent you from pursuing a legitimate claim for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. This is why the asymmetrical shifting scheme exists. The drafters of Title VII and the FEHA didn't want fear of having to pay defendant's expenses to scare plaintiffs away. Of course, this is only one of many things to consider before suing your employer. But don't let fear of losing and paying the defendant's expenses prevent you from having a lawyer evaluate your case. If you need an attorney for an employment matter, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram....

21 Oct Different Sources of Employment Law

Posted at 14:25h in Attorney's Fees, California Law, Damages, Employment Discrimination, Federal Law, FEHA, Litigation - Suing Your Employer, Remedies, Title VII

There are different sources of employment law in California. You've probably heard about Title VII. This is federal law, which Congress enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits harassment and discrimination in the workplace. But California also has its own version of Title VII: the Fair Employment and Housing Act, also known as the FEHA. Like Title VII, the FEHA prohibits workplace harassment and discrimination. Both Title VII and the FEHA apply in California. If you're considering suing your employer, you may be able to choose between the two. Different sources of employment law, similar rules and remedies After the federal government enacted Title VII, many states passed their own versions of the law. The FEHA is California's version of Title VII. Because the FEHA is based on Title VII, there are many similarities between the two laws. For example, both prohibit harassment and discrimination based on certain characteristics, such as race, gender, and religion. They both also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who oppose harassment or discrimination. Moreover, they both set up a mandatory administrative process. Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If you want to sue your employer under Title VII, you have to go to the EEOC first. Likewise, the FEHA has the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Like under Title VII, you must go through the DFEH's administrative process before you sue your employer in court under the FEHA. Finally, Title VII and the FEHA both authorize punitive damages and allow victorious plaintiffs to collect attorney fees and costs. They both also have asymmetrical cost shifting. This means prevailing plaintiffs can recover fees and costs as a matter of right, but when defendants win, they can't recover fees and costs unless the plaintiff's lawsuit was frivolous. Though similar, there are important differences between Title VII and the FEHA While similar, there some key differences between Title VII and the FEHA. Perhaps the most important difference from a plaintiff's prospective is Title VII's damages cap. While the FEHA allows for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, Title VII limits recoverable damages. Additionally, Title VII is federal law. This means that federal courts automatically have jurisdiction over Title VII cases. While California courts can hear cases involving federal law, a defendant being sued under federal law has the right to remove the case to federal court. While this doesn't affect the substantive law, federal courts use different procedural rules. For example, California courts do not require plaintiffs to win unanimous jury verdicts, while federal courts do require unanimous verdicts. Moreover, it's often more expensive to litigate in federal court and plaintiffs' attorney are generally less experienced there. Accordingly, plaintiffs often prefer state court. Because the FEHA is not federal law, defendants have a harder time removing FEHA cases to federal court. Finally, there are some differences in the substance of the two laws. For example, the FEHA prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It's unclear whether Title VII does so, though the Supreme Court is expected to conclusively resolve this issue in the spring of 2020. Different sources of employment law: which law should I use? Now you know there are different sources of employment law in California. If you're considering suing your employer, you might be wondering: which source of law should I use? The answer: it depends. Most plaintiffs' attorney probably prefer the FEHA. But that doesn't mean that every plaintiff in every situation should proceed under the FEHA. There are some instances in which Title VII is the way to go. First, in some situations, Title VII is your only option. For example, if you are an employee of the federal government, you generally can't use the FEHA to sue the federal government in state court. There are also some areas, called federal enclaves, where only federal law applies. If the offending conduct occurred in a federal enclave, Title VII may be the exclusive remedy. Additionally, you may be in an area where the juries are not favorable for plaintiffs. Because the applicable federal court may be in a different city or county, it's possible you could get a more favorable jury in federal court. Because you probably can't bring your FEHA claims in federal court, you may want to use Title VII if this is the case. These are only a few of the many factors involved in choosing whether to pursue claims under Title VII or the FEHA. Ultimately, this is a decision you'll need make in consultation with your attorney. It's also important to remember that there are other laws, both state and federal, that might apply in the employment context. If you believe you have a claim against your employer, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. To stay up to date on our blog posts and more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram....

24 Mar Attorney’s fees and overtime cases

Posted at 10:43h in Attorney's Fees, California Labor Code, California Law, Legal Assistance, Overtime, PAGA - Private Attorney's General Act, Wages

People often ask about attorney's fees and overtime cases. The California law that allows you to sue your employer for unpaid overtime has a one-way fee shifting provision. If your employer doesn't pay you overtime you've earned, you can sue them. If you win, you may be able to collect attorney's fees from the employer in addition to the unpaid overtime. But if you lose, your employer cannot go after you for attorney fees. That's how the one-way fee shifting works. One-way shifting of attorney's fees and overtime cases There's a simple logic behind the one-way fee shifting provision. It is California public policy that employees should get paid for the work that they've performed. Because most unpaid overtime claims are not that large, lawyers would be hesitant to take them if all they could only collect part of their client's recovery. Accordingly, allowing employees to collect fees to pay their attorney makes these claims worthwhile for attorneys. But the possibility of paying for defendant's attorney's fees would deter employees from suing. Therefore, this rule only goes one way to further incentivize employees to sue for unpaid overtime. Attorney's fees and the Private Attorney General Act There is also something called the Private Attorney General Act or PAGA. The PAGA basically deputizes citizens to recover penalties on behalf of the state of California. If you win, you can keep 75% of the penalties. You then pay the state the remaining 25%. The PAGA covers many types of claim under the labor code, including overtime and minimum wage. If you have a claim that doesn't include attorney's fees, be able to sue under the PAGA and get fees that way. If you believe you have a claim for unpaid overtime, contact the Khadder Law Firm today for a free consultation. For more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram....

21 Feb Possible Mediation Outcomes

Posted at 09:58h in Accomodations, Calculating Damages, CFRA, Damages, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Emotional Distress, Employment Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate, FEHA, FMLA, Hiring Preference, Leave of Absence, Long Term Disability, Loss of Employment, Loss of Income, Mediation, Medical Condition, Mental Disability, Physical Disability, Re-Employment, Remedies, Resignation, Settlement, Short Term Disability, Trial, Work-Life Expectancy, Wrongful Termination

One of the possibilities in mediation settlement is for the employer to agree to reinstate the employee to the position that they held before they were demoted, or to increase the employee’s pay back to their original pay before their pay was reduced. Mediation can also provide the employee with money for any economic harm or emotional distress that they suffered because of discrimination. For example, if you were paid less, you could, in a mediation, get the employer to agree to reimburse you for the difference of what you were originally paid with what they were paying you when they reduced your salary. However, if you sue your employer, chances are there is going to be some, if not a lot, of friction. Often, in a mediation, an employer will demand, as part of a settlement that involves a payment of substantial money, that the employee resign from their employment and agree never to seek re-employment with that employer in the future. That is not always easy to accept, but if the employer is willing to pay enough money to settle the case, then it may be worth it to resign from your job and agree never to reapply for any job with that same employer. That’s a tough decision to make. Some people would rather have steady income than take a big lump sum of money and have to find a new job. Each case is different, and you have to weigh the risks and benefits of each decision. It is important to consider all of these things if you decide to take legal action against your employer while still employed. For people who have been terminated, the decision is much easier. If they have been wrongfully terminated, there is not going to be the issue of awkwardness or friction at the workplace, because they are no longer there. That makes the decision of taking legal action easier. But, just because you are still employed, by no means should you automatically give up your legal rights to stay with the employer. If you have been discriminated on the basis of your disability by your employer, contact an employment lawyer today at the Khadder Law Firm for a free initial consultation....

18 Feb Disability Discrimination and Continuing Employment – Is Mediation the Answer?

Posted at 09:54h in Accomodations, Calculating Damages, California Law, Damages, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Employment Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate, FEHA, FMLA, Hiring Preference, Long Term Disability, Mediation, Protected Categories, Remedies, Settlement, Short Term Disability, Trial, Wrongful Termination

Most likely, if somebody is still employed but they experience disability discrimination other than termination; for instance, their job duties or responsibilities are reduced, they get demoted or their pay is reduced simply because they have a disability, then you may still have a disability discrimination case that is worth pursuing. It is awkward to say the least, however, to sue an employer when you are still working for the employer. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, but in those cases, often the best course of action for all parties involved, especially the employee with the disability, is to try and resolve the case short of going to court or having a trial. Mediation is a voluntary process. The parties don’t have to accept a settlement. But, there is a lot more room for creativity if a case is settled in mediation or other negotiations as opposed to having to take a claim to trial and get a judgment. If you have been discriminated on the basis of your disability by your current employer, contact an employment lawyer today at the Khadder Law Firm for a free initial consultation. ...