A Pasadena Employment Law Firm

Committed to Helping Workers

Phone

(626) 380-9000

  • Minimum Wage Workers

    In a historic 14-1 vote yesterday, the Los Angeles City Council voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2020. The city attorney’s office has been directed to draft the language of the law for the Council’s final approval. Mayor Eric Garcetti has stated that he intends to sign the law.

    California’s current minimum wage is $9 an hour, and is set to increase to $10 an hour statewide on January 1, 2016.

    The Los Angeles minimum wage increases expected once the law is finalized are as follows:

    • July 1, 2016: $10.50
    • July 1, 2017: $12.00
    • July 1, 2018: $13.25
    • July 1, 2019: $14.25
    • July 1, 2020: $15

    After that, the minimum wage would increase annually pegged to a measure of inflation. Small businesses would have an extra year to comply and certain non-profits could seek an exemption.

    This law will have a tremendous impact on working Angelenos. According to a report by Economic Roundtable, the UCLA Labor Center, and the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, 723,000 employed, working-age adults in Los Angeles earn . . .

  • Court Costs

    On May 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court unanimously decided a case that will be a game-changer for lawsuits brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, the Court addressed the issue of when losing FEHA plaintiffs may be required to pay their opponents’ case costs. The Court held that a losing plaintiff may be ordered to pay a prevailing defendant’s costs only if the “court finds the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.”

    Williams was a firefighter who sued his employer for disability discrimination in violation of FEHA. Williams lost the case on a summary judgment motion. The trial court then awarded the employer-defendant costs totaling $5,368.88. Williams appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

    On review, the California Supreme Court explored two issues:

    Is a defendant prevailing in a FEHA action entitled to its ordinary court costs as a matter of right . . . or only in the discretion of the trial court . . . ? And, if the trial court does have discretion, must that discretion be exercised according to the rule applicable to attorney fee awards in certain federal civil rights actions under Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412 (Christiansburg), according to which a prevailing defendant receives its attorney fees only if the plaintiff‘s action was objectively groundless?

    The California Supreme Court held that the FEHA allows the court . . .