Labor Code Section 98.2(c) Is Not The Exclusive Fee-Shifting Statute, Such That General Labor Code Fee-Shifting Statutes Provide Authority For Fees And Costs.
Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp., Case No. D082372 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 21, 2025) (published) confirmed that employees losing a Labor Commissioner Berman hearing can still seek attorney’s fees and costs under Labor Code section 1194 and 226 after winning a de novo hearing before the superior court. Even though Labor Code section 98.2(c) limits recovery of a fee award only against an unsuccessful de novo appellant (not speaking to what happens as to a successful de novo appellant), nothing indicated it was exclusive such that the general Labor Code provisions allow for fee and cost recovery, with the 4/1 DCA following Eicher v. Advanced Business Integrators, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1379 (2007) which found that the Labor Code section 98.2(c) was not exclusive.
Two interesting things to observe on this case. First, employees losing at the Berman hearing but winning before the superior court were awarded a little over $140,000 in wages and penalties, but the fee and costs award aggregated to $200,000. Second, employer cited two unpublished opinions disagreeing with Eicher, but the appellate court warned against doing so when the unpublished opinions did not fall within any exceptions to citation of those unpublished opinions.
Comments