Harold Bain worked for Tax Reducers, Inc. (TRI) and its predecessor as a tax preparation consultant. He also performed other duties. It's pretty clear from the facts that he was an employee, not an independent contractor. So, that part of the case is not breaking new ground. However, the court of appeal allowed the trial court to consider a "presumption" of employee status, because the trial court also underwent the normal analysis of independent contractor. The evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of employee status, presumption or no.
After TRI bought the predecessor, Bain got into a dispute with the new owner of TRI about his compensation. He worked for TRI for just seven weeks or so, but with the predecessor for several years. However, because of the dispute, TRI didn't pay Bain at all for his seven weeks of work.
Bain filed a claim with the Labor Commissioner at the DLSE. TRI argued that Bain was an independent contractor, but even if he wasn't, there was no agreed upon rate. As a result, TRI argued, Bain should recover only minimum wage. Bain sought the $1100 per week he was earning before the take-over. And that's what the DLSE awarded him, plus waiting time and interest, for about $15K.
When in a hole, stop digging? Nah. TRI appealed the DLSE's ruling. The parties then reached a settlement for the wages and interest, plus some attorney's fees, but no waiting time penalties. The deal fell through when the parties could not agree on the scope of the release.
The court then re-set the case for trial. The parties then settled again for $17,700, higher than the DLSE's award. The settlement was supposed to include releases, but the parties again could not agree on the language, or even who was to prepare them.
Massive amounts of litigation ensued over the breached settlement agreement, including discovery motions, demurrers, summary judgment motions, anti-SLAPP motions, an appeal, too. Bain even named TRI's president, Griffin, as an individual defendant, which typically is a no-go in a wage claim.
Guess who ended up getting rich here? (Not Bain's lawyer; stay tuned).
The trial court conducted a four-day bench trial, after which it awarded Bain just over $25,000 plus attorney's fees on the wage claims. (Bain had a choice of electing recovery on the breach of settlement agreement or recovery on the wage claims. He chose wisely, because the latter includes an award of attorney's fees). How much attorney's fees did Bain seek? Bain sought over $400,000 in fees, including a 1.5 multiplier.
Unfortunately for Bain's lawyer, he filed the motion for attorney's fees late and received nothing from the trial court, and nothing from the court of appeal, either. I believe this clip from Willie Wonka captures the court's holding well.
TRI President Griffin, though, successfully obtained an award of fees for his individual claim, but only for $4225 (the fees for his summary judgment motion). Continuing his losing streak, the court of appeal reversed Griffin's award, because he sought fees under the wrong statute (Lab. Code Section 218.5). Because Bain won under the unpaid minimum wage law, the right statute is a one-way law that awards fees to employees only. See, supra, Willie Wonka clip. 218.5 is becoming a one-way statute next year, so no one will make that mistake again. Sigh.
Annnywayyyyyy, now that the discussion of litigation excess is over, here's the wage-hour issue that the court decided.
First, the Court set out the relevant statutes of limitations in wage claims:
- Final pay - 3 years per Labor Code Section 201 and Code of Civil Procedure 338(a).
- Waiting time - runs with the limitations period of the underlying wages sought - here 3 years, per Labor Code Section 203.
- Liquidated damages for failing to pay minimum wage per Labor Code 1194.2 - one year per Code of Civil Procedure 340(a).
Second, the Court had to decide whether Bain's claims were untimely. He left on February 18, 2005, but did not sue until May of 2008. That's more than three years and could have time-barred all his claims.
But the Court held that Bain's filing his DLSE claim "tolled" or suspended the statute of limitations. during the period is pursued his DLSE claim until the first DLSE proceeding was final. Once that time was added to the Bain's claims were timely, except for the 1194.2 liquidated damages penalty. The court held the "equitable tolling" doctrine applied even though Bain was not required to go to the DLSE in the first place. This decision, therefore, could extend limitations period in wage cases that involve administrative proceedings followed by litigation.
Even the tolled claims did not save the liquidated damages penalty, which was subject to the one-year statute. The court held that claim was barred and deduced those penalties.
So, Bain won about $18,000 bucks plus more interest... his lawyer lost out on at least $200K in fees. And who knows how much TRI spent to obtain its lousy result. Just sayin'.
This case is Bain v. Tax Reducers, Inc. and the decision is here.
