Plaintiffs Mark Villalva and Bobby Jason Yelverton worked as train dispatchers for Bombardier Mass Transit Corporation. One weekend a month, plaintiffs were “on-call” and had to be available to respond to emergency calls.
Rather than going directly to court as they could have, they first decided to seek relief from the labor commissioner using the so-called “Berman” hearing process set forth in Labor Code section 98, et seq. This is an optional streamlined procedure designed to “benefit employees with wage claims against their employers.” (Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1127 (Sonic II).)
Plaintiffs each filed complaints with the labor commissioner using the administrative process provided by the Berman statutes, alleging they were entitled to overtime wages under section 1194 and wage statement penalties under section 226 for their unpaid on-call time. The commissioner denied both plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety.
Plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel, sought a de novo trial on their claims in the San Diego Superior Court pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2, which allows a party to seek review of the commissioner’s order “by filing an appeal to the superior court, where the appeal shall be heard de novo.” (§ 98.2, subd. (a).)
After conducting a four-day bench trial, the trial court ruled that plaintiffs were each entitled to between $70,000 and $78,000 in unpaid wages and wage statement penalties, a total of about $25,000 in costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. The trial court granted the motion and awarded attorney fees and costs in the amount of $200,000.
The Court of Appeal denied Bombarder’s appeal in the published case of Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp. -D082372 (January 2025).
On appeal, Bombardier did not contest its liability for the more than $140,000 in back wages and penalties. Bombardier’s sole argument is that section 98.2, subdivision (c) is the exclusive statute authorizing an award of attorney fees and costs in a superior court appeal from the labor commissioner’s Berman order. From this premise, Bombardier concludes that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover attorney fees and costs because section 98.2, subdivision (c) only authorizes an award against unsuccessful appellants in a de novo trial in superior court, not in favor of successful appellants.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with Bombardier’s premise. “The Berman procedure does penalize a party – employer or employee – who files an unsuccessful de novo superior court action by awarding attorney fees and costs against that party. (§ 98.2, subd. (c).) But the statute says nothing about a party who brings a successful de novo claim.”
“Prevailing plaintiffs in superior court actions for unpaid wages are generally entitled to an award of reasonable fees and costs (see, e.g., §§ 218.5, 226 and 1194), and nothing in section 98.2 suggests that the Legislature intended to make this remedy unavailable to employees who first attempt to obtain relief from the labor commissioner through the expedited Berman hearing process.”
“Because Bombardier’s argument contradicts the only published authority on point (Eicher v. Advanced Business Integrators, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1363 (Eicher)) and shows insufficient regard for the Legislature’s unwavering encouragement of employee unpaid wage claims, we affirm the trial court’s order awarding $200,000 in attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs.”
