Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=1b374b43-bead-4540-a66d-3116ff3bc41b
Timestamp: 2017-07-22 04:21:42
Document Index: 86325760

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2031', '§ 2698', '§ 17200', '§ 2031', '§ 12182', '§ 12181', '§ 3', '§ 52']

Employment Law Commentary Volume 21, No. 7 July 2009 | Morrison & Foerster LLP - JDSupra
Download PDF Employment Law Issue Important New Decisions: or Bad News new employment U.S. Supreme has a bright-impact liability, new California will the number against employers. Supreme Court Decision DeStefano Employers Taking Affirmative Action in Evidence” Impact Liability Ricci v. DeStefano, 06-States Court a “race-based in this case under Title unless in that, it would have been the ruling VII, the case has sectors. Factual and Procedural of New Haven, administered vacant When they analyzed City the pass the pass candidates. Because number of vacant criteria, no black candidates receive 19 possible Based on concerns have did not certify the exams, of any race received were promotions the argued engaged on the plaintiffs’ were not because and July -------------------------2 Access -------------------------Employment Law Commentary Volume 21, No. 7 July 2009 Courts Issue Important New Decisions: Good or Bad News By Colette M. LeBon Over the last few months, federal and factual and Procedural Background Inside state courts have issued a number In 2003, the City of New Haven, of important new employment law 2 Connecticut (the “City”), administered decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court has Schwarzenegger Signs examinations in an effort to promote New E-Discovery Law given employers a bright-line standard to qualified applicants to fill vacant help avoid disparate impact liability, and 4 lieutenant and captain positions in its several new California cases will likely California Supreme Fire Department. When they analyzed Court Expands increase the number of Private Attorneys the test results, City officials found Remedies for General Act (PAGA) actions brought by Unintentional Denial of that the pass rate for black candidates plaintiffs against employers. Disability Access was approximately half the pass rate of white candidates. Because of the U.S. SUpreme CoUrt DeCiSion — Ricci v. DeStefano limited number of vacant positions and promotion criteria, no black candidates employers taking affirmative action Must Have “Strong Basis in evidence” for would receive any of the 19 possible Potential Disparate impact Liability promotions. Based on concerns about In Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 06 -being sued by black candidates who 1505 (U.S. June 29, 2009), the would not have been promoted, the United States Supreme Court ruled City did not certify the exams, and in a 5-4 decision that “race-based no firefighters of any race received action like the City’s in this case is promotions. impermissible under Title VII unless The plaintiffs were firefighters who the employer can demonstrate a strong would have received promotions but basis in evidence that, had it not taken for the City’s refusal to certify the test the action, it would have been liable results. The plaintiffs argued that the under the disparate-impact statute.” City engaged in disparate treatment Because the ruling is grounded on based on the plaintiffs’ race, arguing that Title VII, the case has significance for the scores were not certified because the all employers in both the private and higher-scoring candidates were not black, the government sectors. in violation of both Title VII and the Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=1b374b43-bead-4540-a66d-3116ff3bc41b& foerster llp — page in the exam motivated a Title disparate on test Court granted A three-judge panel Circuit Supreme nominee Judge affirmed relying The sought rehearing before Second Circuit, a 7‑6 Analysis Court discarding the tests and avoided argument. Title VII acts based as have a disparate group. noted these into Discovery Act. Act to electronically stored information (“However, there are some the If a discovery to the for ESI, the information it is that is reasonably Employers cost-effective and least information In most cases, form for of ESI on of access to the material. If the responses, would that are not reasonably accessible. Failure to include to grounds the information sought is inaccessible. cases. and their counsel will need to be familiar with information Signs New E-Discovery Law 4 employment law commentary Equal Protection Clause. The City Schwarzenegger Signs New E-Discovery Law argued in the lower courts that its By Colette M. LeBon decision not to certify the exam results was not based on race, but On June 29, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the instead was motivated by the City’s Electronic Discovery Act. The new law amends the current Civil goal to avoid a Title VII disparate Discovery Act to include electronically stored information (“ESI”). The impact lawsuit from African Act makes the California scheme similar to the federal e-discovery Americans who might allege that system. However, there are some small differences, and it remains they had been denied promotions to be seen how the California rules will be interpreted in practice. based on a test that had a disparate impact. Detailed below are some highlights of the new law and its expected impact on employers. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Forms of Production the City. A three-judge panel The Act provides that a discovery request may specify the form in of the Second Circuit Court of which each type of information is to be produced. If a discovery Appeals, which included Supreme demand or subpoena fails to specify the form of production for ESI, the Court nominee Judge Sonia recipient can produce the information in the form in which it is usually Sotomayor, affirmed without maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable. Employers will have analysis, relying on the lengthy to be strategic about the most cost-effective and least burdensome District Court opinion. The way to produce electronically stored information when the form is not plaintiffs sought rehearing before specified. In most cases, native file formats will be the easiest form of the full Second Circuit, which production. was denied in a 7-6 vote over a strong dissenting opinion. Objections Based on Inaccessibility The Act contains specific provisions for objections to production of ESI Legal analysis based on lack of reasonable access to the material. If the propounding The Supreme Court held that the party moves to compel further responses, the burden is on the City’s action in discarding the tests responding party to demonstrate that the search and production of violated Title VII, and avoided the ESI would be unduly burdensome or costly. The responding party reaching the constitutional Equal must specify in its objections the types and categories of ESI that it Protection argument. Title VII asserts are not reasonably accessible. Failure to include the required prohibits both intentional acts of specification could lead to waiver. A party may also move for a employment discrimination based protective order on the grounds the information sought is inaccessible. on race, known as disparate However, courts have the discretion to require limited discovery even in treatment, and policies which those cases. unintentionally have a disparate impact on a racial group. The Employers and their counsel will need to be familiar with their Court noted that these two electronically stored information to facilitate making efficient objections. Continued on Page 4 morrison & foerster llp — page 2 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=1b374b43-bead-4540-a66d-3116ff3bc41b& foerster llp — page Court’s opinion it clear that mere fear of litigation, a deeper as to potential for disparateimpact discrimination, is sufficient to engage race-based workplace were in conflict this conflict, adopted inevidence has similar action cases. reasoned was of this was a in-be business necessity. there discriminatory to in that liable African-reversed of the District entitled The Court concluded fear alone an employer’s to in the workplace. Application California Employers this case First, any employment categories employees. should carefully one investigate serve job-related evaluation purposes impact without a deeper analysis to potential for disparateimpact to engage in race-based addition, while Ricci v. DeStefano is including and practices. message from is that employers when racebased a means of avoiding impact liability. Supreme Court Ar ias v. Superior Court and Amalgamated Transit Union v. Superior Court Aggrieved Employees May Bring Actions Under PAGA Meeting Class Action recent years, have of of this proceed as a class on California Procedure class mounting difficulties have obtaining class however, attorneys have alternative avenues claims without pass certification Arias (Cal. expressed one sought class certification employment law commentary The Court’s opinion Consequently, the Court reversed The clear message from the Supreme the judgment of the District Court, Court is that employers must tread makes it clear that and found that the white firefighters carefully when considering racemere fear of litigation, were entitled to summary judgment based actions as a means of avoiding in their favor. The Court concluded potential disparate-impact liability. without a deeper that “fear of litigation alone cannot analysis as to potential justify an employer’s reliance on California SUpreme CoUrt — aRiaS v. SuPeRioR couRt race to the detriment of other liability for disparate-anD aMaLgaMateD tRanSit individuals” in the workplace. union v. SuPeRioR couRt impact discrimination, is aggrieved employees May Bring application for california employers Representative actions under Paga not sufficient to engage The outcome of this case provides Without Meeting class action guidance for both private and Requirements in race-based workplace public employers about how to In recent years, wage-and-hour decisions. permissibly achieve racial diversity representative actions have increased in the workplace while avoiding dramatically in California and lawsuits. First, any employment other states. Not surprisingly, the provisions were in conflict in this testing should be carefully validated focus of much of this litigation is to avoid disproportionate impact on on the question whether the action case. To resolve this conflict, the protected categories of employees. can properly proceed as a class Court adopted the strong-basis-in-evidence standard, which has been Second, employers should carefully action based on California Code used to resolve similar tensions in examine test results for clear bias of Civil Procedure section 382 affirmative action cases. in favor of one racial group, and (i.e., whether common questions thoroughly investigate whether of law and fact predominate and The Court reasoned that although other available practices that serve whether the class is ascertainable). the City was faced with a prima their job-related evaluation purposes Given the mounting difficulties facie case of disparate impact have less impact on a protected plaintiffs have had in obtaining class liability, this was “far from a class. However, the Court’s opinion certification, however, plaintiffs and strong-basis-in-evidence” that makes it clear that mere fear of their attorneys have been feverishly the City would be found liable. litigation, without a deeper analysis searching for alternative avenues The exams were job-related and as to potential liability for disparate-to pursue these claims without the consistent with business necessity. impact discrimination, is not burden of having to pass through Further, there was no equally sufficient to engage in race-based the class certification gauntlet. valid, less discriminatory testing workplace decisions. alternative available to the City. In Arias v. Superior Court, No. Therefore, there was no strong In addition, while Ricci v. DeStefano S155965 (Cal. June 29, 2009), basis in evidence that a court involved promotions, the logic of the the Supreme Court expressed its would find the City liable for the opinion is equally applicable to other approval of one such representative disparate impact against African-employment decisions, including action. The plaintiff sought American firefighters. hiring and termination practices. to evade class certification morrison & foerster llp — page 3 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=1b374b43-bead-4540-a66d-3116ff3bc41b& foerster llp — page New 2 Safe from Sanctions afford a “protect parties cannot actually be produced. produce data that was lost as routine, good faith operation of an electronic Code § 2031.060(Despite the assurance sanctions inure lost data, They specific to 4th federal law. with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) without appeal cases not require proof establish of its disability-access provisions,2 also for such violations. injunctive disabilityaccess provisions of the ADA, damages. does damages, Supreme Investors 52 Cal. 1142 (1991), such damages 7 Supreme Court Expands Remedies Unintentional Denial of Disability Access Jr. wageand-pursuant separate and (2) California’s Prof. Code The plaintiff the section 382 class Court that representative employees class contrast, Court found actions action Factual and Procedural Arias Jose employee, an Angelo Dairy him or during his shifts. to seeking penalties employment law commentary requirements by pursuing wage-Schwarzenegger Signs New E-Discovery Law and-hour claims on behalf of a Continued from Page 2 group of employees pursuant to two separate statutes: (1) the “Safe Harbor” from Sanctions Private Attorneys General Act of The rules afford a “safe harbor” to protect parties and attorneys from 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code sanctions when ESI cannot actually be produced. Parties and attorneys § 2698 et seq., and (2) California’s cannot be sanctioned for failure to produce data that was lost as a result Unfair Competition Law (UCL), of the “routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.060(i)(1). Despite the assurance that sanctions et seq. The plaintiff did not will not inure for lost data, employers should continue to be diligent about attempt to plead either claim their electronic data storage. They should develop and follow specific in a manner that would comply policies for document retention and deletion, and make sure to retain any with the section 382 class action documents that may relate to potential litigation. requirements. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that representative California Supreme Court Expands Remedies lawsuits brought on behalf of for Unintentional Denial of Disability Access a group of nonparty employees By James E. Boddy, under PAGA need not comply Jr. with class certification requirements. In contrast, the In Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal. 4th 661 (2009), the California Supreme Court also found that Supreme Court expanded the remedies available under a state statute UCL actions must now satisfy for violation of federal disability-access law. It held that a violation of class action requirements based on the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) entitles a plaintiff amendments made to applicable to damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act1 without regard to UCL provisions in 2004. whether the violation was intentional, disapproving of two California court of appeal cases to the contrary. factual and Procedural Background of arias The federal ADA itself does not require proof of intentional discrimination to establish a violation of its disability-access provisions,2 Plaintiff Jose Arias, a former but it also does not provide damages for such violations. A plaintiff Angelo Dairy employee, brought may seek injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under the disabilityan action against Angelo Dairy access provisions of the ADA, but not damages. and its owners, alleging numerous Labor Code violations, including In contrast, the California Unruh Act does provide for damages, but that Angelo Dairy did not under a prior decision of the California Supreme Court in Harris v. compensate him for overtime Capital Growth Investors XIV, 52 Cal. 3d 1142 (1991), such damages wages or provide meal and rest may be obtained only upon proof of intentional discrimination. periods during his shifts. In After Harris was decided, the California legislature in 1992 amended addition to seeking penalties and the Unruh Civil Rights Act to provide that a violation of the federal Continued on Page 7 morrison & foerster llp — page 4 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=1b374b43-bead-4540-a66d-3116ff3bc41b& foerster llp — page in an individual capacity, also sought these remedies on behalf former employees based Arias, however, comply class response, Angelo Dairy pleading a class The superior of Appeal, asserting need class pursue The appellate to bring without action but require compliance with action requirements. Court a peremptory writ strike only the UCL causes claim forward. Supreme Court. The Private Attorneys General Act Code Section 2698, et seq. “aggrieved employees” includes pay recent years, wageand-hour representative have increased in and other Not surprisingly, focus of much of litigation is on the whether the can properly as a class based on Code of Civil section 382. plaintiff civil to recover unpaid wages. can add up quickly, employers, pursued on a representative payroll one year excess of 500,000. that is entitled Arias, Court the appellate that PAGA representative based on the language The court noted “notwithstanding of law,” such as class require compliance with Procedure class concerns arising from a representative meeting class only civil wages) well the The Unfair Competition confirmed understanding on the amendment of UCL actions must now meet class employment law commentary lost wages in an individual capacity, and bring actions in the public period for one year may be subject Arias’s complaint also sought these interest for violation of any Labor to penalties in excess of $500,000. same remedies on behalf of other Code provision. This includes PAGA also provides that a prevailing current and former employees of claims for failure to pay overtime, employee is entitled to an award of Angelo Dairy based on his PAGA meal and rest period violations, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. and UCL claims. Arias, however, employee misclassifications. In Arias, the Supreme Court did not comply with class action affirmed the appellate court’s pleading requirements. In recent years, wage-finding that PAGA representative In response, Angelo Dairy moved to and-hour representative actions need not meet class action strike Arias’s representative claims requirements. It based this actions have increased due to his failure to comply with conclusion in part on the language of the requirements for pleading a class dramatically in the Act. The court noted that Labor action. The superior court granted Code section 2699(a) provides that California and other Angelo Dairy’s motion, and Arias PAGA applies “notwithstanding any petitioned for a writ of mandate in states. Not surprisingly, other provision of law,” such as class the Court of Appeal, asserting he action statutes, and PAGA does not the focus of much of did not need to comply with class expressly require compliance with action requirements to pursue a this litigation is on the Code of Civil Procedure section 382 PAGA or UCL claim. The appellate (California’s class action statute). question whether the court concluded that PAGA permits The court also found that any an employee to bring an action on action can properly due process concerns arising from behalf of other employees without maintaining a representative proceed as a class meeting class action standards, but it action without meeting class found the amended UCL provisions action based on action procedural requirements expressly require compliance with California Code of Civil are alleviated, because only civil class action requirements. The Court penalties (and not wages) are of Appeal issued a peremptory writ Procedure section 382. available under PAGA, and nonparty of mandate directing the superior employees as well as the government court to strike only the UCL causes are bound by the judgment. of action, and to permit Arias to amend his complaint to let the PAGA Under PAGA, the plaintiff may only be awarded civil penalties, and is not the unfair competition Law — representative claim go forward. Section 17200 entitled to recover unpaid wages. Arias then petitioned for review by These penalties can add up quickly, The Arias decision also confirmed the California Supreme Court. even for relatively small employers, the general understanding that, the Private attorneys general act — if pursued on a representative based on the amendment of UCL Labor code Section 2698, et seq. basis. For instance, an employer provisions by Proposition 64, PAGA permits “aggrieved employees” whose payroll violation affects representative actions brought to act as private attorneys general 200 employees each bi-weekly pay under the UCL must now meet class morrison & foerster llp — page 5 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=1b374b43-bead-4540-a66d-3116ff3bc41b& foerster llp — page based who approved it. Court the stated 64 was to require compliance Code Procedure authorize class in order to pursue must class procedures. Only an Aggrieved Action Amalgamated v. Superior No. S151615 (Cal. 29, case Supreme down either “injured” Amalgamated, meeting for a class However, plaintiff injury Court an or aggrieved a plaintiff a action Further, as no plaintiff a meeting a Application California Employers Supreme can increases actions for violation Labor Code provisions. actions: a wage-andhour on an annual basis. past practices the advice counsel. that employment materials issues to and-raised by individual process LeBon was associate in our San office. Questions be 268‑6558 ––––––––– Rights 51 of the California for of the Act are set 52 of the Civil Code. sections are the Unruh Civil the Unruh Munson, defines . . where such achievable” means much difficulty or expense.” 1992, ch. 913, Lin, Coronado Village Community L.P., 163 Cal.App.e.g., Lentini v. California the F.3d 837, 846–(F. (D. ––––––––– employment law commentary certification requirements. The status, a plaintiff cannot bring a Supreme Court based its reasoning representative action under either 1 The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified in section 51 of the California Civil Code. on a review of the language of the UCL or PAGA. Further, as Damages for violation of the Act are set Proposition 64 and the intent of the detailed above, no plaintiff can forth in section 52 of the Civil Code. In voters who approved it. Through bring a representative action under this article, sections 51 and 52 are referred to together as the Unruh Civil Rights Act or this analysis, the Supreme Court the UCL without meeting the simply as the Unruh Act. noted that the stated purpose requirements for a class action. 2 As it pertains to the claim in Munson, the of Proposition 64 was to amend ADA defines “discrimination” to include “a application for california employers failure to remove architectural barriers . . . in the UCL to require compliance existing facilities . . . where such removal is with Code of Civil Procedure The California Supreme Court’s readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b) finding that a plaintiff can (2)(A)(iv). “Readily achievable” means section 382, which is commonly “easily accomplishable and able to be carried understood to authorize class maintain a PAGA claim without out without much difficulty or expense.” 42 meeting burdensome class action U.S.C. § 12181(9). actions. Accordingly, the Court confirmed that in order to pursue requirements certainly increases 3 Stats. 1992, ch. 913, § 3, pp. 4283, 4284. the likelihood of additional 4 Gunther v. Lin, 144 Cal. App. 4th 223 a UCL claim, a plaintiff must now (2006); Coronado v. Cobblestone comply with class action procedures. representative actions for violation VCiollmagmeunity Rentals, L.P., 163 Cal.App.4th of California Labor Code provisions. 831(2008). only an aggrieved Party May Bring 5 See, e.g., Lentini v. California Center for the As a result, employers should consider a Representative action Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2004); taking the following actions: Wilson v. Haria and Gogri Corp., 479 F. In Amalgamated Transit Union Local Supp. 2d 1127, 1137 (E.D. Cal. 2007). 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, • Conduct a thorough wage-andNo. S151615 (Cal. June 29, 2009), the hour audit on an annual basis. companion case to Arias, the Supreme • Modify past practices as appropriate Court qualified that in addition to with the advice of counsel. the rules set down in Arias, in order • Confirm that employment to bring an action under either the policies and training materials UCL or PAGA, the party bringing regarding wage-and-hour issues the suit must be either “injured” or are up-to-date. “aggrieved,” respectively. • Seek to resolve wage-and-hour In Amalgamated, just as in Arias, issues raised by individual the plaintiff union brought employees early in the process and representative actions against the before the dispute grows into a employer both under PAGA and representative action. under the UCL without meeting the requirements for a class action. However, the plaintiff union actually suffered no injury Colette M. LeBon was a summer ians osoucr iSataen Francisco office. Questions and was not an aggrieved party. or comments about this article should The Supreme Court ruled that be directed to the Editor at (415) 268-6558 or without an injury or aggrieved laubry@mofo.com. morrison & foerster llp — page 6 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=1b374b43-bead-4540-a66d-3116ff3bc41b& foerster llp — page recent employment law developments. of its generality, the information specific legal on particular situations. ------------------------------------------------------------E. Boddy, Jr. E. Shostak mofo.mofo.-----------------------------------------------------------Gordon mofo.------------------------------------------------------------F. Schulman ------------------------------------------------------------H. Wugmeister ------------------------------------------------------------P. mofo.------------------------------------------------------------Schloss mofo.------------------------------------------------------------M. ------------------------------------------------------------you wish to change an address, this newsletter, write Foerster Drive, Suite Diego, California 2009 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All Rights Reserved. held that a damages Various conclusion.5 against prior the barrier to access readily achievable,” and that the restaurant’s the the ADA entitled him to a damages The district court granted summary the absence authority among state and federal of the ADA is necessary under the Unruh Act, Appeals California Supreme Court adhered to its prior ruling discriminatory intent ordinarily is required to recover damages held that the legislature created Thus, the court concluded, a plaintiff who seeks damages be expected to litigation. Remedies actual damages, or a court sitting of actual damage but in no case E. Boddy, Jr. is of counsel in our Francisco office 268‑7081 Supreme Expends 4 employment law commentary This newsletter addresses recent employment law devel-California Supreme Court Expends Remedies opments. Because of its generality, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations Continued from Page and should not be acted upon without specific legal 4 advice based on particular situations. ADA would also be a violation of the state Act.3 Relying on Harris, two Editor: Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr., (415) 268-6558 San Francisco California courts of appeal held that only intentional violations of the ADA Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr. (415) 268-6558 would support a damages remedy under the Unruh Act.4 Various federal laubry@mofo.com James E. Boddy, Jr. (415) 268-7081 courts reached a contrary conclusion.5 jboddy@mofo.com Karen Kubin (415) 268-6168 In Munson, a disabled individual who used a wheelchair brought suit in kkubin@mofo.com Linda E. Shostak (415) 268-7202 federal district court against a Del Taco restaurant constructed prior to lshostak@mofo.com Eric A. Tate (415) 268-6915 enactment of the ADA, alleging among other things that the facility’s etate@mofo.com restroom was not accessible, that removal of the barrier to access was Palo Alto Joshua Gordon (650) 813-5671 “readily achievable,” and that the restaurant’s failure to remove the jgordon@mofo.com barrier therefore violated the ADA. The individual further alleged that the Christine E. Lyon (650) 813-5770 clyon@mofo.com violation of the ADA entitled him to a damages remedy under the Unruh David J. Murphy (650) 813-5945 dmurphy@mofo.com Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the individual Raymond L. Wheeler (650) 813-5656 rwheeler@mofo.om notwithstanding the absence of any evidence of intentional discrimination, Tom E. Wilson (650) 813-5604 twilson@mofo.com and the restaurant appealed. Los Angeles Noting the split of authority among state and federal courts as to whether Timothy F. Ryan (213) 892-5388 tryan@mofo.com a showing of intentional violation of the ADA is necessary to obtain Janie F. Schulman (213) 892-5393 jschulman@mofo.com damages under the Unruh Act, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified New York the question to the California Supreme Court. Miriam H. Wugmeister (212) 506-7213 mwugmeister@mofo.com The California Supreme Court adhered to its prior ruling in Harris that Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia Daniel P. Westman (703) 760-7795 proof of discriminatory intent ordinarily is required to recover damages dwestman@mofo.com under the Unruh Act, but held that the legislature created an exception to San Diego Rick Bergstrom (858) 720-5143 this requirement in 1992 when it amended the Act to make violation of rbergstrom@mofo.com the ADA, which does not require discriminatory intent, also a violation of Craig A. Schloss (858) 720-5134 cschloss@mofo.com the Unruh Act. Thus, the court concluded, a plaintiff who seeks damages Denver under the Unruh Act for violation of the ADA need not prove intentional Steven M. Kaufmann (303) 592-2236 skaufmann@mofo.com discrimination. London Ann Bevitt 44-20-7896-5841 The decision can be expected to spur disability-access litigation. Remedies abevitt@mofo.com under the Unruh Act include “actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto . . . .” (Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a).) If you wish to change an address, add a subscriber, or comment on this newsletter, please write to: Wende Arrollado Morrison & Foerster LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100 James E. Boddy, Jr. is of counsel in our San Francisco office and can be San Diego, California 92130 warrollado@mofo.com contacted at (415) 268-7081 or jboddy@mofo.com. www.mofo.com ©2009 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All Rights Reserved. morrison & foerster llp — page 7 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=1b374b43-bead-4540-a66d-3116ff3bc41b