Why You Want to Know an Attorney Before You Need One

Author: Annie Smiddy

Annie recently presented with a panel of attorneys on “Why You Want to Know an Attorney Before You Need One.”

From large companies to individuals, litigation is a highly emotional experience for anyone involved. Choosing an attorney at that time can be difficult.  At Ad Astra, we have experienced attorneys involved in a broad range of litigation, covering multiple practice areas. We also can help with minimizing the risk of litigation with our consultation services.

Annie and other local attorneys spoke to local entrepreneurs at the Hera Hub Business Accelerator Exposition on why it is a good idea to know an attorney before you need one. Topics included referral networks, litigation prevention, timing considerations in litigation, and the “ideal client” to keep costs down. There are many benefits to consulting with an attorney before a lawsuit is filed, so get to know us before you need us!

How to Enforce Settlement Agreements Under CCP §664.6

Author: Annie Smiddy

In the case of Sayta v. Chu, on November 29, 2017 the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, clarified the requirements for enforcing settlement agreements pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 (“Section 664.6”). Most settlement agreements in pending litigation include a provision that provides for enforcement of the agreement pursuant to Section 664.6. The statute allows the parties to take advantage of an expedited procedure to enforce the agreement without filing a separate lawsuit. It’s cheaper, easier, and fulfills the purpose of the agreement – to resolve the parties’ dispute.

However, Sayta confirmed that the expedited procedure of Section 664.6 is only available when the parties request the trial court retain jurisdiction, either in writing or orally before the court, while the case is still pending, before entry of dismissal. The appellant in Sayta relied on the provision in the confidential settlement agreement stating that the parties agreed to enforce the agreement pursuant to Section 664.6. The Court of Appeals determined that this confidential agreement did not constitute a “request” for the trial court to retain jurisdiction, as required by Section 664.6. “‘[T]he court lost subject matter jurisdiction when the parties filed a voluntary dismissal of the entire cause. Since subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel, the court cannot ‘retain’ jurisdiction it has lost.’” (Sayta, supra, citing Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 206-207.)Read More >

LGBT Rights for Long-Term Care Facility Residents

Author: Trina Clayton

Along with SB 396 , another new law expanding transgender rights in California is SB 219 – the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights – will go into effect on January 1, 2018.  The catalyst for this bill comes from the unique needs of California’s senior LGBT population.  Studies have indicated that many older LGBT adults do not have children and report a higher-than average incidence of poor physical health, which includes living with HIV or AIDS.  As a result, many LGBT seniors have a heightened need for care when compared to seniors in California generally, but often lack the family support networks available to non-LGBT seniors and will likely rely more heavily on long-term care facilities.

SB 219 makes it unlawful for a facility or its staff to take certain actions because of a person’s actual, or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or HIV status, including:

  • Denying admission to a long-term care facility,
  • Transferring or refusing to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility;
  • Evicting or discharging a resident;
  • Willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronoun;
  • Prohibiting residents from wearing clothing that is allowed for any other resident; and
  • Restricting the right to associate with other residents.

For specific legal advice regarding gender identity/expression regulations or any other employment issue, please contact Ad Astra for guidance.

Salary Inquiry Ban – AB 168

Author: Trina Clayton

Women – Have you ever felt that you were being paid less money than the men sitting right next to you, doing pretty much the same work?   Were there times where you actually knew this to be the case?  You are not alone!

Several studies reflect the unfortunate reality that women have historically been paid less than their male counterparts for performing substantially similar work.  AB 168 was enacted to try and fix this persistent gender pay disparity.  The rationale for AB 168 being that pay inequities are perpetuated when current pay is based on past employer decisions that could have been discriminatory.

Everyone is familiar with the situation – you are applying for a new job.  Maybe you are applying online, maybe you are talking to a recruiter or the director of Human Resources.  Inevitably, the question is asked – “How much were you making at your last job?”  The reason for asking this question might be benign, but, unfortunately, it has been shown to have a notable discriminatory effect.  If a female applicant had been discriminated against at her prior place of employment (by receiving less pay than her male counterparts), the new employer might feel justified in offering her a lower salary at the new job since, “that is what she was making before.”

AB 168 makes it unlawful for California employers, including state and local governments, to ask applicants about their prior salary, compensation, and benefits.  Additionally, the employer cannot, either directly or indirectly (for instance, by asking a former employer), seek this type of information about the applicant.  The employer may consider prior salary information the applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses, in setting pay.   However, as noted in our earlier blog post, prior salary cannot, by itself, justify gender compensation disparity.  For specific legal advice regarding gender equality regulations or any other employment issue, please contact Ad Astra for guidance.

California Fair Pay Act Expansion – AB 46

Author: Trina Clayton

As an important reminder, in 2016, California enacted the Fair Pay Act, which revised and expanded previous state law relating to gender pay inequality – the Fair Pay Act was expanded in 2017 to address racial/ethnic wage disparity.

The current law prohibits a private employer from paying any of its employees wage rates that are less than the rates paid to employees of another gender, race or ethnicity, for substantially similar work.  If such a wage differential exists, an employer must be able to show that specific and reasonably applied factors account for the entire differential. These factors include:

  • Seniority systems
  • Merit systems
  • Systems that measure quality or quantity of production; or,
  • A “bona fide factor” other than sex, race, or ethnicity such as education, training, or experience.

In addition, the Fair Pay Act states that prior salary cannot, by itself, justify a disparity in compensation.  Unlike FEHA, the California Fair Pay Act does not require an employee show that the employer had any discriminatory intent.

Beginning January 1st, 2018, AB 46 will expand the Fair Pay Act to also cover public employers.  Public employers will not, however, be subject to the Labor Code provision applicable to private employers that makes willful violation of the Fair Pay Act a misdemeanor.   For specific legal advice regarding the California Fair Pay Act or any other employment issue, please contact Ad Astra for guidance.

Harassment Prevention Training Expansion – Transgender Rights – SB 396

Author: Trina Clayton

With the federal government’s seemingly monthly attempts to chip away at the rights of transgender individuals – we wanted to start off 2018 with some positive news for the transgender community in California.  State law will soon expand mandatory harassment training to include training on transgender rights.

Current law requires California employers with 50 or more employees to provide supervisors with two hour of sexual harassment prevention training within six months of their assumption of a supervisory position, and every two years, as specified.  With the passage of Senate Bill 396, this training will now be required to include training on harassment based on gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation.  SB 396 also requires employers to display a poster regarding transgender rights in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace – the Department of Fair Employment and Housing will develop this poster.

Other 2018 law relating to transgender rights will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent blog.  Analysis of 2017 laws expanding the rights for transgender individuals can be found here. For specific legal advice regarding transgender regulations or any other employment issue, please contact Ad Astra for guidance.

Update on 2017 Transgender Protection Regulations

Author: Trina Clayton

With the recent media frenzy surrounding President Trump’s attempt to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ formal determination that federal civil rights law does not protect transgender workers from employment discrimination, we thought it a particularly fitting time to highlight some of the new 2017 rights and protections afforded to transgender individuals, here in California.

In May 2017, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) approved new regulations regarding transgender identity and expression in the workplace.  A new definition for “transitioning” was added and the regulations now prohibit discrimination against an individual who is transitioning, has transitioned, or is perceived to be gender transitioning. The regulations became effective July 1, 2017.

Restroom Facilities

Under the new regulations, employers must provide equal access to comparable, safe and adequate facilities without regard to the sex of the employee.

All employees have the right to use a facility that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity or gender expression, regardless of the employee’s assigned sex at birth.  An employer may not REQUIRE an employee to use particular facility and they are not allowed to ask for “proof” from an employee to allow them to use a particular facility.

This regulation applies to more than just bathrooms.  It also applies to other facilities including locker rooms and showering areas.   In order to protect the rights of ALL employees, employers shall provide feasible options to maintain privacy – such options might include locking toilet stalls, staggered shower schedules, and shower curtains.

Dress Standard

The 2017 regulations make it unlawful to impose upon an applicant or employee any physical appearance, grooming or dress standard which is inconsistent with an individual’s gender identity or gender expression – unless the employer can establish a business necessity.  Please note, “business necessity” is a difficult hurdle to overcome and “customer preference” is not considered as such.  If an employer does have a dress standard, it must be enforced in a non-discriminatory manner.

Preferred Name and Identity

The new regulations require employers to honor an employee’s request to be identified by a preferred 1) gender and 2) name or pronoun – including gender-neutral pronouns.  An employer can be held liable for a FEHA violation if the employer fails to abide by an employee’s stated preference. Employers can only insist on using an employee’s legal name or gender if it is otherwise required to meet a legally-mandated obligation.


An employer cannot inquire or require documentation on sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression as a condition of employment.

Employers should ensure their policies comply with these new regulations regarding transgender identity and expression.  Employers should also review their employee handbooks to make sure any policies contained therein comply with the new regulations.  For specific legal advice regarding transgender regulations or any other employment issue, please contact Ad Astra for guidance.


Unexpected Litigation Costs

Author: Michael S. Dorsi

Many clients actively work with their attorneys to minimize their bills, and understandably so. Some choices are within the client’s control, such as making a motion for summary judgment. Others are not — like when the other side files a motion.

I have always understood the conventional wisdom to be that the moving party ends up with a larger bill for motion work – at least in California where the moving party writes two briefs, while the opposing party writes only one.[1] But a review of past matters suggests this may be incorrect.

Looking at federal court motions in the 2014-2016 timeframe, I found that opposing a motion often consumed more attorney hours — and resulted in higher bills — than making a similar motion. It was a small sample size, but the result is consistent with a different analysis: when you decide the strategy, you have more control over costs. But when the other side picks their spots, maybe lawyers end up spending more time adjusting to the other side’s focus.

Attorneys: does this match your experience?

Academics: there are a lot of attorney bills in the public domain because of fee applications — perhaps this would be a good subject for research . . .



[1] Some courts, such as the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, have only one brief by each side unless there is a reason to have additional briefing. See D. Mass. Local Rule 7.1(b)(2)–(3).

Hiring Seasonal Employees – Don’t End Up on the “Naughty” List

Author: Trina Clayton

For many retailers, the holiday shopping season is a “make or break” period that can define their bottom lines for the entire year.  Other businesses such as restaurants and hotels also see a huge uptick in traffic associated with holiday shopping and travel.  Temporary and part-time employment spikes as retailers and other businesses increase staffing to accommodate this seasonal increase in business.

As with hiring any employee, well-planned hiring practices that comply with applicable employment laws can help ensure seasonal employees are well-suited for the job and the company is prepared to defend any possible claims.   Below are a few actions employers can take to avoid common legal pitfalls when hiring seasonal workers.

  • Abide by All Wage and Hour Laws: With few exceptions, California law requires employers to pay any non-exempt employees one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of 8 hours in any workday, or 40 hours in a given workweek.  An employee is further entitled to double their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any workday and for all hours worked in excess of 8 on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.  These overtime laws apply equally to seasonal workers, as do state and local minimum wage laws.


  • Properly convey hiring duration: You may presume seasonal employees understand they have been hired on a temporary basis, but it is particularly important for employers to explicitly specify the limited duration of employment both at the onset and in writing. In addition, employers should require any seasonal employees to acknowledge, in writing, that they understand they are being hired for a limited duration and are “at-will” employees – meaning the employer has a legal right to terminate the employee, with or without cause, at any time.


  • Proper Classification: Employers often misclassify employees as independent contractors – this practice is especially common when hiring seasonal employees.  Employers should be sure to avoid designating a seasonal worker as an independent contractor without first determining that the circumstances legally justify such a classification.


  • Proper Training: Even though seasonal employees may only be with your company for a relatively short time, providing proper training is critical for maintaining a productive, fair, and safe workplace.  Employers commonly forget to give seasonal employees handbooks (and have them sign off on them) – if your business has “regular” employees sign arbitration agreements, you should do this for seasonal employees as well.  Seasonal employees should generally receive the same training as other new hires, such as training in anti-harassment, nondiscrimination, safety, and other important workplace issues.



As an important reminder, both San Francisco and San Jose have enacted local ordinances designed to allow “regular” part-time employees the first opportunity to work additional shifts before an employer can hire temporary or seasonal workers.

  • Under San Jose’s “Opportunity to Work” ordinance passed earlier this year, San Jose businesses with 36 or more employees must offer, in writing, extra work hours to existing qualified part-time employees. If those employees aren’t qualified or decline the extra hours, an employer can then hire additional workers to fill the shifts.


  • Under San Francisco’s Retail Workers Bill of Rights, “formula retail establishments” with at least 40 retail sales establishments worldwide and 20 or more employees in San Francisco, must, before hiring new employees, offer additional work hours to qualified part-time employees who have performed similar work for the covered retail establishment, and afford those part-time employees 3 days to accept the offered hours.

Employment law, especially in California, is in a state of constant flux.  Employers must keep apprised of new legislation, and comply with all federal, state and local employment laws.  For specific legal advice regarding any employment issue, please contact Ad Astra for guidance.


The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Shutting Down @realDonaldTrump

By:  Michael S. Dorsi

The Washington Post published an article suggesting that the Twitter employee who deleted @realDonaldTrump might be criminally liable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”).[fn1] The article, which draws on comments by Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes and Chris Calabrese of the Center for Democracy and Technology, focuses on the misdemeanor access without authorization provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C).[fn2] This provision attracts a lot of attention because it is very broad.[fn3]

The article focuses on whether the Twitter employee accessed without authorization, but then twists around to whether, while using that access, the employee did something he was not supposed to do. That is an invalid reading of the law, at least in the Ninth Circuit.[fn3] The access without authorization provision only criminalizes access, not what a person does once he or she has access. So the Twitter employee has nothing to fear, right? Wrong.

Just because the most notable part of the law is not implicated does not mean the law does not apply. A different provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(5)(A), makes it a crime to “knowingly cause[] the transmission of a . . . command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause[] damage without authorization, to a protected computer.” The story, as reported, indicates that the Twitter employee knowingly caused the transmission of a command that shut down @realDonaldTrump. The question is whether that shut down caused “damage” without authorization.

And a note of caution here: this offense does not require the defendant to access without authorization — it doesn’t require the defendant to access the system at all.[fn5] It just requires the defendant to lack authorization to cause damage.

What does it mean to cause damage? Unlike many words in the CFAA, damage actually has a definition in the law. “[T]he term ‘damage’ means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information.”[fn6] Deleting a Twitter account probably impairs the availability of data, a program, a system, and information.

Does an 11-minute interruption qualify? One federal court in California held that changing someone else’s password and refusing to reveal it for two hours was insufficient under both the CFAA and its state-law analog.[fn7] Another case, in San Francisco, held that the CFAA and its state-law analog applied during “extended unavailability of the data.”[fn8] Maybe 11 minutes is not “extended unavailability,” but if I was the Twitter employee, I’d lawyer up.

And if I was his lawyer, I’d read the cases cited in this blog post. Free research. Because information wants to be free, or something like that.

P.S. The trial would probably have to be in San Francisco. Good luck asking Northern California jury to send someone to jail for shutting down Trump’s twitter.[fn9]



[fn1] 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

[fn2] Subsection (a)(2)(C), confers misdemeanor liability on any person who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer.”

[fn3] See, e. g., United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 862 (9th Cir. 2012) (Nosal I) (en banc), Michael S. Dorsi & Keenan W. Ng, Computer Criminal Intent, 51 U.S.F. L. Rev. 469, 503–506.

[fn4] Nosal I, supra, at 855.

[fn5] Cf. United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024, 1039 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No. 16-1344, 2017 WL 1807382 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2017) (Nosal II)

[fn6] 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(8)

[fn7] Welenco, Inc. v. Corbell, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1154, 1168 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

[fn8] NovelPoster v. Javitch Canfield Grp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 954, 961 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Your author argued the motion that resulted in this order in NovelPoster.

[fn9] See United States v. Auernheimer, 748 F.3d 525, 533 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez–Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 279 (1999)).