Home | HRCalifornia | Store

Legal Reform

Overview

When employers consider where to locate and expand their businesses, they take many factors into consideration, including the business tax climate, quality of the local education system, labor costs, environmental and regulatory burdens, availability/affordability of resources like land and electricity, and the legal climate. Unfortunately, California continues to rank poorly on many of these measures, particularly its legal climate.

According to the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), California ranked 46th for the fairness of its litigation environment in 2010 and has consistently placed amongst the bottom six states over the last decade. California also remains on the American Tort Reform Association’s “Judicial Hellholes Watch List” for 2011 because of continued class action abuse, predatory lawsuits against small businesses premised on technical violations of the state’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) laws, new rules encouraging private law firms to pursue speculative claims at the taxpayer’s expense, and two court decisions allowing awards for so-called “phantom damages,” losses never actually incurred by the plaintiff. Legal Reform

Goal

Seek comprehensive tort reform that will prevent lawsuit abuse, halt runaway liability risk and promote greater fairness, efficiency and economy in the civil justice system.

Major Victories

Kept lid on inflated liability costs in 2011 by advocating veto of a bill undermining judicial discretion (AB 559); securing amendments to legislation that could have led to new shakedown lawsuits against businesses (SB 111); and killing a bill that would have undermined enforcement of arbitration agreements in contracts (AB 1062). Also in 2010 by advocating vetoes of proposals invalidating certain arbitration agreements (AB 1680) and limiting judicial discretion to reduce or deny exorbitant legal fees in fair employment and housing cases (AB 2773).
Speeding judicial process by supporting an expedited alternative to full-length jury trials, allowing individuals and organizations to resolve disputes efficiently and effectively (AB 2284 of 2010).
Won veto of legislation that could have resulted in new shakedown lawsuits against business establishments by making it a strict liability violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, subject to minimum damages of $4,000, if a business limits the use of a customer’s language, even if unintentionally (SB 242 of 2009).
Collaborated on shaping bipartisan, comprehensive reform increasing public access for individuals with disabilities while reducing unwarranted litigation (SB 1608). See ADA Reform
Spearheaded effort to strengthen California's anti-counterfeiting laws in 2008 (AB 1394).
Prevented major expansions of liability in 2008 by working with key legislators from both parties and the Governor. Key victories included the vetoes of a proposal that would have expanded workplace lawsuits (AB 437) and another that would have expanded rewards to plaintiffs for costs of litigation from private attorney general actions (SB 1113). Also stopped was an expansion of liability for manufacturers (AB 2690).
Limiting inflation for liability awards. Won veto of 2007 proposal that would have artificially inflated medical damage awards in third party liability cases by not allowing judges to consider the actual cost of medical expenses as evidence, ultimately increasing, not only legal costs, but also rates for auto and general liability insurance (SB 93)
Halted attacks on employers' right to arbitrate. In 2006, stopped potential increases in litigation costs for employers by defeating legislation that would have eliminated an employer’s ability to mandate the use of the less expensive and faster process of arbitration, rather than court, to resolve discrimination claims by employees under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (AB 2371, failed passage in Assembly 5/31/06).
Maintained Attorney General accountability. Ensured the Attorney General did not receive unchecked power and unfair settlement leverage against companies in "fishing expeditions" and lawsuits alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, corporate securities laws, environmental laws, and numerous other statutes, by winning a veto of legislation that would have required defendant companies to pay all the investigation and lawsuit costs, including attorney’s fees, if the Attorney General "prevailed." "Prevailed" was not defined and could have included a slight change in behavior by the company or miniscule settlements. (SB 1489, vetoed by Governor). In 2005, overcame a similar attempt (AB 153, Vetoed by Governor, 2005).
Held the line on punitive damages reform. Achieved a veto by the Governor, halting end-of-session 2006 legislation that would have hampered much-needed reforms to California’s out-of-control punitive damage system by establishing that 50 percent of all punitive damages awards go to an undefined state "public benefit" fund, potentially controlled by the attorney general, while 25 percent would still go to the plaintiffs' lawyer and the remaining 25% to the plaintiff (SB 832, vetoed by Governor).
Supported reforms of lawsuit abuse under Unfair Competition laws. Helped advocate and achieve passage of Proposition 64, which curbed predatory lawsuits by requiring attorneys who file section 17200 lawsuits to have an actual plaintiff who has been harmed or suffered by financial injury.
Protected confidentiality of proprietary information. In 2005, defeated legislation that aimed to impede a business’ ability to maintain the confidentiality of its proprietary information, thus exacerbating an already-hostile legal environment (AB 1700, Assembly Inactive File, 6/2/05)
Kept the lid on excessive litigation. In 2005, won a veto of legislation establishing new “sue your boss” lawsuits, which would have increased employer liability by providing new incentives for plaintiffs and their attorneys to file lawsuits by establishing new types of “sue your boss” lawsuits (SB 174 — vetoed by Governor). Also blocked new reasons to sue certain private sector employers by setting in statue a very detailed notice process that an employer must follow exactly in order to able to utilize any severance agreement (AB 1310, vetoed by Governor).

Positions

The CalChamber opposes unnecessary expansions of employer liability that do little to increase protections for individuals, but which increase litigation costs for employers, making them less competitive, and leaving them with fewer resources to expand and grow within the state.

The CalChamber opposes making sweeping changes to the legal system without evidence of a widespread problem, and will continue to work with the Legislature to prevent passage of unnecessary laws that worsen the legal climate for employers and make the state less competitive.

The CalChamber opposes attempts to pass attorney fees and costs onto employers, the establishment of disproportionate attorney fees, and limits on judicial discretion over awards of attorney fees.

The CalChamber supports the freedom of businesses to utilize arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, and to include arbitration agreements within consumer and employment contracts. The CalChamber also is supportive of legislation that requires arbitration to be fair and provide procedural protections for all parties involved.