2025-05-23 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board May 23, 2025 The second point is regarding fundamental fairness. In terms of these proceedings for individual employees who qualify or have to proceed through the Merit Appeals Board —fundamental fairness dictates that their attorney's fees and costs will be paid. That's based on two reasons. One, the context of these appeals are —it's a "make whole" remedy in terms of the employee. And two, in the context of these types of issues, had these issues involve people who would be qualified under collective bargaining agreements, their attorney's fees and costs in a grievance, in an arbitration, would be paid for by the Union. But what you're doing isor what the County's suggesting is individuals who are in similar circumstances are forced to pay their own attorney's fees and cost, and I would submit that that's actually a prohibition or, certainly, would act as a prohibition for a lot of people who would qualify and forced to litigate their issues before not litigate but forced to bring their appeals to the Merit Appeals Board versus going through the grievance and arbitration process. So, it's fundamentally unfair for them to be responsible for paying their attorney's fees and costs. I would point out that if they were in a excluded management position, that' d probably be more equitable, `cause they're making a lot more money —but with respect to Mr. Turner or Mr. Kaye. they're not in those kinds excluded positions and it is burdensome for their for them to try and bring their appeal to the Merit Appeals Board. And, as the Board knows, these hearings went over several days. So, it is burdensome financially for individual employees, at this level, to bring appeals to the —or bring their appeals to the Merit Appeals Board —and we ask that the Board grant the motion and award fees and costs. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, Mr. Hong. Mr. Lee. MR. LEE: Thank you. Mr. Hong makes some good points but, really, I think the fundamental trend is, he argues about —doesn't consider the reverse when the shoe's on the other foot. What Mr. Hong is proposing is a situation where the other side pays, if they lose. But the Board shall also consider the precedent it would be setting and the reason why the American Rule exists is —what if Mr. Turner had lost? Would he be liable for fees and costs? That would put a greater chilling effect upon bringing an appeal. So, I think the basis for the American Rule is that each party bears its own fees and costs —is the most equitable situation because it considers both scenarios of winning and losing. I would note that neither does Appellant cite any authority for the imposition of attorney's fees. The citation —and Mr. Hong cites to —as I note in my opposition relates to medical cost. So, we would submit that it's not on point. Page 15