Wage Law

The IWC may have been de-funded, but the "sitting" IWC Commissioners, or at least one of them, seem to be willing to provide defense expert testimony in wage and hour cases for the bargain rate of $450 per hour. We've been informed that Bill Dombrowski (also an executive with the California Retailers Association, making his bias readily apparent) is willing and ready, and has been retained by at least one defense firm, for a fee, to provide declarations stating that the legislative intent of the IWC favors an employer's contention.

We wonder how such testimony can be admissible, in that intent must be taken from the public record, not from some undisclosed mindframe that can only be determined years later by paying an hourly rate to the appointed government official. The law is well settled that expert testimony cannot be offered to prove the meaning of a law. The court, not the witnesses, must decide the law. "Expert opinions on legal questions are not admissible regardless of whether the opinion embraces an ultimate issue of fact." Summers v. A.L. Gilbert (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1179.

And that is a good thing, too. What an incentive for future corruption this could present. Imagine, if you will, legislators drafting vague statutes so that they could profit later by offering otherwise unknowable legislative intent as retained litigation experts. That is essentially Dombrowski's situation, although he probably didn't plan it that way and is merely an opportunist. Hopefully, the court in every case will exclude Dombrowski's testimony and the defense bar will stop wasting their money on such "evidence." (And people wonder why defense bills are so expensive.)