Hall v. County of Los Angeles

Filed 2/22/07  Hall v. County of Los Angeles CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carl  J. West, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Blumenthal & Markham, Norman B. Blumenthal, David R. Markham, Kyle R. Nordrehaug; Clark & Markham, R. Craig Clark, David R. Markham; The Lewis Law Firm and Murray Lewis for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

            Jones Day, Elwood Lui, Philip E. Cook; Greenberg Traurig, Scott D. Bertzyk, Karin L. Bohmdoldt; Bergman & Dacey, Inc. and Gregory M. Bergman for Defendants and Respondents The County of Los Angeles and The Office of Los  Angeles County Counsel.

            Goldstein & Goldstein and Charles H. Goldstein for Defendant and Respondent Auxiliary Legal Services, Inc.

___________________________________

            This is a class action alleging gender-based wage discrimination in violation of the state and federal Equal Pay Acts and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, in which the employer prevailed by summary judgment.  We affirm.

FACTS

A.

            In 1984, the Los Angeles County juvenile court caseloads increased so rapidly that many additional lawyers were needed to represent minors and others subject to the court's jurisdiction, thus triggering section 44.7 of article IX of the Los Angeles County Charter, which provides:  â€