Norman H. Pine

Recognized by the State Bar as a certified appellate law specialist, over the past 20 years Pine has become a champion for the employee, or what he calls the “little guy.”

In 2015, Pine helped change employment law in a monumental way when he obtained a California Supreme Court decision making suits against employers a more viable endeavor in California.

The court held that although a trial court must award costs to a prevailing Fair Employment and Housing Act plaintiff, the opposite was true if a defendant won. An unsuccessful plaintiff may only be required to pay a prevailing defendant-employer’s costs if the court finds the lawsuit was objectively groundless. Before the decision, employees bringing suits against employers had to decide whether it was worth the risk of having to pay not only their own attorney fees but the defendant’s as well, if they lost. Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 2015 S2131000 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. June 19, 2015).

“The possible cost exposure hanging over their heads probably kept many plaintiffs from coming forward over the years,” Pine said.

According to Pine, one of the keys to his and his law firm’s success is that he refuses to take on cases he doesn’t believe in.

In a recent case as lead counsel, Pine was able to protect a seven-figure judgment consisting of noneconomic damages and attorney fees on behalf of a client who sued his employer for failing to accommodate his disabilities. Estelle v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, B268085 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., filed Nov. 17, 2017).

“That’s the kind of case that makes me love doing what I do,” Pine said.

Pine’s client had been driving for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for most of his adult life when he suffered an accident, severely injuring his knee. As a result of his injury, Pine’s client could no longer drive buses with a smaller sized cab without terrible pain and discomfort.

After repeatedly requesting that he be reassigned to drive buses with larger cabs, a plea that was continuously ignored by his employer, Pine’s client was subsequently fired. After extensive post-appeal briefing and a two-hour oral argument, the superior court awarded appellate attorney fees consisting of all counsels requested lodestar amount plus a 1.75 multiplier.

Pine said his proclivity for argument was evident at a very young age.

“I found that I could extend my bedtimes or get other perks by being able to convincingly argue to my parents that it made perfect sense,” said Pine. “From that point forward, I knew that being able to skillfully argue was a wonderful trait to have if you wanted good things in life.”

— Blaise Scemama