Fraud asserted against model employee

Often, the penalties and attorneys' fees associated with a Labor Code suit far exceed the wages at issue. In the following case, a fashion model sought a waiting-time penalty 3,000% of the one-day's wages claimed to be late. The employer counterclaimed for fraud. Read on to see whether that counterclaim survived a public policy challenge.

Was Hockey's goal an intentional trap?

Natalie Hockey is a fashion model, represented by LA Models, Inc. Their agreement provided that LA Models would negotiate contracts for her and collect payment on her behalf. Brighton Collectibles LLC designs, manufactures, and sells women's fashion accessories.

In October 2018, Brighton selected Hockey to model some of its products. It negotiated an agreement with LA Models that stated Hockey would participate in a one-day, 10-hour-long photoshoot in exchange for $3,000, LA Models would invoice Brighton for her work, Brighton would pay LA Models, and LA Models would pay her. The invoice directed Brighton to "make checks payable to L.A. Models, Inc." The terms were consistent with standard industry practice.

The photoshoot took place on October 4. LA Models invoiced Brighton for Hockey's work on October 29, writing that payment was due "upon job completion." Brighton paid the invoice with a check dated December 7.