Fee petition mechanics · Updated July 2026
California Silenced No More Act prohibited NDA attorney fee petition mechanics: NDA execution date in employer's contract management system as primary Welch anchor, Civ. Code § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fees
California Silenced No More Act civil enforcement (Cal. Civ. Code § 1001, SB 331, Stats. 2021, ch. 638, effective January 1, 2022) solos billing hourly on § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fees — in actions where the primary Welch temporal anchor is the NDA EXECUTION DATE IN THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (the date the employer presented and the separated or aggrieved employee executed a nondisclosure agreement, non-disparagement agreement, or confidentiality agreement that is void and unenforceable under Civ. Code § 1001 as a condition of receiving a severance, settlement, or continued-employment benefit; the NDA Execution Date in the Employer's Contract Management System is the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series in A PROHIBITED NDA EXECUTION DATE IN THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM — the Silenced No More Act's defining structural distinction from SB 820 [Civ. Code § 1002.5, enacted 2018, limited to sexual assault and sexual harassment settlements] is that SB 331 [Civ. Code § 1001, effective January 1, 2022] expanded the NDA prohibition to cover ALL FEHA-protected conduct: all employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, military and veteran status, and all other protected characteristics under FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.]; § 1001(a): 'a provision in a settlement agreement that prevents the disclosure of factual information relating to the action is prohibited' — extends the § 1002.5 prohibition to ALL FEHA-based civil actions and administrative proceedings; § 1001(b): a settlement agreement 'shall not prevent the disclosure of factual information relating to a civil action filed by an aggrieved person pursuant to' FEHA, the Ralph Civil Rights Act, the Bane Act, sexual assault civil actions, or other specified statutes; § 1001(c): an employer 'shall not require an employee to sign a nondisparagement agreement or other document, in exchange for a raise or as a condition of employment or continued employment, that denies the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment' — prohibiting broad non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements as a condition of receiving severance benefits, not limited to sexual harassment; the NDA Execution Date is not a court filing, not a government-issued administrative complaint, not a government-authored notice, not a CRD right-to-sue letter, and not a private employment decision; it is the date on which the employee's electronic signature was captured in the employer's contract management system — DocuSign CLM records the envelope creation date, NDA presentation date, employee signature date, and effective date entirely on the employer's institutional contract management platform outside the aggrieved party attorney's scheduling control; Ironclad records the contract workflow creation date, signatory notification date, and execution timestamp; Conga Composer records the document generation date and countersignature date; Agiloft records the contract import date and signature event date; Concord records the contract sharing date and signature date; ContractSafe records the document upload date and signatory execution date; Workday HCM offboarding workflow records the employee separation initiation date, severance offer presentation date, and NDA document link transmission date; SAP SuccessFactors offboarding module records the separation agreement package preparation date and NDA execution date; ADP Workforce Now separation management module records the termination effective date and signed documents archive date; § 1001(c) severance conditioning prohibition: employer may not condition any severance benefit — including salary continuation, COBRA subsidy, accelerated vesting, positive reference letters, outplacement services, or other separation consideration — on the employee signing a nondisparagement agreement that prevents disclosure of unlawful acts in the workplace; § 1001(e): 'Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit employers from requiring an employee to agree to maintain the confidentiality of the amount of the settlement'; the settlement amount confidentiality carve-out: employer may still require confidentiality of the dollar amount of any settlement — but NOT the facts underlying the claim; § 1001(d): 'In any action pursuant to this section, the prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs' — MANDATORY attorney fees to prevailing plaintiff; plaintiff recovers fees upon prevailing — no frivolous/groundless threshold required; FEHA retaliation concurrent: employer who fires or demotes employee for refusing to sign a § 1001-prohibited NDA violates FEHA § 12940(h) retaliation prohibition [opposing unlawful employment practices]; concurrent FEHA retaliation claim provides additional fee-shifting through FEHA § 12965(b); NLRB concurrent: McLaren Macomb (372 NLRB No. 58, 2023) and NLRB GC Memorandum GC 23-05: broad confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements that interfere with employees' NLRA § 7 rights to discuss terms and conditions of employment with coworkers may constitute unfair labor practices under NLRA § 8(a)(1) — NLRB concurrent enforcement calendar; no federal statutory counterpart to § 1001(d) — pure California law — pure Ketchum multiplier eligible for California § 1001(d) component; Dague bar applies to any NLRA/Title VII/Section 1981 federal component; Hensley task-level segregation required) — generate three billing gaps driven by prohibited NDA identification and § 1001 invalidity analysis advisory calls on the contract management system calendar, CRD/NLRB/EEOC concurrent enforcement advisory calls, and § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fee petition and Ketchum multiplier advisory calls on the post-judgment calendar: prohibited NDA identification and § 1001 invalidity and severance conditioning analysis advisory calls (7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% untracked ≈ 5.39 hrs = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr), CRD complaint and NLRB ULP charge and EEOC concurrent advisory calls (6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/year), and § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fee petition and Ketchum multiplier advisory calls (5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/year). For a solo California Silenced No More Act prohibited NDA enforcement practice, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is $5,005–$8,342.
TL;DR
ClaimHour captures every prohibited NDA identification and § 1001 invalidity analysis advisory call that starts the § 1001(d) fee documentation period, every CRD complaint investigation and NLRB ULP charge and EEOC concurrent advisory call on external government enforcement calendars outside the aggrieved party attorney's scheduling control, and every § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fee petition and Ketchum multiplier advisory call on the post-judgment calendar — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.
Prohibited NDA identification and § 1001 invalidity analysis: calls on the contract management system calendar
The NDA EXECUTION DATE IN THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM — the date the employer presented a void nondisclosure or non-disparagement agreement and the employee executed it — is the primary Welch temporal anchor for § 1001(d) attorney fee billing documentation. This date is the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series in A PROHIBITED NDA EXECUTION DATE IN THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. It is the Hensley lodestar start for three reasons: (1) § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fees and damages run from the date the prohibited NDA was executed and any subsequent enforcement action by the employer; (2) all advisory calls on NDA invalidity analysis (whether the specific NDA language violates § 1001 as expanded by SB 331), severance conditioning analysis, and FEHA retaliation analysis begin from the date the aggrieved employee retained § 1001 civil counsel; (3) the CRD complaint calendar, triggered by the CRD complaint filing, begins on CRD's own schedule from the complaint date — itself triggered by the employer's execution of the prohibited NDA and any subsequent adverse employment action.
Three initial advisory call types generate untracked billing from the NDA execution date: (1) Prohibited NDA identification and § 1001 invalidity analysis advisory — arrives when the aggrieved employee retains § 1001 civil counsel (NDA invalidity analysis: whether the specific confidentiality/non-disparagement language falls within § 1001's prohibition — the key question is whether the NDA prevents disclosure of 'factual information relating to' a FEHA-covered claim [§ 1001(a)/(b)] or prevents disclosure of 'information about unlawful acts in the workplace' [§ 1001(c)]; courts examine: [a] whether the NDA covered all workplace claims or was limited to a specific settled dispute; [b] whether the non-disparagement clause was drafted broadly enough to prevent disclosure of unlawful workplace conduct or only prohibited false statements; [c] whether the employer conditioned any severance consideration on signing — including salary continuation, COBRA subsidy, stock vesting acceleration, positive reference letters, or outplacement services; employer's DocuSign CLM records: envelope creation date, NDA first transmitted to employee, employee signature date, effective date; Ironclad records: contract workflow creation and signature timestamp; Conga records: document generation date and execution date; 42–48 min per call); (2) Severance conditioning analysis and benefit valuation advisory — arrives during case preparation (§ 1001(c) severance conditioning: employer may not condition any benefit on signing a prohibited non-disparagement agreement — the 'benefit' broadly includes any consideration not otherwise owed to the employee at termination; salary continuation beyond the WARN Act notice period; COBRA premium subsidy; accelerated vesting of unvested equity; outplacement services; positive reference letters; return of personal property sooner than legally required; the benefit valuation matters for damages computation: amount of severance withheld because employee refused to sign, or amount to which employee agreed but for which the agreement was void; § 1001(e) carve-out: employer may require confidentiality of settlement dollar amount only — so the amount carve-out is available; but the confidentiality of workplace facts and non-disparagement restrictions remain prohibited even if settlement amount confidentiality is separately preserved; Workday/SAP SuccessFactors offboarding workflow records: severance offer date, benefit package description, and NDA execution date in employer's HR system; 42–48 min per call); (3) FEHA retaliation and NLRB concurrent liability analysis advisory — arrives during pleading preparation (FEHA § 12940(h) retaliation concurrent: if employer fired or demoted employee for refusing to sign the prohibited NDA, or if employer is attempting to enforce the prohibited NDA by threatening litigation against the employee for making disclosures protected by § 1001, the employer's conduct constitutes FEHA retaliation [opposing unlawful employment practices]; employer's enforcement letter or cease-and-desist letter date = secondary Welch anchor in employer's legal department records; NLRB concurrent: McLaren Macomb (372 NLRB No. 58, February 21, 2023) — broadly drafted confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements that chill employees' Section 7 rights are unlawful under NLRA § 8(a)(1); NLRB complaint and ALJ calendar = secondary external calendar; damages: recovery of withheld severance benefits; declaratory relief that the prohibited NDA is void; injunctive relief preventing employer from enforcing the prohibited NDA against the employee or any other aggrieved employees; § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fees; 42–48 min per call). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% = 323.4 min / 60 = 5.39 hours = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr.
CRD complaint and NLRB ULP charge and EEOC concurrent advisory: calls on the external government enforcement calendars
A California Civ. Code § 1001 Silenced No More Act prohibited NDA action typically involves concurrent enforcement paths across multiple government agencies — the CRD complaint docket for any underlying FEHA retaliation claim, the NLRB regional office complaint calendar for any McLaren Macomb NLRA § 8(a)(1) unfair labor practice charge, and the EEOC complaint calendar for any concurrent federal Title VII or Section 1981 claim. Each external calendar creates advisory calls triggered by their own procedural milestones on those agencies' own calendars. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from NDA execution date. Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Three concurrent external calendar advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) CRD FEHA retaliation complaint investigation advisory — arrives when CRD complaint is filed (CRD FEHA retaliation exhaustion: if the § 1001 prohibited NDA was executed in connection with settling a FEHA discrimination or harassment claim, or if the employer retaliated against the employee for refusing to sign, the FEHA retaliation charge requires CRD exhaustion [Gov. Code § 12960]; CRD assigns complaint number and intake specialist on CRD's institutional complaint management calendar; CRD's investigation calendar — including document requests to the employer's HR department and legal department for the NDA text, the employer's standard severance template, and the compensation to which the NDA was conditioned — is entirely outside the aggrieved party attorney's scheduling control; CRD right-to-sue notice: available immediately on request; one-year civil action deadline from right-to-sue; if the § 1001 violation is asserted as an independent cause of action separate from the underlying FEHA claim, no CRD exhaustion may be required for the § 1001 claim itself — but CRD exhaustion of any concurrent FEHA retaliation claim is required; 44–50 min per call); (2) NLRB Regional Office ULP charge advisory — arrives when McLaren Macomb theory is asserted (NLRB McLaren Macomb concurrent enforcement: NLRB GC Memorandum GC 23-05 (March 22, 2023) directs Regional Offices to seek rescission of broad severance agreement confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions that interfere with NLRA Section 7 rights; McLaren Macomb (372 NLRB No. 58, Feb. 21, 2023): NLRB held that even offering a severance agreement containing unlawfully broad provisions violates § 8(a)(1) — the agreement does not need to be signed for a violation; NLRB Regional Office charge filing: charge must be filed within six months of the date the employer offered or presented the violating severance agreement; NLRB Regional Office investigates; if complaint issues, NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) schedules hearing on ALJ's institutional hearing calendar entirely outside the aggrieved party attorney's scheduling control; NLRB Board appeal calendar is also institutional; NLRB remedy: rescission of the invalid provisions; employer notification to all employees who received the violating agreement; no NLRB attorney fee award (NLRA does not provide attorney fees in ULP proceedings) — but NLRB resolution may strengthen the concurrent § 1001(d) civil action; Dague bar: any NLRA component pursued as a civil breach of the NLRA is Dague-constrained; Hensley segregation required between California § 1001(d) and federal NLRA components; 44–50 min per call); (3) EEOC Title VII concurrent complaint advisory — arrives when employer has 15+ employees (EEOC Title VII/Section 1981 concurrent: if the underlying workplace misconduct that the prohibited NDA sought to conceal was race/sex/national origin discrimination or harassment, and the employer has 15+ employees, EEOC Title VII charge may be filed concurrently with CRD complaint [worksharing agreement allows dual-filing]; EEOC assigns charge number; EEOC's investigation and conciliation calendar is entirely outside the aggrieved party attorney's scheduling control; EEOC right-to-sue: available by request after 180 days or upon EEOC's administrative closure; if the § 1001 prohibited NDA was executed in connection with a Title VII hostile work environment settlement: the EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Confidentiality Agreements (2023) takes the position that pre-lawsuit confidentiality agreements in EEOC charges are unenforceable; concurrent Title VII claim: federal Dague bar; no multiplier; Hensley segregation required; Section 1981 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) does not require EEOC exhaustion — concurrent § 1981 race discrimination claim against individual harassers; § 1981 attorneys fees: federal Dague bar; Hensley segregation required; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.
§ 1001(d) mandatory attorney fee petition advisory: calls on the post-judgment calendar
Cal. Civ. Code § 1001(d) provides mandatory attorney fees to the plaintiff who prevails in a Silenced No More Act prohibited NDA enforcement action: 'In any action pursuant to this section, the prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.' This is mandatory — not discretionary — for the prevailing plaintiff. The § 1001(d) fee petition requires a Hensley lodestar from the NDA execution date through all phases — NDA invalidity analysis, severance conditioning analysis, CRD exhaustion (for any concurrent FEHA retaliation claim), NLRB charge monitoring, EEOC concurrent monitoring, civil discovery and trial. The Ketchum multiplier argument is available in § 1001 cases where: (1) the employer's contract management system records (DocuSign CLM, Ironclad, Conga, Agiloft) and the offboarding workflow records (Workday, SAP SuccessFactors, ADP) were under the employer's exclusive control at engagement — requiring discovery into the NDA drafting history, the standard severance template, and the HR communications conditioning benefits on signing; (2) whether the specific non-disparagement language violated § 1001(c) was legally uncertain as of January 1, 2022 (few published decisions interpreting SB 331's expansion); (3) the NLRB McLaren Macomb concurrent theory created tactical uncertainty about timing and whether pursuing NLRB foreclosed § 1001(d) fee recovery or created collateral estoppel issues; (4) no federal counterpart to § 1001(d) existed — pure California law — creating contingency risk from California-only venue with emerging case law. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983). Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Two § 1001(d) post-judgment advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) § 1001 damages computation and severance benefit recovery advisory — arrives at civil judgment (§ 1001 damages: recovery of withheld severance benefits conditioned on the prohibited NDA; declaratory relief that the prohibited NDA is void and unenforceable; injunctive relief preventing employer from enforcing the prohibited NDA and directing employer to provide notice to other affected employees; if employer threatened or initiated litigation against the employee for making disclosures protected by § 1001: damages for the cost of defending the employer's enforcement action; if concurrent FEHA § 12940(h) retaliation prevails: back pay, front pay, emotional distress, punitive damages under Civ. Code § 3294; concurrent NLRB rescission remedy: employer directed to notify all employees who received violating severance agreements; § 1001(d) fee petition: Hensley lodestar from NDA execution date through all phases [NDA invalidity analysis; severance conditioning analysis; CRD administrative exhaustion [with Hensley segregation from concurrent FEHA components]; NLRB charge monitoring [non-recoverable under § 1001(d); separate from California fee petition]; EEOC monitoring [with Hensley segregation]; civil discovery — employer HR records; trial]; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees; 44–50 min per call); (2) § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fee petition and Ketchum multiplier advisory — arrives at fee petition filing (Hensley lodestar components: [a] prohibited NDA identification and § 1001 invalidity analysis hours; [b] severance conditioning and benefit valuation hours; [c] CRD administrative complaint processing hours [with Hensley segregation — § 1001(d) California mandatory fees; no federal Dague bar for § 1001(d) California component]; [d] NLRB charge monitoring hours [no fee award from NLRB]; [e] EEOC/Title VII concurrent monitoring hours [Dague-constrained; no multiplier; Hensley segregation required]; [f] civil discovery — employer contract management system records; [g] trial; Ketchum five-factor multiplier: [a] employer's DocuSign CLM/Ironclad NDA records and Workday/SAP offboarding workflow records were under employer's exclusive control at engagement; [b] whether specific non-disparagement language violated § 1001(c) was legally uncertain as of January 2022; [c] NLRB McLaren Macomb concurrent theory created tactical uncertainty; [d] no federal § 1001(d) parallel — pure California law — pure Ketchum eligible; [e] employer's counsel's simultaneous threat to enforce prohibited NDA created time pressure at engagement; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees; PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) prevailing market rate; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 242 min / 60 = 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year at $300–$500/hr.
How ClaimHour fits California Silenced No More Act prohibited NDA enforcement practice
California Silenced No More Act prohibited NDA enforcement solos billing hourly on § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fees — with prohibited NDA identification and § 1001 invalidity analysis and severance conditioning analysis advisory calls arriving when aggrieved employees retain § 1001 civil counsel (NDA Execution Date in Employer's Contract Management System = primary Welch anchor; the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series in A PROHIBITED NDA EXECUTION DATE IN THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; the NDA execution date is the timestamp on the DocuSign envelope completed-signature confirmation, the Ironclad contract workflow completion notification, or the Workday offboarding workflow closed-documents record — fixed in the employer's institutional system before any CRD complaint, any NLRB charge, and any court filing), CRD FEHA retaliation complaint investigation advisory calls on CRD's institutional complaint management calendar entirely outside the aggrieved party attorney's scheduling control, NLRB McLaren Macomb ULP charge advisory calls on the NLRB Regional Office's institutional complaint management calendar, EEOC concurrent complaint advisory calls, and § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fee petition and Ketchum multiplier advisory calls arriving at civil judgment — and if your § 1001(d) lodestar documentation must satisfy the Hensley contemporaneous-record standard from the NDA execution date through all phases of CRD exhaustion, NLRB charge monitoring, EEOC concurrent advisory, and civil discovery and trial, through the § 1001(d) mandatory attorney fee petition, ClaimHour was built for that gap.