Hawthorne

DISCUSSION

The Trial Court Did Not Err in Concluding the Release Agreement was Enforceable and Barred Hawthorne’s Claims On appeal, Hawthorne contends the trial court erred in finding the release of claims was enforceable. Hawthorne asserts: 1) the release was unenforceable as a matter of law under Labor Code section 206.52 and Reid v. Overland Machined Products (1961) 55 Cal.2d 203 (Reid); 2) the agreement was void as a matter of public policy; and 3) Italian Fashion never paid Hawthorne $20,000 as required in the agreement, thus it was unenforceable. We reject these arguments. Hawthorne’s contentions raise both legal and factual issues. We review questions of law de novo, including questions of the proper interpretation of a statute. (In re Clarissa H. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 120, 125.) We review a trial court’s factual findings

Labor Code section 206.5, subdivision (a) provides: “An employer shall not require the execution of a release of a claim or right on account of wages due, or to become due, or made as an advance on wages to be earned, unless payment of those wages has been made. A release required or executed in violation of the provisions of this section shall…