The Bane Act, found at California Civil Code § 52.1, is an important state statute that shields a person from threats, intimidation, or violence that impede his/her constitutional or statutory rights. It is usually employed in instances of police abuse, hate crimes, excessive use of force, and other civil rights abuses. In contrast to other civil rights statutes, the Bane Act uniquely mandates the utilization of threats, violence, or coercion in order to strip one of their rights.
If you have been unlawfully detained, physically injured, or intimidated into waiving your rights, you might have a claim for a Bane Act lawsuit. Victims are entitled to recover damages, legal fees, and even punitive damages in gross misconduct cases. This article will delve into the law behind Bane Act lawsuits, who is liable, how to file a claim, and what compensation is available to victims.
What is the Bane Act?
The Bane Act is a California civil rights statute that offers protections above federal civil rights laws. It was enacted to stop government officials, law enforcement officers, and private individuals from employing force, threats, or intimidation to discourage an individual from exercising their constitutional rights.
This law is often used in cases involving:
- Police brutality or excessive force
- Unlawful arrests and detentions
- Hate crimes
- Retaliation for exercising free speech
- Interference with voting rights
- Unlawful searches and seizures
Unlike general civil rights laws, the Bane Act does not require discrimination to be a factor. This means that even if a violation is not based on race, gender, religion, or another protected class, the victim can still pursue a claim if force or intimidation was used against them.
Who Can Be Held Liable Under the Bane Act?
A Bane Act lawsuit can be filed against any person or entity that has used force, violence, threats, or coercion to prevent someone from exercising their legal rights. Common defendants in these cases include:
- Police Officers and Law Enforcement Agencies – Officers who engage in excessive force, wrongful arrests, or illegal detentions may be sued under the Bane Act.
- Government Officials and Public Entities – If a state or local government agency enforces unlawful policies that result in threats or intimidation, they may be held accountable.
- Private Individuals – The Bane Act also applies to private parties who use threats or violence to interfere with someone’s rights, such as hate crimes or violent attacks motivated by retaliation.
- Employers and Businesses – In some cases, companies and organizations that allow or encourage threats or coercion against individuals may be sued under the Bane Act.
How to Prove a Bane Act Claim
To succeed in a Bane Act lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove the following key elements:
- The defendant used threats, intimidation, or violence – This means that verbal threats, physical force, or aggressive behavior was used to interfere with the victim’s rights.
- The victim was exercising a legal right – The plaintiff must show that they were engaged in a constitutionally protected activity at the time of the violation, such as protesting, recording police officers, or asserting their right to remain silent.
- The threats, intimidation, or violence caused harm – The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions resulted in injury, fear, or a direct violation of their rights.
Examples of Bane Act Violations
Bane Act claims can arise in various situations, including:
- A protester is physically assaulted by police officers for filming an arrest.
- An individual is arrested without cause and threatened with harm if they do not comply.
- A landlord uses threats of violence to evict a tenant without legal grounds.
- A person is attacked for exercising their right to vote or participate in political activities.
- A hate crime is committed with the intent to silence or intimidate the victim.
Filing a Bane Act Lawsuit in California
If you believe your rights have been violated under the Bane Act, here are the steps to filing a lawsuit:
- Gather Evidence – Collect any videos, photos, witness statements, police reports, medical records, or other evidence that support your claim.
- Consult an Attorney – A civil rights lawyer can evaluate your case, determine if you have a valid Bane Act claim, and guide you through the legal process.
- File a Complaint – Your attorney will file a civil lawsuit in a California court, detailing the violations and seeking compensation.
- Discovery and Legal Proceedings – Both sides will exchange evidence, interview witnesses, and prepare for court. Many Bane Act cases settle before trial, but some may go to a jury.
- Settlement or Trial – If a settlement is not reached, the case proceeds to trial, where a judge or jury determines liability and potential compensation.
Compensation for Bane Act Claims
Victims of Bane Act violations may be entitled to recover various damages, including:
- Medical Expenses – If the victim suffered physical injuries, they may be compensated for hospital bills, physical therapy, and ongoing treatment.
- Lost Wages and Future Earnings – If the violation resulted in job loss or inability to work, the victim can recover lost income.
- Pain and Suffering – Emotional distress, psychological trauma, and humiliation caused by the violation may be compensated.
- Punitive Damages – In cases of egregious misconduct, additional punitive damages may be awarded to punish the wrongdoer.
- Attorney’s Fees – Under the Bane Act, successful plaintiffs may recover legal fees from the defendant.
Compensation for Bane Act Claims
Victims of Bane Act violations may be entitled to recover various damages, including:
- Medical Expenses – If the victim suffered physical injuries, they may be compensated for hospital bills, physical therapy, and ongoing treatment.
- Lost Wages and Future Earnings – If the violation resulted in job loss or inability to work, the victim can recover lost income.
- Pain and Suffering – Emotional distress, psychological trauma, and humiliation caused by the violation may be compensated.
- Punitive Damages – In cases of egregious misconduct, additional punitive damages may be awarded to punish the wrongdoer.
- Attorney’s Fees – Under the Bane Act, successful plaintiffs may recover legal fees from the defendant.
Statute of Limitations for Bane Act Lawsuit
In California, Bane Act lawsuits must generally be filed within two years of the violation. However, if the lawsuit is against a government entity, a claim must first be filed within six months before pursuing a lawsuit in court. Missing these deadlines may result in losing your right to seek compensation.
Why Legal Representation is Crucial
Bane Act cases can be complex, especially when they involve law enforcement or government agencies. These entities often have legal teams ready to defend against civil rights claims. Hiring an experienced civil rights attorney can make a significant difference in:
- Gathering strong evidence and witness testimonies
Negotiating fair settlements - Presenting a compelling case in court
- Ensuring all legal deadlines are met
Legal References:
- Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 329. See also ABC Test, California Department of Labor.
- California Labor Code 2775 LAB. See also California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 2705. See also, for example, Bowen v. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc. (Cal.App. 2024) .
- California Labor Code 2775 LAB.
- California Labor Code 2775(b)(1)(A) LAB.
- Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, 958. See also Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Internat. (2021) 10 Cal. 5th 944.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, citing Western Ports v. Employment Security Department (2002) 41 P.3d 510.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, citing Fleece on Earth v. Department of Employment & Training (2007) 181 Vt. 458.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, citing Great Northern Construction, Inc. v. Dept. of Labor (2016) 161 A.3d 1207.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, at 959-961.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, citing Dole v. Snell (10th Cir. 1989) 875 F.2d 802.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, at 959.
- Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985) 471 U.S. 290.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, at 961-3.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, at 962. Going into business for oneself often involves taking the following steps: incorporating as a business, advertising, obtaining any necessary business licenses, and making offers to provide business services to the public.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, citing Brothers Construction Co. v. Virginia Employment Commission (1998) 494 S.E.2d 478.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, citing Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Comp. Act (2017) 155 A.3d 738.
- California Labor Code 2780 LAB. Examples include recording artists or their managers, songwriters, lyricists, composers, or proofers, record producers and directors, musical engineers and mixers, musicians and musical groups, vocalists, and photographers working in the music industry.
- California Labor Code 2782 LAB.
- California Labor Code 2783 LAB.
- Same.
- Same. The licensed professionals include lawyers, architects and landscape architects, engineers, accountants, and private investigators.
- Same.
- Same.
- Same.
- California Labor Code 2778 LAB.
- Same.
- Same.
- Same.
- Same.
- Same.
- California Labor Code 2776 LAB.
- California Labor Code 2777 LAB.
- California Labor Code 2778 LAB.
- California Labor Code 2779 LAB.
- California Labor Code 2781 LAB.
- S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. Some of those factors of the Borello test are:
- whether the worker is in a distinct occupation or business,
- whether the type of work normally happens under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision,
- how much skill is necessary for the work,
- who supplies the tools and workspace,
- whether or how much the worker invested in their tools or helpers,
- how long the services will be performed,
- whether the worker is compensable based on time spent on the job or upon the job’s completion,
- whether the work is within the purported employer’s regular business,
- whether the parties believe that they are creating an employer-employee relationship, and
- whether the worker can profit or lose from the work based on their managerial skill.
None of these factors are dispositive. - Same.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, at 954.
- Dynamex, supra note 5, at 956, footnote 23. Because the Dynamex decision changed independent contractor misclassification law, it had a huge impact on ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft that rely on delivery drivers and taxi-like drivers.
- California Labor Code 2785 LAB.
- Daniel Wiessner, 9th Circuit weighs claims that Uber was targeted by Calif. contractor law, Reuters (March 20, 2024).
- California Code of Civil Procedure 338 CCP; California Code of Civil Procedure 337 CCP. While independent contractors do not enjoy these legal and financial benefits, they have more control in how they work. True independent contractors can: choose which days and hours to work, choose and use their own equipment, and take breaks whenever they want. Actual independent contractors only have to satisfy the companies that they contract with in the products and services that they provide. True independent contractors cannot be told how to provide them. They are central to the current gig economy. This is why independent contractor misclassification is a problem in employment law: Employers classify workers as independent contractors but treat them as employees. By doing so, they can control the work that is provided while also avoiding the legal obligations that are owed to employees.
- California Labor Code 226.8 LAB.
About the Author
Neil Bhartia
Neil Bhartia isn’t your typical, stuffy attorney that you see on TV. While some have their sights exclusively on money and treat their clients like a number, Neil takes a personal interest in every single client he has. As an empath, Neil understands that people that seek legal help are typically in an involuntary, and stressful situation, and he goes out of his way to diffuse the stress and educate clients on each every detail of the legal process.
