In Triad Data Services, Inc. v. Jackson (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, the employee won an award at the labor commission that included $ 2,275 in wages plus $ 2,310 in waiting time penalties, prompting the employer to seek judicial review. Trial de novo in the municipal court also resulted in a judgment for the employee, but in a much lower amount: the court reduced her wage award by more than $ 600 and disallowed waiting time penalties altogether. Despite the reduction in the employee's recovery, the municipal court awarded her attorney's fees. The employer appealed to the appellate division of the superior court. In that appeal, the employer sought "to establish . . . success in the trial de novo by comparing the judgment issued by the trial court with the award or decision of the commissioner." (Id. at p. Supp. 14.) The appellate division rebuffed the employer's argument, finding it "without merit." (Ibid.) The appellate division concluded that an employer seeking judicial review is "unsuccessful in the appeal" if trial de novo results in an award to the employee, even if it is lower than that originally awarded by the labor commissioner. As the Triad court put it: "We reason that the statutory language contained in section 98.2, subdivision (b) now (c) of 'unsuccessful in such appeal', should be given the inverse meaning to that of 'prevailing party' which is well settled in this state. The prevailing party is the party in whose favor final judgment is rendered. 'The general rule is that net recovery is the basis upon which attorneys' fees are computed. We find that the defendant employee 'prevailed,' or, conversely, the plaintiff employer was 'unsuccessful' below. The trial judge properly granted attorney's fees and costs to defendant employee pursuant to . . . section 98.2." (Triad Data Services, Inc. v. Jackson, supra, 153 Cal. App. 3d Supp. at p. 15, 200 Cal. Rptr. 418.)