Skip to main content

Disproportionately Large Award of Attorney's Fees, Based Upon Claim That is Largely Unsuccessfull, is Allowed


Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc.. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

Facts:  Kim Muniz, Plaintiff, had been given a performance improvement plan and later demoted, based on unsatisfactory performance by her employer United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant.  Plaintiff sued and alleged age and gender discrimination, retaliation and negligent supervision and training.  Plaintiff's age discrimination, retaliation, and negligent supervision claims were defeated and/or voluntarily dismissed prior to trial.  As a result, only Plaintiff's gender discrimination claim was tried.  At trial, the jury determined that Plaintiff's demotion was motivated by gender discrimination and awarded Plaintiff damages of only $27,000, contrary to the $700,000 that Plaintiff had asked for.    

Although the Defendant largely prevailed on the claims, Plaintiff filed a motion for recovery of attorney's fees for prevailing on a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) discrimination claim.  Plaintiff sought attorney's fees in the amount of $1.9 million, based upon a claimed lodestar of $1.3 million and an upward enhancement of 1.5.  After considering the work done by Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff's counsel's inability to sufficiently prove the number of hours spent on litigation, and Defendant's argument that the award should be reduced to account for Plaintiff's limited success, the trial court awarded Plaintiff nearly $700,000 in attorney's fees. 

Holding:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, as a result of the deferential standard of review that affords trial court's broad discretion to set the amount of attorney's fees awarded, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's attorney's fees award.  Although the lower court could have reduced the fee award more than it had, the Ninth Circuit declined to hold that this was an abuse of discretion.  Based upon the facts, the lower court had properly considered the issues, including the time spent by Plaintiff's counsel on the litigation part of the successful part of Plaintiff's claim. 

Judgment:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court properly considered the issues and did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of attorney's fees to award Plaintiff.   

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Singleton

Date:  December 5, 2013

Opinion:  http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/12/05/11-17282.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more