Employment — Title VII — attorney fees

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals

Civil

Employment — Title VII — attorney fees

It was error for a court to reduce a prevailing plaintiff’s attorney fee award, even though the attorney will also recover a contingency fee.

“The Supreme Court has recognized that private fee arrangements and statutory fee awards can coexist. See Venegas, 495 U.S. at 88. The Court has repeatedly distinguished between the statutory fee award, which compels the losing party to compensate the prevailing party for the attorney’s services, and the contingent fee, which the plaintiff may contract to pay her attorney. See id. at 90. This perspective conveys to district courts that they should view these fees as distinct and not allow a contingent fee to influence the determination of the reasonableness of an hourly rate. When a district court reduces an attorney’s hourly rate because the attorney also stands to receive a contingent fee from the plaintiff, the defendant is no longer paying the attorney’s full market value (i.e., reasonable hours spent multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate). The district court has essentially determined that the reduced statutory fee combined with the contingent fee will yield the market value. But this formulation is not what Congress or the Supreme Court intended. This attempt to prevent the plaintiff’s attorney from recovering a windfall causes the defendant to receive a windfall benefit as it avoids its full fee-shifting obligation.”

Vacated and Remanded.

11-2146 Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Center

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Pallmeyer, J., Flaum, J.