Employment – FMLA – attorney fees

Listen to this article

Employment – FMLA – attorney fees

It was not unreasonable to award $325,000 in attorney fees, even though the plaintiff recovered less than $50,000.

“Fee-shifting statutes such as §2617(a)(3) are designed to prevent the potentially high costs of litigation from stifling justified claims. Without such a statute, defendants might
have said to Cuff at the outset: ‘We concede violating your rights under the Act, and we also concede that your loss is 50,000, but we plan to wage an all-out defense that will cost
at least $200,000 to overcome. You might as well capitulate, because you will lose on net.’ A business that can establish a reputation for intransigence may end up not paying damages and not having to defend all that often either, because if a prevailing party who litigates to victory gets only a small award of fees the next would-be victim will see that litigation is futile and the employer won’t have to repeat the costly defense. That’s why we held in BCS Services, Inc. v. BG Investments, Inc., 728 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2013), that hyperaggressive defendants who drive up the expense of litigation must pay the full costs, even if legal fees seem excessive in retrospect. That principle controls here—or, more properly, the
district judge did not abuse his discretion in thinking that it controls and deeming Cuff’s legal expenses reasonable in light of the defendants’ conduct.”

Affirmed.

13-1241 Cuff v. Trans States Holdings, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Easterbrook, J.

Full Text