join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 3

Supreme Court Tells EEOC It May Be on the Hook for Fees if It Does Not Fulfill Its Statutory Pre-Suit Duties

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to a party who prevails in a discrimination or retaliation claim brought under that statute. Although this fee shifting provision applies to both employee plaintiffs and employer defendants, courts routinely award fees to prevailing plaintiffs but have interpreted this provision to allow prevailing defendants to recover fees only in the rare case where the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous or unreasonable. Last week, in a helpful decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that a defendant-employer does not necessarily need to prevail “on the merits” of a discrimination lawsuit to be entitled to fees.

Fee Wars: Supreme Court Eases Defendants’ Burden for Attorneys’ Fees in Baseless Discrimination Actions

In an 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that attorneys’ fees for successfully defending a Title VII action can be recovered by an employer even if the defendant’s victory is not based on the merits of the case. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375 (May 19, 2016). The ruling overturned an earlier Eighth Circuit decision that had allowed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to escape payment of attorneys’ fees. The ruling is important because defendants sometimes prevail in frivolous lawsuits for procedural reasons that are not merits-based.

Supreme Court Holds a Party May be Entitled to Attorneys' Fees Absent a Favorable Ruling on the Merits

On May 19, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in CRST, Inc. v. EEOC, which addressed the definition of a “prevailing party” who may be awarded attorneys’ fees in Title VII cases. Although the Court ultimately remanded the case to the Eighth Circuit on other grounds, it unanimously held that a favorable ruling on the merits of a Title VII case is “not a necessary predicate to find that a defendant has prevailed.” A boon to employers, this decision enables defendants to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under Title VII for frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless claims when such claims are disposed of on any grounds, regardless of whether those grounds are merit-based or procedural.
    SORT ARTICLES
  • No Subtopics.

Ogletree Deakins | California | The Opportunities and Obligations of Venture Capital and Private Equity in the #MeToo Environment (February 01, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | Glimmers of Hope? Pair of Recent PAGA Cases Provide Rare Procedural Victories for California Employers (January 31, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | California’s Salary History Ban: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (January 23, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | The ICEman Cometh? Recent War of Words Puts California Employers in the Crosshairs of National Immigration Debate (January 22, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | California | Trial Court Properly Denied Attorneys’ Fees To Plaintiff Who Proved His Termination Was Substantially Motivated By His Disabilities, But Was Not The Prevailing Party At Trial (January 21, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | Cal/OSHA Approves Long-Awaited Housekeeper Injury Prevention Regulations (January 24, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | DLSE Publishes Voluntary Template for Required Employer AB 450 Notice (February 11, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | Cal/OSHA Approves Hotel Housekeeping Injury Standard – Likely to Go Into Effect Later This Year (January 21, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | As Marijuana Shops Thrive, California Employers Revisit Drug Policies (January 18, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | California | California Labor Department Releases Form for Employers Responding to Immigration Agency Inspection (February 12, 2018)