Total Articles: 10
Summary Judgment Award for Attorneys’ Fees Against the EEOC
A recent magistrate judge’s decision in the Western District of Michigan awarded $751,942.48 in attorneys’ fees against the EEOC in a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 action handled by Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. The EEOC v. Peoplemark opinion highlights the burden the EEOC can place on private employers in defending baseless claims.
Supreme Court Adopts “But-For” Test for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees to Defendants
A defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit is entitled to its attorneys’ fees if a court determines that the plaintiff’s claims are frivolous, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, clearing any uncertainty among the lower courts as to the standards for determining fee awards to defendants where some of a plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and some are not. The Supreme Court adopted a “but-for” test for assessing fees against plaintiffs. It ruled that a defendant is “to receive only the portion of his fees that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim.” Fox v. Vice, No. 10-114 (June 6, 2011).
Want To Recover Your Fees For Meritless Civil Rights Litigation? The Supreme Court Explains How
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that in civil rights cases where the plaintiff brings both frivolous and nonfrivolous claims, the defendant can recover those attorneys' fees it would not have incurred but for the frivolous claims.
Supreme Court Unanimously Limits Employers' Right to Attorneys' Fees in Discrimination Cases
In federal cases alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation and violations of civil rights, when may a defendant employer recover attorneys' fees? It is long settled that defendants may recover only when the plaintiff's claims are "frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation." What about when just some of the claims are frivolous? The Supreme Court answered that question, unanimously, with Justice Kagan writing the opinion:
Summary Judgment Award for Attorneys' Fees Against the EEOC
A recent magistrate judge's decision in the Western District of Michigan awarded $751,942.48 in attorneys' fees against the EEOC in a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 action handled by Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. The EEOC v. Peoplemark opinion highlights the burden the EEOC can place on private employers in defending baseless claims.
Employer Hit With Age and Sex Discrimination Lawsuit After RIF But Employees Claims Fail Mostly.
Tough economic times have forced employers to layoff employees. Layoffs can lead to litigation when employees allege that illegal discrimination tainted the selection process.
Employment and Tax Advisory: Supreme Court Decision Holds That Plaintiffs Must Pay Tax On Portion of Recovery Paid To Attorney As A Contingent Fee (pdf).
Should the contingent fee portion of a settlement be taxable to the
plaintiff, even if the money goes directly to the attorney? In a January 24,
2005 decision, the Supreme Court answered affirmatively, holding that when a
litigants recovery constitutes income, the litigants income includes the portion
of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee.
Supreme Court Decides to Include Attorney's Fees in Plaintiff's Gross Income (pdf).
On January 24, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether the portion of a judgment or settlement paid to a plaintiffs attorney under a contingent fee agreement is income to the plaintiff. The Court held that the entire recovery should be included in the plaintiffs gross income. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Banks, No. 03-892.
Taxation of Attorneys' Fees in Employment Discrimination Cases (pdf).
The "double taxation" of attorneys' fees awarded to employees in
employment discrimination cases or included in settlements of such claims
-- a tax code result long opposed by attorneys for employees -- would be
eliminated by a bill now under consideration in Congress.
Ninth Circuit Allows Settling Plaintiff To Recover Attorneys Fees As A "Prevailing Party."
Discusses Barrios v. California Interscholastic Federation, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 579 (9th Cir., January 17, 2002), in which the court held that a legally enforceable settlement agreement can be the basis for a "prevailing party" determination where the relief obtained alters the legal relationship between the parties.
