Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-1860 (GK)
August 16, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the Government's Partial Opposition, Plaintiffs' Reply, and the entire record in this case, the Court concludes that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
In this case, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, Plaintiffs won a jury verdict on March 30, 2001 awarding Plaintiff Felder $450,000 and Plaintiff Simmons $500,000, as compensatory damages for pain and suffering arising from intentional race-based discrimination. On February 4, 2002, the Court awarded Plaintiffs the full amount of legal fees requested, which was $179,478.75, to cover the period of time from the filing of this lawsuit in 1999 through March 31, 2001.
On February 4, 2002, the Court also ruled on a number of outstanding motions filed by both Plaintiffs and Defendant, and on April 4, 2002, the Court ruled on Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in Part. Plaintiffs now seek in this Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees to be compensated for the legal services of their counsel rendered from April 1, 2001 through May 15, 2002. Plaintiffs seek to be compensated for the work they have done on all post-trial motions and the present fee petition. Defendants' basic argument is that the fee requested is unreasonable and disproportionately high in relation to the limited success Plaintiff 5 achieved in the post-trial motions. Plaintiffs argue that, under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and Goos v. National Ass'n of Realtors, 997 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the Court must look at all the results achieved by Plaintiffs, including the very substantial success obtained at trial.
Defendant does not challenge the hourly fee requested by Plaintiffs.
It is generally true that in the ordinary comprehensive fee petition, the "overall success" achieved by Plaintiffs must be considered, and that compensation should not be awarded on a claim-by-claim basis, Goos v. National Ass'n of Realtors, 68 F.3d 1380, 1384-85 (D.C. Cir. 1995). However, this is not the ordinary case because Plaintiffs have already been fully reimbursed for the success they obtained at trial. The Court awarded them the full amount of legal fees requested for all of the work that they performed up until April 1, 2001. In making that award, the Court fully considered the success achieved at trial. However, in this fee petition, Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for the work done after April 1, 2001, which consisted of the post-trial motions and the preparation of the present fee petition. Because of that significant difference, the Court must focus primarily on the application of the Hensley factors to the particular work for which Plaintiffs' counsel now seek compensation.
As to the post-trial motions, Plaintiff's did not fare nearly as well as they did at trial. After the jury verdict, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, a New Trial, or for Remitittur of the Verdict. Although that motion was denied, the remitittur was granted in substantial part: Plaintiff Felder's jury verdict was remitted from $450,000 to $125,000, and Plaintiff Simmons' jury verdict was remitted from $500,000 to $175,000.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Equitable Relief, which was in substantial part denied: the requests for housing and subsistence allowances, lost overtime pay, restoration of "home" leave and sick leave, and an injunction against future discrimination were all rejected. Plaintiffs did prevail on an issue that was of great importance to them: they were ordered to be given a comparable position in IS as soon as one became available, although the request to be based in a particular geographic location was denied.
Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees was not objected to by the Government.
Thus, while there were many issues raised in the post-trial Motions, Plaintiffs' major accomplishment was in preserving the verdict on the merits (albeit not for the huge sum awarded) and in obtaining an order for placement in the positions they had fought for for so long.
Plaintiffs now seek in the pending Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees an amount that is more than one-third of the attorneys' fees they received earlier. That earlier award covered the entire period of investigation, complaint-drafting, discovery, litigation of dispositive motions, post-trial preparation, and a seven-day trial. Moreover, counsel have spent almost one-third additional hours (192.75) as they spent on all of the prior work (591). Based on this analysis, the Court is forced to conclude that the present fee request is unreasonably high.
Taking into consideration the limited success Plaintiffs obtained in the post-trial motions, and the disproportionately high number of hours claimed in the fee request, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are only entitled to 50 percent of their request. Consequently, plaintiffs should be awarded $33,682.50 as additional compensation for their legal services. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Attorneys Fees is granted in part and denied in part.