The Appellate Court affirmed the award of attorney fees as reasonable. It held that attorney fees are not required to be proportional to amount of Plaintiff's own award.The Court further noted that the Plaintiff's refusal to accept Town's unilateral decision to transfer her was not a pretext to inflate attorney fees and costs. Finally, the Appellate Court further held that reinstatement vindicated Plaintiff's right under the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.
Plaintiff Mendez the Town of Cicero, alleging that it retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment by a deputy police superintendent toward a subordinate when it transferred her from executive administrative assistant to the superintendent to a clerk in building department. Mendez v. The Town of Cicero, 2016 Ill. App. (1st) 150791 (June 29, 2016). At trial, a jury found that transfer was retaliatory, but did not award her damages for emotional distress and lost future earnings. The Circuit Court separately ruled that Mendez was entitled to reinstatement and awarded her $330,412 in attorney fees.
The Appellate Court affirmed the award of attorney fees as reasonable. It held that attorney fees are not required to be proportional to amount of Plaintiff's own award.The Court further noted that the Plaintiff's refusal to accept Town's unilateral decision to transfer her was not a pretext to inflate attorney fees and costs. Finally, the Appellate Court further held that reinstatement vindicated Plaintiff's right under the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.
0 Comments
Plaintiff, Pickett, brought a successful Title VII retaliation action. Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Center, No. 14-3705 (7th Cir., February 16, 2016). Plaintiff's counsel then moved for attorneys fees. The District Court found that the reasonable hourly fee for plaintiff's counsel was $425 per hour, not the $540 to $620 per hour sought by plaintiff's counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Circuit Court held that the District Court could properly find that affidavits from other attorneys who charged their clients higher hourly fees did not support plaintiff's counsel's claim for higher per hour rate as: (1) those affiants did not have disciplinary history unlike plaintiff's counsel; and (2) the District Court could look to the disciplinary history of plaintiff's counsel when determining that plaintiff's counsel was only entitled to lower per hour fee. Further, the $425 per hour amount was appropriate as Plaintiff's counsel had received a $425 per hour in prior case. The Seventh Circuit also held that the District Court had properly denied plaintiff's late request for prejudgment interest on entire fee award as: (1) said request was first made on remand from plaintiff's first appeal of fee award; and (2) District Court's fee award was based on counsel's current, as opposed to historical, hourly rate. |
As a Chicago employment lawyer, the firm focus primarily on employment law. Archives
June 2017
Categories
All
|