Supremes’ Latest Hit: Attorneys Can Get 33 Times More Than Plaintiffs
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn an award of more than $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees in a case where the plaintiff got only $30,300 (San Francisco v. Harman, U.S. No. 07-1377, cert. denied June 23, 2008).
Background
The plaintiff, Allen Harman, accused the San Francisco International Airport of reverse discrimination. He alleged that he was denied a promotion to a supervisor position because he is white. Specifically, he claimed that a minority candidate wrongfully got the promotion due to the city’s race-based quotas.
The jury agreed. Harman sought $600,000 in damages but the jury awarded him only $30,300 — $15,300 in economic damages and $15,000 for emotional distress. However, the city was ordered to pay Harman’s whopping attorney bill of more than $1.1 million.
The Appeal
Not too surprisingly, the city appealed. Prior to reaching the Supreme Court, the only relief it was able to get was a reduction for attorney work related to an unsuccessful attorneys’ fees issue in a prior appeal.
In requesting Supreme Court review, the city argued that, “Allowing runaway fee awards such as this one to stand creates an economic incentive for plaintiffs’ attorneys to overvalue their cases, avoid settlement, and litigate cases of little personal or public value to the bitter end in hopes of securing a windfall in attorneys’ fees for themselves.”
Harman’s lawyers countered by arguing that allowing the result to stand would “encourage the City to take seriously the civil rights claims of all plaintiffs, regardless of race.” They also noted that discrimination lawsuits are ”very risky, particularly for contingent-fee or pro bono counsel” and that the case was a “five-year struggle” against one of the “best financed local government entities in the country.”
The Supreme Court refused to reverse the decision and thus let the attorneys’ fees award stand without comment.
The Lessons
The first lesson is obvious. An employer liable for discrimination may wind up paying the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. As this case graphically demonstrates, that amount could far outweigh any actual damages. To help keep this from happening to you, we suggest using the handy guides under our Tools & Tips Section (especially the law firm guidelines, which include early case evaluation/settlement procedures).
Second, employers need to be careful not to discriminate against non-minority applicants in their zeal to promote diversity. The best policy is to cast the widest net possible during the recruiting process but then to make all hiring and promotion decisions on purely non-discriminatory job-related criteria. All race-based discrimination (including so-called “reverse discrimination”) is unlawful.