{"id":1340,"date":"2024-04-03T07:58:16","date_gmt":"2024-04-03T11:58:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1340"},"modified":"2024-04-03T11:07:28","modified_gmt":"2024-04-03T15:07:28","slug":"georgia-hospital-must-pay-its-own-attorneys-fees-despite-a-jury-verdict-finding-that-its-former-employee-did-not-act-in-good-faith","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/04\/03\/georgia-hospital-must-pay-its-own-attorneys-fees-despite-a-jury-verdict-finding-that-its-former-employee-did-not-act-in-good-faith\/","title":{"rendered":"Georgia Hospital Must Pay its Own Attorneys\u2019 Fees Despite a Jury Verdict Finding that its Former Employee Did Not Act in Good Faith"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-940833410.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft wp-image-1346 size-medium\" src=\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-940833410-300x205.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"205\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-940833410-300x205.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-940833410-1024x700.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-940833410-768x525.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-940833410-1536x1050.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-940833410-2048x1401.jpg 2048w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><strong>By Ryan T. Garippo, Nicolette J. Zulli, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/strong><em>On March 29, 2024, in EEOC v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-201 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2024), Judge Leslie Gardner of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/EEOC-v.-Phoebe-Doc.-106.pdf\">held<\/a> that even minimal evidence for the EEOC\u2019s claims may be sufficient to find that its failed lawsuit is not frivolous. Consequently, employers may be forced to pay their own attorneys\u2019 fees even where the claims against them are lost at trial by the Commission. The decision in EEOC v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., is well worth a read by corporate counsel facing government enforcement litigation.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In 2015, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. (\u201cPhoebe\u201d) hired Wendy Kelley (\u201cKelley\u201d) as a medical records analyst for a shift that typically ran from Monday through Friday.\u00a0Kelley, however, understood that she needed to work weekends from time to time.\u00a0 Hence, when another employee went on maternity leave, Phoebe asked Kelley to cover some Saturday shifts.\u00a0Instead, Kelley met with her doctor the next day to discuss an ongoing generalized anxiety disorder diagnosis.<\/p>\n<p>Among other things, Kelley\u2019s doctor recommended that she \u201ctake Saturdays and Sundays off work when she had to take an increased dose [of medication] at the end of a stressful workweek.\u201d\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> at 6.\u00a0As a result, Kelley submitted a request under the Americans with Disabilities Act (\u201cADA\u201d) and asked not to work weekends.\u00a0Phoebe explained that it is \u201ca hospital and [it is] open on the weekend\u201d and it could not accommodate the request.\u00a0<em>Id. <\/em>at 8.\u00a0Phoebe did, however, offer Kelley two days off in a row to give her time to take her medication.\u00a0At the time, it appeared that this solution would work for everyone.\u00a0Kelley then submitted another request for time off \u2014 this time for two weeks straight \u2014 citing her generalized anxiety disorder.\u00a0Phoebe denied that request and explained that it could not cover her shifts.\u00a0Kelley then refused to come into work.\u00a0Accordingly, Phoebe terminated Kelley\u2019s employment.<\/p>\n<p>The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (\u201cEEOC\u201d), on behalf of Kelley, filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of the ADA.\u00a0The EEOC asserted that Phoebe fired Kelley because of a perceived disability.\u00a0Ultimately, Phoebe filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied, and the EEOC went to trial on Kelley\u2019s claims.\u00a0The jury sided with Phoebe on the basis that \u201cKelley\u2019s request for accommodation was not made in good faith,\u201d among other findings.\u00a0 <em>Id<\/em>. at 1.\u00a0 This verdict prompted Phoebe to file a motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs that argued the entire lawsuit was frivolous.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judge Gardner denied Phoebe\u2019s request for its attorneys\u2019 fees and costs.<\/p>\n<p>The Court explained that attorneys\u2019 fees in ADA cases can be awarded only if the claim itself is frivolous. Courts consider three factors to make such a determination, including \u201c(1) whether the plaintiff established a <em>prima facie<\/em> case; (2) whether the defendant offered to settle; and (3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial or held a full-blown trial on the merits\u201d along with other considerations in the Eleventh Circuit.\u00a0<em>Sullivan<\/em> <em>v. Sch. Bd. Of Pinellas Cnty.<\/em>, 773 F. 2d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).\u00a0Additionally, even if a plaintiff\u2019s evidence is \u201cweak,\u201d she may be able to defeat a request for attorneys\u2019 fees if there is \u201cany evidence to support [her] claims.\u201d\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Based on these principles, the Court held that Kelley\u2019s testimony, even if weak or unpersuasive, was sufficient to establish her <em>prima facie<\/em> case for the EEOC\u2019s claim of an ADA violation.\u00a0The Court relied on that testimony to deny summary judgment. The Court stated as long as Kelley had \u201cany evidence\u201d for her claim, the lawsuit was not frivolous. That testimony, along with some medical records, qualified as such evidence.\u00a0Further, the Court explicitly noted that Phoebe \u201cdid not offer to settle\u201d and, therefore, the Court could not determine that this factor cut in Phoebe\u2019s favor.<em>\u00a0Id. <\/em>at 8.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Implications Of The Decision <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The EEOC is an aggressive litigant. This decision demonstrates that even when the Commission loses its claims, companies nevertheless may have to foot the bill for their attorneys\u2019 fees. Establishing an entitlement to attorneys\u2019 fees is an uphill climb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Ryan T. Garippo, Nicolette J. Zulli, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On March 29, 2024, in EEOC v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-201 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2024), Judge Leslie Gardner of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia held that even minimal evidence for the &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/04\/03\/georgia-hospital-must-pay-its-own-attorneys-fees-despite-a-jury-verdict-finding-that-its-former-employee-did-not-act-in-good-faith\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Georgia Hospital Must Pay its Own Attorneys\u2019 Fees Despite a Jury Verdict Finding that its Former Employee Did Not Act in Good Faith&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1340","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1340"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}