{"id":423,"date":"2023-04-06T08:57:10","date_gmt":"2023-04-06T12:57:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=423"},"modified":"2023-04-06T08:57:10","modified_gmt":"2023-04-06T12:57:10","slug":"district-court-declines-to-award-additional-attorneys-fees-in-508-million-sex-discrimination-class-action-settlement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/04\/06\/district-court-declines-to-award-additional-attorneys-fees-in-508-million-sex-discrimination-class-action-settlement\/","title":{"rendered":"District Court Declines To Award Additional Attorneys\u2019 Fees In $508 Million Sex Discrimination Class Action Settlement"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Rebecca S. Bjork<\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaway:<\/em><\/strong> Even when class actions span decades prior to settling, the case seems unwinnable, the settlement contains a vast record, and the outcome was largely favorable to plaintiffs, courts nonetheless might be reluctant to add a \u201csuperior attorney performance\u201d lodestar multiplier for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees when the evidence provided by plaintiffs\u2019 counsel is insufficient to do so. This issue was present in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia\u2019s recent ruling<\/a> in the extraordinary 45-year long case of Hartman, et al. v. Blinken,<\/em> Case No. 77-CV-2019 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023).<\/p>\n

The ruling is a must read for any corporate counsel involved in class action litigation.<\/p>\n

Case Background <\/strong><\/p>\n

Hartman<\/em> was originally filed on Nov. 25, 1977 by over 1,000 female plaintiffs alleging that they were discriminated against by the United States Information Agency on the basis of their sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when they were allegedly passed over for hiring or promotions at the agency. The resulting litigation continued for decades, until the last several years, which involved negotiations between the plaintiffs\u2019 counsel and the United States Department of State, the resulting defendant following the dissolution of the U.S. Information Agency. In 2000, the parties entered into a consent decree that provided for a $508 million settlement fund for the class and for \u201creasonable attorneys\u2019 fees, expenses, and costs.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 2. The parties also settled more than 20 interim attorneys\u2019 fee requests. Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The class action settlement constitutes the largest employment discrimination class action settlement ever.<\/p>\n

In 2018, after all settlement funds were issued, plaintiffs filed a motion for a final determination of attorneys\u2019 fees, seeking an additional award of $34 million as an enhancement to the lodestar amount.<\/p>\n

Following an extensive evaluation and analysis of the previously awarded attorneys\u2019 fees, the court denied plaintiffs\u2019 request. It ruled that although the lodestar fee that had been awarded up to that point was \u201clikely not an adequate measure of class counsel\u2019s true market value,\u201d plaintiffs had failed to properly identify information necessary for the court to approve a modification to the award. Id<\/em>. at 3. Specifically, the court noted that plaintiffs had not submitted information regarding the \u201cLaffey<\/em> Matrix rates\u201d used to calculate interim fees over the past several years, and failed to provide interest rate differences between the 1-year Treasury bill rate and the prime rate. Id<\/em>. at 3-4.<\/p>\n

The parties thereafter stipulated that defendants: (i) would pay plaintiffs $9,033,600 to resolve any issues concerning the use of the below-market Laffey <\/em>Matrix rates and the Treasury bill interest rate; (ii) that the value of the base lodestar for the enhancement was $19 million; and (iii) that all other claims based on delay of fees, true market lodestar value, or interest paid on the interim fee awards were fully resolved. Id<\/em>. at 4. The only remaining issue, identified by the parties as a potential dispute, was the possibility of a lodestar enhancement for \u201csuperior attorney performance\u201d or \u201cexceptional results.\u201d Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion for a lodestar enhancement based on \u201csuperior attorney performance.\u201d The court denied the motion.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n

The court reviewed plaintiffs\u2019 request under the D.C. Circuit\u2019s \u201cthree-part analysis to assess appropriate fee awards under fee-shifting statutes in cases involving complex federal litigation.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 5. Under that framework, the third part of the analysis, or whether the use multiplies as warranted, was applicable here. Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs asserted that exceptional results and superior lawyering justified enhancement of the lodestar because it did not account for: (i) the results obtained; (ii) \u201cthe preclusion of other employment by committing both human and capital resources to the case;\u201d (iii) \u201cthe duration of the case;\u201d (4) \u201cthe \u2018undesirability\u2019 of the case;\u201d and (iv) \u201cawards in similar cases.\u201d Id. <\/em>at 10.<\/p>\n

The court essentially found that none of the factors warranted a lodestar enhancement, as all factors were already accounted for in other areas of the lodestar determination. The court explained that any special results obtained should be already reflected in the reasonableness or the hourly rates. The court also noted that the complexity and voluminous nature of the record materials would be reflected in the overall number of hours billed. The court also stated that plaintiffs failed to show how any special commitment of human or capital resources was not already reflected in the lodestar.<\/p>\n

As to plaintiffs\u2019 argument that the case was \u201cundesirable\u201d and thus an enhancement was warranted, the court ruled that plaintiffs failed to identify specific evidence demonstrating that the case was undesirable, which was required under pertinent case law. Further, any societal implications from plaintiffs\u2019 victory could not be measured in an objective way by the court in order to provide a lodestar enhancement.<\/p>\n

The court concluded by emphasizing that the decision not to multiply the lodestar should not be taken to diminish the \u201cresounding success plaintiffs\u2019 counsel achieved.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 13-14. However, the court ruled that this case was not the \u201crare\u201d or \u201cexceptional\u201d case in which \u201cspecific evidence\u201d supports an \u201cobjective and reviewable basis\u201d for enhancement of the lodestar. Id<\/em>. at 14. The court thereby denied plaintiffs\u2019 request for an enhancement of the lodestar amount.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers <\/strong><\/p>\n

Fee awards are discretionary, but the ruling in Hartman<\/em> demonstrates the high standard of evidence required for an enhancement award. This decision is an excellent reference for defense efforts to fight attorneys\u2019 fees awards in large-scale class actions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Rebecca S. Bjork Duane Morris Takeaway: Even when class actions span decades prior to settling, the case seems unwinnable, the settlement contains a vast record, and the outcome was largely favorable to plaintiffs, courts nonetheless might be reluctant to add a \u201csuperior attorney performance\u201d lodestar multiplier for an award … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “District Court Declines To Award Additional Attorneys\u2019 Fees In $508 Million Sex Discrimination Class Action Settlement”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[70],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,11],"class_list":["post-423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-settlement-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":11,"user_id":579,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rsbjork","display_name":"Rebecca S. Bjork","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/bjorkrebecca-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/423","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\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=423"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/423\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=423"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}