Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

PLAINTIFF RECOVERS ONLY $8,000, BUT EMPLOYER HAS TO PAY PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY $104,000

Written on .

A recent case demonstrates a dilemma many employers face in defending legal claims. A plaintiff employee may successfully sue and recover only a small amount of money, but under the various discrimination laws, the laws generally provide for the employer to pay the prevailing plaintiff's attorneys' fees.

In a recent decision, the plaintiff's employee obtained less than $8,000.00 in damages, but the federal appeals court required his employer to pay his attorneys' fees of more than $104,000.00. Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Management, Inc., 121 FEP Cases 1 (C.A. 1, 2013).

Editor's Note: The author can't resist telling the story of a case he tried in Alabama some 20 years ago. The plaintiff was a young male employee who claimed he was sexually harassed by his attractive but older female supervisor (the plaintiff was engaged and his fiancé heard about the situation). Both the employer and the female supervisor were sued for sexual harassment, and also the employer for retaliation because the plaintiff complained about the harassment, and shortly thereafter was laid off. The employer tried to settle the case, but the plaintiff's settlement demands were six figures.

The jury returned a verdict against the employer for $15,000, and against the female supervisor for $1 (this is not a misprint). The author was heavily congratulated by the client for the "victory" because the jury verdicts were so low in comparison to the plaintiff's pre-trial settlement offers. Unfortunately, the employer later paid the plaintiff's attorney fees, a bill of some $60,000.

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

ai, human reach out
A January 20, 2026, class action filed against Eightfold AI, Inc. in California is sending shockwaves through the employer and AI community…
danger sign, skull
A second “bombshell” affecting HR pertaining to AI is a federal court ruling in New York, that a defendant’s use of AI in researching and p…
CHAT GPT
Soon after the deciding of the above-discussed case on February 17, 2026, in U.S. v. Heppner, a criminal case in the District Court for the…
avoid, wave away
There are no easy answers to the above question, but some general observations will nevertheless be made.  First, the New York district cou…
ai visualization
Perhaps the starting point is to look at the type of AI platforms generally available.  At a recent conference about AI use for HR, speaker…
june 2026 legal immigration webinar promo graphic
The webinar covers how to deal with a worksite enforcement action and various types of immigration enforcement activities. The webinar also…