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

Featured Federalist Article: Text Education in Muldrow v. St. Louis: The Supreme Court Just Made Title VII Cases Easier for Plaintiffs to Win

Elizabeth K. Dorminey authored another article for the Federalist Society.  Here's a quick summary of what this article, Supreme Court...
gavel

Judge Invalidates Joint Employer Rule, and Independent Contractor Rule Takes Effect

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Joint Employer Regulation, which was set to take effect March 11, 2024, was invalidated by a Te...
balance of justice statue

The Importance of Fairness in Employment to the Law and to Job Satisfaction

Some of you may have heard about disgruntled employees taping phone conversations of their discharge and mentioning them on social media ...
we the people, focus, document

Major Employers Challenge Constitutionality of Labor Act

Amazon is the most recent major employer to challenge the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRB), joining Trader Jo...
starbucks drink on a table

Starbucks' Big Change in Labor Policies

Starbucks' new public commitment to work with its union antagonists to resolve issues has been called a landmark in labor relations.  In ...
smiling blocks

Judge Orders Survey Data to Be Revealed from Employer EEO-1 Reports

Employers are supposed to file annually the EEO-1, Standard Form 100, with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  This requirement applies ...