Summary
The Second Circuit held that a district court properly reduced an attorney’s-fee award by 25 percent for excessive and unreasonable billing but improperly imposed an additional 30 percent reduction based on proportionality between the fee award and the plaintiff’s damages. Applying Vermont law, the court held that proportionality is not a permissible determinative measure of success under the fee-shifting provisions of VOSHA and VESTA. The court vacated the fee award and remanded for recalculation consistent with Vermont law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a twenty-five percent reduction for excessive or unreasonable hours.
- Whether Vermont law permits a court calculating reasonable attorney's fees under VOSHA and VESTA to reduce the award based on proportionality between the damages recovery and the fee award.
- Whether the remaining challenges to the fee calculation required separate consideration after the fee award was vacated.
Holdings
- The district court acted within its discretion by reducing the fee award by twenty-five percent to account for excessive and unreasonable time spent litigating the case.
- Vermont law does not permit a court to reduce a statutory fee award merely because the award is disproportionate to the plaintiff's damages recovery. Proportionality may not be outcome-determinative in assessing the reasonableness of fees under VOSHA and VESTA.
- The court declined to separately resolve whether the district court made duplicative lodestar adjustments or whether the overall award was otherwise unreasonably low because the fee award had to be vacated and recalculated in any event.
Key quotations
“However, proportionality—i.e., the mathematical relationship between a plaintiff’s damages award and the plaintiff’s attorney’s fee award—is not a permissible measure of a plaintiff’s degree of success under Vermont law.” (at 10-11)
“When considering one-sided fee-shifting provisions under Vermont law, courts may not reduce a fee award just because it was larger than the amount of relief the plaintiff obtained.” (at 14)
“There is no proportion between attorney’s fees and damages awards that is per se excessive.” (at 16)
“Accordingly, we VACATE the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees and REMAND to the District Court to calculate a reasonable fee award consistent with this opinion.” (at 19)
Factual background
Cole prevailed against his former employer, Foxmar, on retaliation claims under VOSHA and VESTA. After a new trial on damages, he recovered $55,000 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages, and sought $240,536.75 in attorney's fees and $18,407.98 in costs. The district court reduced the requested fees by twenty-five percent for excessive and unreasonable hours and by thirty percent because the fee award was viewed as disproportionate to the damages recovery.
Procedural history
Cole sued Foxmar for unlawful retaliation under VOSHA and VESTA and prevailed before a jury, initially receiving $3,215,943 including $3 million in punitive damages. The district court ordered a new trial on damages, after which a jury awarded $55,000 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages; the Second Circuit affirmed that judgment. On remand, the district court awarded Cole $107,381.59 in attorney's fees and $18,407.98 in costs after applying a twenty-five percent reduction for excessive hours and a thirty percent reduction based on overall success and proportionality. The Second Circuit affirmed the twenty-five percent reduction, vacated the fee award because of the thirty percent reduction, and remanded for recalculation under Vermont law.
Remand instructions
The district court must recalculate a reasonable attorney's fee award consistent with Vermont law. It may consider Cole's results and degree of success, but may not determine the award by the amount of damages alone or by the proportional relationship between damages and attorney's fees.