Stephen Oross, III v. Kutztown University, et al.

Summary

The memorandum addresses Stephen Oross III’s motion for attorney’s fees under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act after he prevailed against Kutztown University in claims concerning denial of a remote-work accommodation following a heart transplant. The court finds the requested hourly rates reasonable but reduces compensable hours for fee-petition preparation, excessive deposition preparation, certain motion practice, and duplicative communications between counsel. The motion is granted as modified.

Holdings

1. A prevailing party in an action enforcing the Rehabilitation Act may receive a reasonable attorney's-fee award under 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b), and Oross qualified as a prevailing party.
2. The reasonable fee is calculated by multiplying the reasonable hours reasonably worked by a reasonable hourly rate, subject to appropriate adjustments.
3. McKinley's rate of $850 per hour and Lamar's rate of $825 per hour were reasonable current market rates for attorneys with their experience and expertise in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
4. The lodestar should not be reduced by 50 percent merely because Oross prevailed on seven of twelve claims.
5. The court reduced the compensable hours for fee-petition preparation, excessive deposition preparation, excessive motion-to-strike preparation, and duplicative inter-counsel communications, but declined other requested reductions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Oross was entitled to attorney's fees as a prevailing party under 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b).
2. Whether the requested hourly rates for counsel reflected prevailing market rates in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
3. Whether the number of hours billed should be reduced for fee-petition preparation, deposition preparation, a motion to strike, inter-counsel communications, or other allegedly excessive work.
4. Whether the lodestar should be reduced because Oross prevailed on only some of his claims.

Disposition

other