Dawn Warren-Cook sued Ernie Rhodes and Todd Farley in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, raising claims under the public employee whistleblower statute, section 105.055, and the Missouri Human Rights Act. The jury found in favor of Warren-Cook on her whistleblower claims against Rhodes and Farley, awarding her $85,000 in compensatory damages. Rhodes and Farley appealed the amended judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, challenging the application of a 1.5 multiplier to the award of attorney’s fees to Warren-Cook.
Factual Overview
Dawn Warren-Cook was employed by the Missouri Department of Public Safety (DPS) in the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) until her termination in July 2017. At that time, Ernie Rhodes was the Director of SEMA, and Todd Farley was Warren-Cook’s DPS supervisor. In August 2017, Warren-Cook commenced an action against DPS, Rhodes, and Farley, alleging violations of the public employee whistleblower statute, section 105.055, and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The case proceeded to trial in July 2022, where a jury found against Rhodes and Farley on Warren-Cook’s whistleblower claims and awarded her $85,000 in compensatory damages.
Legal Analysis
Application of the 1.5 Multiplier to Attorney’s Fees: Rhodes and Farley challenged the trial court’s application of a 1.5 multiplier to the initial, lodestar amount of attorney’s fees awarded to Warren-Cook. They argued that Warren-Cook failed to establish her entitlement to the multiplier, as her application for fees did not provide any factual basis to support the finding that taking this case precluded her attorneys from accepting other, less risky employment.
The court rejected this argument, stating that the three factors set forth in Berry v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. are not strict requirements, and each case should be decided on a case-by-case basis with due regard given to these factors. The court found that Warren-Cook provided a factual basis to support all three Berry factors:
- The fee was always contingent.
- Taking this case precluded counsel from accepting other, less risky employment.
- The time required for preparing this case delayed work on counsel’s other cases.
The court concluded that the trial court’s application of the 1.5 multiplier was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.
Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on Appeal: The court granted Warren-Cook’s motion for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal, as authorized by section 105.055.7(4). The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of the award.
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the amended judgment of the trial court, dismissing DPS as a party to the appeal and remanding the case to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining Warren-Cook’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for the appeal.
Schrag on Law 