Plaintiff Brandy A. Read sued defendant Oklahoma Flintrock Products, LLP in the Northern District of Oklahoma raising claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. After the district court denied summary judgment, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the sexual harassment claim but against her on the retaliation claims, and both parties appealed the subsequent attorney fee award to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Plaintiff worked for Oklahoma Flintrock Products for approximately two months. During her employment, she alleged that Harry Singh, the company’s chief operating officer, sexually harassed her. When she complained about the harassment, she claims the company retaliated by transferring her to a sales position for which she was not qualified and then terminating her employment.
After trial, the jury found in plaintiff’s favor on the sexual harassment claim, awarding her $1,440 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages. The jury rejected her retaliation claims. Plaintiff then moved for $79,401.75 in attorney fees. Defendant opposed the motion and sought its own fee award. The district court awarded plaintiff $59,511.94 in fees and denied defendant’s fee request.
Legal Analysis
Attorney Fee Award to Plaintiff: The court first addressed whether the fee award adequately reflected plaintiff’s partial success. The district court had reduced the requested fees by 25% to account for the unsuccessful retaliation claims. The appellate court found this reduction reasonable, rejecting defendant’s argument that the reduction should have been 84% based on the difference between plaintiff’s initial damages estimate and the actual award. The court also dismissed defendant’s argument that the $2,500 offer of judgment should be compared to the $1,440 compensatory damages award, noting this ignored the $15,000 punitive damages award.
Defendant’s Fee Request: The court then examined defendant’s argument that it should receive attorney fees for prevailing on the retaliation claims. The court upheld the denial of defendant’s fee request, finding defendant failed to show the retaliation claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless as required under controlling precedent.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed both the district court’s award of attorney fees to plaintiff and its denial of defendant’s fee request.
Schrag on Law 