Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Plaintiffs' Employment Lawyers Are No Longer Secure
Plaintiffs' employment lawyers contemplating bringing Title VII or other discrimination suits have long felt secure in the knowledge that, even if they lose at trial or at the summary judgment stage, their client will not be assessed attorney's fees. Any ambiguity regarding the meaning of a “prevailing party” entitled to fees under the Federal Rules was resolved by the Supreme Court's decision in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1977). The Supreme Court denied fees to the prevailing defendant employer in that Title VII case, pointing out that the EEOC's actions in bringing the case could not be characterized as without merit or unreasonable. Specifically, the Court held that “a plaintiff may not be assessed his opponent's attorney's fees unless a court finds that his claim was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.” Id. at 422. Indeed, had the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, many lower-income individuals with meritorious discrimination claims might have been dissuaded from pursuing them.
Subsequent cases have shown that the Christiansburg standard is an exceedingly difficult one for a defendant to meet. For example, in Hill v. Board of Education, CV 87-3008 (ILG) (E.D.N.Y. 1993), a case litigated by this writer, the court at trial granted the defendants' motion to dismiss after the conclusion of plaintiff's case, noting that the plaintiff's Title VII claim had no merit whatsoever and that no evidence had been produced in support of his claim. Nonetheless, the court later denied defendants' motion for attorney's fees, finding that the Christiansburg test had not been satisfied.
The near-immunity of unsuccessful discrimination plaintiffs to motions by prevailing employers for attorney's fees, however, should not obscure that fact that Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (d) also provides for the award of costs to a prevailing party. For several reasons, many plaintiffs' employment lawyers overlook or misunderstand the fact that the standard for awarding costs to a prevailing party is quite different than the one for attorney's fees. In Cosgrove v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 191 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1999), an unsuccessful plaintiff in a Title VII case appealed the district court's award of costs against her, arguing that the defendant had not satisfied Christiansburg's “useless, baseless or frivolous” test. The Second Circuit disagreed, stating that Rule 54(d) “grants costs to a prevailing party as a matter of course in the absence of a countervailing statute or rule.” Id. at 101 [emphasis added]. In addressing the argument that the Christiansburg test should also apply to applications by prevailing employers for costs, the court stated that “[w]e see no reason … to apply the same type of heightened standard to the assessment of costs.” Id.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?