Supreme Court: Even Partially Prevailing Parties Can Win Attorneys Fees in ERISA Litigation

On Monday, an almost unanimous United States Supreme Court held that certain parties can be awarded attorney fees from the opposing party even if they are not "prevailing parties" in the litigation. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. No.09-448 (5/14/10). In that case, the plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company when it denied her LTD benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome. The trial court found that she had presented compelling evidence that she was totally disabled and that the defendant had acted on incomplete medical evidence. Instead of granting her summary judgment, however, the trial court remanded the case to the insurance company to reconsider its prior decision within 30 days. Not surprisingly under the circumstances, the defendant reversed its decision and awarded the plaintiff benefits. The trial court then awarded her attorney fees under ERISA §1131(g)(1). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the plaintiff had never obtained an enforceable court judgment and, thus, was not a "prevailing party." With Justice Thomas writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that the specific statutory provision permits the trial court discretion to award attorney fees to either party, not merely prevailing parties. Justice Stevens concurred separately.

The insurance company initial denied the LTD claim based on its evaluation of the results of her functional capacity evaluation (showing she was capable of some sedentary work). After she appealed, it reversed itself and found she was totally disabled from her current occupation (clerical) and could have benefits for 24 months. In the meantime, the plaintiff was diagnosed with "small-fiber neuropathy, a condition that increased her pain and decreased her physical capabilities over the ensuing months." She applied for and received social security benefits on the grounds that she was completely disabled from working. The insurance company notified her that her LTD benefits were about to run out and demanded repayment for about $14K because of her receipt of SSA benefits. She appealed and provided updated medical information. The insurance company again asked for a capacity evaluation, but did not ask the evaluator to consider her neuropathy problems. The evaluators requested two evaluations and complained that the plaintiff was refusing to try out of fear of pain. The defendant then hired a physician and vocational counselor to resolve her appeal, but the physician concluded that she might improve after reviewing only some of her medical records and the counselor opined that there were 8 jobs she was capable of performing based on her 2003 medical condition (before the neuropathy was diagnosed). Thus, the insurance company terminated her benefits in 2006.

After exhausting her administrative remedies, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court. The court denied cross-motions for summary judgment. However, the court found compelling evidence that the plaintiff was completely disabled and the defendant had failed to properly review her medical records. Thus, it remanded the case for 30 days to the insurance company to reconsider its prior decision. After the insurance company reversed itself again, the plaintiff requested to be awarded attorney fees.

ERISA's section 1132(g)(1) provides: "In any action under this subchapter (other than an action described in paragraph (2)[i.e, recovering delinquent contributions on behalf of a multi-employer plan]) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of action to either party." Based on the plain text of the statute, the Supreme Court found that it was erroneous to limit the recovery fees to a prevailing party and, instead, held that it is within the trial court's discretion to award fees "as long as the fee claimant has achieved 'some degree of success on the merits.'" Unlike §1132(g)(2) which limits fees to a party who obtains a judgment for the plan, there is no mention of "prevailing party" in that section of the statute.

To guide courts faced with this decision in the future, the court then analyzed when it would be appropriate to award attorney fees under §1132(g)(1). The basic principle of the "American Rule" is that each party pays their own attorney unless provided otherwise by statute or contract. Statutory standards vary widely from prevailing party, to substantially successful litigant, to when appropriate to the court's discretion. The Court found the most analogous situation to involve a similar statute under the Clean Air Act which permits an award of fees "when appropriate." Even in that situation, the Court found that Congress did not intend to completely abandon the American Rule and would still require some success by the party to obtain its aims in the litigation before it would be awarded fees. Thus, fees are available to partially prevailing parties who achieved some success.

A claimant does not satisfy that requirement by achieving "trivial success on the merits" or a "purely procedural victor[y]," but does satisfy it if the court can fairly call the outcome of the litigation some success on the merits without conducting a "lengthy inquir[y] into the question whether a particular party's success was 'substantial' or occurred on a 'central issue.'"

In this case, the plaintiff convinced the court that the defendant insurance company had failed to comply with ERISA in reviewing her request for benefits. Summary judgment in her favor was only denied in order to give the insurance company another chance to evaluate her application – something it had already done several times before she initiate the litigation. Only because of the trial court's instruction did the insurance company reverse itself. Thus, the plaintiff achieved victory even without a court order.

These facts establish that [the plaintiff] has achieved far more than "trivial success on the merits" or a "purely procedural victory." Accordingly, she has achieved "some success on the merits," and the District Court properly exercised its discretion to award [the plaintiff] attorney's fees in this case.

No further remand was deemed necessary.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth Circuit Provides Guidance for Imposing Attorney Fees on Unsuccessful Plaintiffs Who Bring or Pursue Frivolous Employment Claims.

Today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part a federal court sanction which imposed joint and several liability upon the plaintiffs’ attorney and eight unsuccessful plaintiffs who pursued discrimination and wrongful discharge claims against their former supervisors and managers at the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. Garner v. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, No. 07-3602. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court’s analysis of the merit of the plaintiffs’ claims and affirmed the award of $69,345 in Rule 54 costs, but remanded the $660,103 attorney fee award so that the district court could articulate how the fees should be re-allocated in consideration of (i) each plaintiff’s respective ability to pay; (ii) the admission of the plaintiffs’ attorney that she was primarily responsible for prosecution of the frivolous claims; (iii) the potential conflict of interest between the plaintiffs’ and their attorney on this issue; (iv) each plaintiff being responsible for their own claims and not for the prosecution or defense of other plaintiffs’ claims; and (v) the point in time when each plaintiffs’ claim became frivolous and should have been dropped. Most saliently, the Court found it inappropriate to impose joint and several liability for the fee sanction when there were factual differences in the claims and the plaintiffs’ attorney had admitted her primary responsibility for prosecuting the frivolous claims.

According to the Court’s opinion, the discrimination and wrongful discharge claims of fourteen plaintiffs had been consolidated into one lawsuit and all of them were dismissed on summary judgment in a 250-page opinion. Some of the claims were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to present evidence to substantiate each element of the prima facie case (i.e., the “no evidence plaintiffs”) and some were dismissed because the plaintiff could not show that the defendants’ non-discriminatory/retaliatory explanation was pretextual (i.e., the “insufficient evidence plaintiffs”). After the dismissal of the case, the defendants filed a bill of costs under Civil Rule 54 in the amount of $69,345 (for, among other things, deposition transcripts, witness fees, copies). The defendants then moved for reimbursement of their $664,885 in attorneys fees from the plaintiffs on the grounds that the claims were frivolous under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendants also sought sanctions against the plaintiffs’ attorneys under “28 U.S.C. § 1927, [Civil Rule] 11 .. , Ohio Revised Code § 2323.51, and the court’s inherent authority.”

The district court awarded costs to the Defendants and imposed joint and several liability against all of the plaintiffs. In granting the defendants’ fee motion for $660,103 in fees, the district court did not impose any fee sanctions upon the insufficient evidence plaintiffs or under Civil Rule 11, but held that the remaining claims were frivolous, should not have been pursued at all (and certainly not beyond the close of pre-trial discovery) and justified sanctions against eight of the plaintiffs and their attorney on a joint and several liability basis. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court’s analysis of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, affirmed the award of Rule 54 costs, and affirmed that the plaintiffs’ attorney could be liable for fees under § 1927, but remanded the attorney fee award so that the district court could reconsider and articulate how the fees should be re-allocated.

As an initial matter, the Sixth Circuit “conclude[d] that the district court erred in holding each employee jointly and severally liable with respect each other’s claims, as opposed to individually liable, for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. While “[t]he employees here all shared a disparate-impact claim involving common allegations about the CCJC’s employment practices, . . . this lone claim does not justify imposing the entire fee award jointly and severally among all of the employees in this case. Most of the individual employees’ claims are in fact unrelated. The disparate treatment claims, for example, do not share a common factual nexus. And the retaliation claims similarly involved different allegations unique to each employee. Indeed, the employees’ respective claims were sufficiently distinct that the district court decided to issue individual summary judgment orders against each one.”

The Court also remanded the sanction award so that the district court could better articulate how the fee sanction should be allocated in light of each plaintiff’s ability to pay. While the court agreed that each plaintiff bore the burden of proving an inability to pay their share of the sanction, “[w]e are nevertheless troubled by the district court’s failure to explain why the salary information provided to the court was insufficient to establish the employees’ inability to pay. In particular, the court itself recognized, in the portion of its order addressing costs, that the employees had “modest incomes” averaging about $35,000 per year. We are therefore puzzled as to why this information was not addressed in the portion of the court’s order discussing the calculation of attorney fees . . . The district court’s obligation to “explain its reasoning adequately” exists irrespective of which party bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate an inability to pay.”

The Court also remanded so that the district court could explain when the sanctions began to accrue. “The parties disagreed during oral argument as to whether the attorney fees improperly included legal work done before the completion of discovery—i.e., the point in time at which the employees should have realized that their claims were frivolous and the lawsuit should have been voluntarily dismissed. Because the record is not clear on this issue, the district court should ensure on remand that the total attorney-fee award excludes fees incurred before the point in time when the individual employees should have known that their claims were frivolous. We presume that, for most of the employees, this point in time occurred at the close of discovery. But the district court should make a clear finding, for each of the individual employees, to determine whether this presumption is correct.”

Finally, the Court also remanded so that the district court could consider re-allocating a greater portion of the fee sanction against the plaintiffs’ attorney. “Our review of the record suggests that the fault for bringing the groundless claims in this case lies principally with Attorney Frost and not with her clients. Indeed, Frost graciously conceded during oral argument that, if there is anyone to blame for the litigation, she should be the one and not her clients. Frost’s concession tempts us to simply instruct the district court to reverse the imposition of any liability against her clients under § 1988.” However, because clients selected the attorney to be their agent, they remain responsible for the actions of their attorney. Moreover, the court did not want the Defendants to lose their ability to recoup their fees in the event that the attorney became insolvent.

In affirming the frivolous nature of the no-evidence plaintiff’s claims as a sufficient basis for imposing sanctions, the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the CCJC had previously lost a discrimination claim and there was some evidence to support the claims of the insufficient evidence plaintiffs. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments because the no-evidence plaintiffs failed to “establish[] a clear nexus between themselves” and the prima facie evidence of the insufficient evidence plaintiffs and ruling in their favor “would encourage frivolous “me-too” claimants to piggyback on the nonfrivolous claims of legitimate plaintiffs.” The court also refused to permanently bar every “employer who has lost a discrimination claim . . . from recovering attorney fees against subsequent frivolous claimants” because the plaintiffs failed to “present[] relevant evidence deriving from [the] prior successful jury verdict against the CCJC.”

Insomniacs can read the full court opinion at