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.

New FLSA Child Labor Regulations Become Effective in July 2010.

Last week, the Wage and Hour Division of the federal Department of Labor released revised regulations governing the use of child labor in the United States. The new rules govern the employment of children under the age of 18, become effective on July 19, 2010 and are the first significant revision of the rules in 30 years. Among other things, the new rules will permit older teenagers to operate table-top mixers (like those used in most home kitchens), but otherwise expands the list of prohibited equipment (which now, for instance, prohibit the use of weed-trimmers and most power tools). With respect to younger teenagers, “[i]f a task is not specifically permitted, it is prohibited.” In general, while the new regulations attempt to prohibit younger teenagers from engaging in dangerous activities and prohibits all peddling, street sales and door-to-door sales (other than for charitable causes, like the Girl Scouts and PTOs), it also specifically permits jobs in all other industries covered the FLSA (other than mining, manufacturing and specifically prohibited activities like laundry, waste disposal, mass mailings, dry cleaning and house painting, etc.), including government, food service, financial, insurance and other white collar establishments.

The revised regulations now permit 15 year old minors to be lifeguards at pools and amusement parks if they are certified by the Red Cross. The new regulations also permit younger teenagers to engage in intellectual or artistically creative work like tutoring, writing software, etc. under certain conditions. Finally, the traditional working hours restrictions still apply based on the schedule of the local public school district, regardless if the particular youth attends a private school with a different schedule or is home schooled. Moreover, the revised regulations clarify that the 3-hour restriction on school days includes Fridays.

The Department of Labor has preared a fact sheet on the current rule, hazardous occupations side-by-side comparison of new final rule and current rule, and Reg. 3 side-by-side comparison of new rule and current rule.

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.

Supreme Court: Disparate Impact Claims Accrue with Each New Employer Action Regardless of When Policy Was Adopted

This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII disparate impact claims accrue each time the employer uses the facially neutral employment practice which has a disparate impact on a protected class. Lewis v. City of Chicago. No. 08-974 (5/24/10). Accordingly, the class action could proceed with its disparate impact discrimination claims even though the earliest Charge of Discrimination filed by a class member was filed with the EEOC more than 300 days after the challenged policy was adopted and announced and even more than 300 days after it had first been applied because the employer had used the disputed employment practice on other occasions within 300 days of when the Charge had been filed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Scalia noted that to have held otherwise would mean that an employer could indefinitely utilize a discriminatory policy if it were lucky enough not to be challenged within the first 300 days.

According to the Court's opinion, the City of Chicago administered a civil service test in 1995 to select firefighters. In January 1996, it announced that applicants who scored below 65 failed and would not be considered further and that even though applicants with scores between 66 and 88 passed and, thus were qualified, they would not be considered for vacancies until all of the "well qualified" applicants who scored 89 or better were hired or given further consideration. No applicant filed a Charge of Discrimination to challenge the City's stated policy. In May 1996, the City hired its first class of firefighters from the 1995 list based on the policy announced in January 1996 and, again, no applicant filed a Charge of Discrimination to challenge the City's action within 300 days. The City then continued to process candidates off the 1995 list for six years until it ran out of "well qualified" applicants and began processing "qualified" candidates. In March 1997, the first Charge of Discrimination was filed by a qualified applicant who was passed over by the City's January 1996 process, the EEOC completed its investigation in July 1998 and a class action lawsuit was filed later that year. The trial court denied summary judgment to the City on the issue of timeliness while the plaintiff were pursuing a continuing violation theory to avoid the 300-day limitations period issue. There was then an eight-day bench trial which found in favor of the plaintiffs. The City apparently stipulated that the adoption of the 89-point cut off had a severe disparate impact on African-Americans. (There was no evidence presented that the City's use of the policy had a disparate impact each or any time it was utilized.) The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court judgment on the grounds that the City's hiring decisions were merely the affect of a past decision which the plaintiffs had failed to challenge within the 300-day limitations period. The Supreme Court reversed.

Employment decisions may be challenged as intentional discrimination (i.e., disparate treatment) or unintentional discrimination (i.e., disparate impact). The second theory began in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 431 (1971). Congress later amended Title VII at 42 U.S.C. § 2003-2(k):

"(1)(A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if—

"(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity . . . ."

Thus, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie disparate impact claim by showing that the employer "uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact" on one of the prohibited bases.

Title VII requires that a Charge of Discrimination be filed with the EEOC within 300 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." §2000e–5(e)(1).
In disparate treatment cases, that "practice" is when the employment action is deliberately taken with discriminatory intent. After the passage of 300 days, employees cannot later sue for the current affects of past discriminatory decisions under the disparate treatment theory. However, in disparate impact cases, no discriminatory intent is required. Thus, in disparate impact the question is generally not whether the lawsuit is timely, but whether a valid disparate impact claim can be alleged at all. In other words, if the plaintiff can show that any employment action taken in the prior 300 days has a disparate impact, then the claim can proceed regardless of when the employment practice was first adopted or utilized. In this case, the City's practice of excluding candidates with a score between 66 and 88 from further consideration constituted an employment practice and, apparently, it was stipulated that it had an adverse impact on the plaintiffs on account of their race.

While the Court had sympathy with the plight of the City (and all other employers) that its decision to adopt the policy became lawful when it was not timely challenged, the Court concluded that "it does not follow that no new violation occurred—and no new claims could arise—when the City implemented that decision down the road. If petitioners could prove that the City" use[d]" the "practice" that "causes a disparate impact," they could prevail.

Granted, "[e]mployers may face new disparate-impact suits for practices they have used regularly for years. Evidence essential to their business-necessity defenses might be unavailable (or in the case of witnesses' memories, unreliable) by the time the later suits are brought. And affected employees and prospective employees may not even know they have claims if they are unaware the employer is still applying the disputed practice." However, the alternative was even less satisfactory:

[I]f an employer adopts an unlawful practice and no timely charge is brought, it can continue using the practice indefinitely, with impunity, despite ongoing disparate impact. Equitable tolling or estoppel may allow some affected employees or applicants to sue, but many others will be left out in the cold. Moreover, the City's reading may induce plaintiffs aware of the danger of delay to file charges upon the announcement of a hiring practice, before they have any basis for believing it will produce a disparate impact.

The case was remanded to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether a new trial was necessary and whether the relief ordered by the trial court should be modified (as stipulated by the parties) to exclude consideration of the first round of hiring decisions which were made more than 300 days before the filing of the first Charge.

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: Requiring 100% Fit for Duty Precludes Judgment as a Matter of Law for Employer on Perceived Disability Claim

This morning, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a judgment entered as a matter of law on a perceived disability claim brought under the ADA by a female UPS driver on the grounds that the employer's insistence that she be 100% fit for duty within 30 days of returning to work reflected its judgment that she was physically incapable of performing a wide range of jobs under its light duty program and because it questioned the sincerity of the employer's explanation about the 30-day requirement. Watts v. UPS, No. 08-3779 (6^th Cir. 2010). However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's sex discrimination claim when the trial court ordered a new trial (where the jury found in favor of the employer) after the jury in the first trial awarded the plaintiff over $200,000 in damages on the sex discrimination claim, but its answers to special interrogatories were contradictory.

According to the Court's opinion, the plaintiff was the only female driver in that county between 1999 and 2004. However, after a work-related injury in 2000, she was off work until 2003. Although there was contradictory evidence, the plaintiff asserted that she was released to return to work with restrictions in Fall 2002, but the employer refused to permit her to return until she was 100% fit for duty within 30 days of reinstatement. It also suggested that she pursue a reasonable accommodation on account of a disability. The employer contended that the seniority provisions of its collective bargaining agreement only permitted light duty assignments of up to 30 days before the assignment became permanent and, thus, employees could only work light duty for 30 days. The plaintiff produced evidence that this 30 day requirement had not been imposed on certain male employees and was not described in the employer's written descriptions of the light duty program. The plaintiff filed a grievance, but it was denied. When the employer refused to reinstate her, she filed Charges with the EEOC that she was being discriminated against on account of her sex and disability. She ultimately filed a lawsuit in federal court, but the trial court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the employer on the perceived disability discrimination claim and the jury was not permitted to consider it because the trial court concluded that the plaintiff only proved that the employer considered her temporarily impaired. The jury awarded over $200K in damages to the plaintiff on her sex discrimination claim and answered a special jury interrogatory that she was treated differently than male employees in the light duty program, but denied in other special jury interrogatories that she had proven sex discrimination or pretext in how she was treated. The trial court then ordered a new trial and the second jury ruled in favor of the employer on the plaintiff's sex discrimination claim. The plaintiff then appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit had no difficulty finding sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's perceived disability discrimination claim under the ADA even though her claim pre-dated the ADA Amendments Act which broadened the scope of the ADA and made alleging such claims easier:

When a defendant flatly bars a plaintiff from working at any job at the defendant's company, that is generally sufficient proof that the employer regards the plaintiff as disabled in the major life activity of working so as to preclude the defendant being awarded judgment as a matter of law.

The Court relied on its prior decisions in Wysong v. Dow Chemical Co., 503 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2007) and Henderson v. Ardco, Inc., 247 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2001) (where the plant manager told the plaintiff: " You know what company policy is . . . you have to be 100 percent to work here") where the employer refused to permit the plaintiffs to return to work in any capacity or position with any physical or medical restrictions because they were not 100% fit following an injury or illness. Because the employer's light duty program encompassed a wide variety of jobs ("including answering phones, filing, gassing up and washing vehicles,"), its refusal to permit the plaintiff to participate reflected a judgment that she was physically incapable of performing a wide variety of jobs.

In Henderson, this court interpreted an injured employee being told that she had to be "100%" to work there as tending to indicate that the defendant regarded her as disabled in a wide spectrum of jobs sufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment. See Henderson, 247 F.3d at 654. Similarly, in Wysong this court interpreted an employer's statement that the plaintiff could not return to work until she had received "a [medical] release to work without restrictions" as evidence that the defendant "perceived Wysong as being unable to work anywhere at the plant, and thus, unable to perform the same broad class of work anywhere else." See Wysong, 503 F.3d at 453. The Kaufmann/Germann statements here – that there was no work for Watts unless she could present a full medical release – present a situation similar to the full-medical-release requirement in Wysong and the 100% rule in Henderson. The jury could have concluded that the statement indicated that UPS perceived Watts as being unable to perform the broad class of jobs available at the UPS Hamilton facility.

Moreover, the Court questioned the legitimacy of the employer's explanation that an employee had to be 100% fit because of the bargaining agreement's seniority provisions because the 30-day rule did not flow from the CBA, was not applied to certain male employees and was not described in the employer's written descriptions of the light duty program. Thus, it concluded that there was evidence that the employer's explanation for not placing the plaintiff in the light duty program was pretexual and a mere disguise for unlawful discrimination.

[Editor's Note: In January 2011, the EEOC announced a $3.2M settlement with Supervalu arising out of the termination of employees following medical leaves of absence under a policy that employees could only return to work if they were medically certified to be 100% fit for duty].

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: Disability Leave and Receipt of Social Security Benefits Do Not Destroy ADEA Claim Following a RIF.

This morning, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati affirmed the dismissal on summary judgment of an age discrimination claim brought by a salesperson who took disability leave shortly after being notified that his position was being eliminated in a reduction in force. Johnson v. Franklin Farmers Cooperative, No. 09-5483 (6^th Cir. 2010). However, it did so for different reasons than the trial court – which had found that the plaintiff failed to show that the employer's explanation was a mere pretext for discrimination. Rather, consistent with similar claims, the Court ultimately agreed that the plaintiff could not show that he had been replaced, or selected for the RIF based on his age, when his duties were reassigned among the remaining employees. However, before reaching this unsurprising conclusion, the Court also rejected several arguments raised by the employer, including: (1) that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action when he took short-term and long-term disability leave after being notified that his position was being eliminated and (2) that his disability leave and receipt of social security benefits rendered him unqualified for his position. Nonetheless, the Court rejected the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff had shown that he had been replaced by a younger employee when it found indisputable evidence of a RIF and imposed a higher burden of proof on the plaintiff to show that his age had been a factor in his selection for the RIF. Thus, it affirmed summary judgment for the employer.

The Court rejected the employer's argument that the plaintiff could not show as part of his prima facie case that he suffered an adverse employment action when he applied for short-term disability benefits (and then received LTD and social security benefits) shortly after being notified on September 5 that his position was to be eliminated in the RIF and before the position was actually eliminated on September 30. The employer denied the plaintiff's request that he be permitted to continue working for another 19 months (when he would qualify for full retirement benefits) and the plaintiff testified that he would have continued working if his position had not been eliminated (regardless of the content of his disability benefit applications). "Viewed in a light most favorable to [the plaintiff], the evidence supports [the plaintiff's] assertion that he involuntarily ceased working two weeks before [the employer] would eliminate his job, and that [the employer] brought about a significant change in his employment status. The prima facie showing is not intended to be onerous." Instead, such an argument would be better evaluated, if at all, at the pretext stage of analysis.

The Court also rejected the employer's argument that the plaintiff could not prove as part of his prima facie case that he was qualified for the salesperson job when he had submitted applications stating that he was completely unable to work. However, the Court found that the plaintiff had adequately explained the apparent inconsistency by, among other things, affidavits from co-workers, the employer's General Manager and former customers about how well he performed his job before he began his disability leave.

The Court rejected the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff had been replaced by a younger employee. According to the Court's opinion, the employer selected three employees for the September 30 RIF because of a budget deficit, but it rehired one of them in November and delayed the termination of the other until he qualified for retirement on December 30. In addition, the General Manager admitted that some of his business decisions were influenced by the existence of the pending litigation because he did not want to have to admit that he actually needed an outside salesperson, like the plaintiff (thus, implying that he was merely waiting for the conclusion of the litigation to formally name the younger employee as the employer's outside salesperson). The plaintiff's duties had been distributed among two younger employees. The Sixth Circuit found that the employer had legitimately conducted a RIF despite the above facts because the retired employee was not replaced and the rehired employee was brought back to replace another departing employee. Thus, the employer's headcount following December 30 was three less than it had been when it announced the RIF on September 5.

The Court also found that the plaintiff's duties had been assumed by two younger employees, who continued to perform their existing job duties. " An employee is not replaced for purposes of the fourth element of a prima facie case of discrimination when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiff's duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work."

Because the plaintiff's termination took place in a RIF, the Court imposed a higher burden of proof on him to show that he was impermissibly selected for the RIF on account of his age:

Where . . . there is a reduction in force, a plaintiff must either show that age was a factor in eliminating his position, or, where some employees are shifted to other positions, that he was qualified for another position, he was not given a new position, and that the decision not to place him in a new position was motivated by plaintiff's age. . . . . The purpose of the additional evidence requirement is to ensure, in reduction of force cases, that the plaintiff has presented evidence to show that there is a chance the reduction in force is not the reason for the termination.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the plaintiff could not meet the higher burden of proof which applies in a RIF. The plaintiff admittedly did not have direct evidence of age discrimination and could not show an inference of age discrimination simply from the fact that two younger employees were retained instead of him. Finally, the General Manager's admission that his business and promotional decisions were influenced by the fact of the litigation was insufficient to carry the plaintiff's burden of proof.

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.