Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

New York Real Estate Law ReporterKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Be Wary of Rule 54(d)'s Costs Provision

By Geoffrey A. Mort
September 01, 2003

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), 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 attorneys' fees, finding that the Christiansburg test had not been satisfied.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.