The September 2003 issue of New York Employment Law & Practice published my article entitled “Be Wary of Rule 54(d)'s Costs Provision,” in which I discussed the award of costs to prevailing defendant employers in employment law cases.
Update: Danger to Unsuccessful Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs
The September 2003 issue of <i>New York Employment Law & Practice</i> published my article entitled "Be Wary of Rule 54(d)'s Costs Provision," in which I discussed the award of costs to prevailing defendant employers in employment law cases. I observed that courts have often assessed substantial costs awards against even low-income plaintiffs whose employment law cases are dismissed or lost at trial, although there are arguments available to plaintiffs' counsel in some situations that can be used to minimize or eliminate such awards. A January 2004 decision on a costs motion by Eastern District of New York Judge Arthur D. Spatt reinforces several of the points made in the September article, and further dramatizes the dangers of potential costs awards to plaintiffs with marginal cases.
By
Geoffrey A. MortThis premium content is locked for New York Real Estate Law Reporter subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN New York Real Estate Law Reporter
- 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 have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
