Danielle Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Center
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2627
7th Cir.2016Background
- Danielle Pickett sued Sheridan Health Care Center under Title VII for retaliation (harassment claim dismissed); she prevailed at trial and received $65,000.
- Pickett sought attorney’s fees for work by Ernest T. Rossiello & Associates; the district court initially awarded fees based on a $400/hour rate and allowed payment for 175 of ~225 claimed hours.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated that award (Pickett II) because the district court relied on unsubmitted price indexes, considered the contingent-fee arrangement, ignored some evidence of Rossiello’s past rates, and failed to explain its calculation.
- On remand the district court (after allowing party comment) set Rossiello’s market rate at $425/hour, awarded fees for previously approved hours at that rate, allowed some additional hours (including work on the first appeal), denied fees for hours not previously submitted, awarded prejudgment interest only for post-remand claims timely requested, and found Pickett waived fees for pursuing the remand fee motion.
- Pickett appealed again, challenging the district court’s re-evaluation of affidavits and disciplinary history, reliance on a prior fee award for Rossiello in another case, denial of prejudgment interest for earlier fees, and waiver finding for remand-fee work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper hourly rate for Rossiello | District court exceeded remand scope by reweighing affidavits and considering disciplinary history; $425 is unsupported | District court permissibly re-evaluated evidence per remand and reasonably found $425 | AFFIRMED — district court acted within remand scope and did not abuse discretion |
| Use of prior fee award (Johnson) | Johnson decision was erroneous and should not guide rate here | Prior district fee awards are persuasive evidence of market rate | AFFIRMED — prior fee award admissible and usable as persuasive evidence |
| Prejudgment interest on attorney fees | Entitled to prejudgment interest because full compensation requires time-value adjustment; request not timely but prejudgment interest presumptive | Request was untimely (not pleaded or timely requested pre-remand); district court discretion to deny | AFFIRMED — request was untimely for pre-remand fees; no abuse of discretion denying interest on those amounts |
| Fees for work on remand/fee motion | Fees for pursuing fees on remand should be recoverable | Plaintiff expressly waived those fees in a reply; court properly enforces waiver | AFFIRMED — plaintiff’s reply statement waived fees for remand motion; district court enforced waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 610 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming underlying Title VII judgment)
- Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2011) (vacating initial fee award and remanding with guidance on rate calculation)
- Small v. Richard Wolf Med. Instruments Corp., 264 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2001) (district court may weigh probative value of rate affidavits)
- Smith v. Village of Maywood, 17 F.3d 219 (7th Cir. 1994) (fees should be based on market rate for services rendered)
- Mathur v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois Univ., 317 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 2003) (methods for accounting for delay in payment of fee awards)
- Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 870 F.2d 1198 (7th Cir. 1989) (principle that remand permits reconsideration consistent with appellate law of the case)
- Gorenstein Enterprises, Inc. v. Quality Care-USA, Inc., 874 F.2d 431 (7th Cir. 1989) (prejudgment interest presumptively available to victims of federal-law violations)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (settlement on appeal waives right to challenge underlying district-court order)