Dennis L. Smith v. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, State of Iowa
885 N.W.2d 620
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Dennis Smith, a former Iowa State University (ISU) employee, sued ISU for intentional infliction of emotional distress and statutory whistleblower violations arising from events between 2002–2010.
- At trial Smith recovered $500,000 (emotional distress) and $784,027 (whistleblower); on prior appeal this court affirmed the emotional-distress award but reversed most of the whistleblower award, leaving $150,000 for reputational harm.
- Smith sought virtually all attorney fees incurred across related litigation, relying on Iowa Code § 70A.28(5)(a), which permits attorney fees for violations of the whistleblower statute.
- The district court awarded $368,607.35 in fees and costs (nearly all requested fees), reasoning the claims shared a common factual core.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded, directing more detailed time entries (daily task breakdown). Smith sought further review.
- The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision, held the district court abused its discretion in awarding all fees, and remanded for recalculation but rejected the requirement that counsel submit new daily task breakdowns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding all requested attorney fees was appropriate when fees are authorized only for the statutory whistleblower claim | Smith argued most work related to claims that shared a common core of facts and thus fees for the litigation as a whole were recoverable | ISU argued many hours were spent on claims (emotional distress, open-records suit, age-discrimination) for which fees are not recoverable and on parts of the whistleblower claim later reversed | Court: District court abused its discretion; reduce fees for time spent on unrelated matters and account for Smith’s limited success on the whistleblower claim |
| Whether partial success on the fee-bearing claim requires reduction of fees | Smith contended Hensley principles need not apply because statute doesn’t require prevailing-party language | ISU said limited success on whistleblower claim (only reputational damages preserved) warrants reduction | Court: Apply Hensley/Lee III two-step approach: (1) exclude time clearly unrelated to fee-bearing claim; (2) adjust for partial/limited success |
| Whether counsel must submit new, detailed daily time breakdowns (task-by-task per day) on remand | Smith argued block billing and existing records are adequate; additional detailed reconstruction is burdensome | ISU and court of appeals required more detailed affidavits showing time spent on each task each day | Court: No rigid requirement for daily task-by-task entries; district court may rely on existing records and apply reasonable reductions where documentation is inadequate, but unredacted records should be produced and findings must explain reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee awards when plaintiffs only partially succeed)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (defendant should not be insulated from paying fees reasonably incurred to remedy violation)
- Lee v. State (Lee III), 874 N.W.2d 631 (Iowa 2016) (two-step approach for fee awards where plaintiff partially succeeds)
- NevadaCare, Inc. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 783 N.W.2d 459 (standard of review for attorney-fee award)
- Vaughan v. Must, Inc., 542 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa) (no rigid formula; court can award a percentage of fees relative to success)