Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Management, Inc.
822 F. Supp. 2d 74
D. Mass.2011Background
- Diaz, an employee, sued Jiten Hotel Management, Inc. for age discrimination under Massachusetts law (Chapter 151B).
- A five-day trial concluded with a $7,650 compensatory verdict for Diaz on the state age-discrimination claim.
- Diaz moves for attorney’s fees and costs under M.G.L. ch. 151B, §9, arguing a mandatory award to a prevailing plaintiff.
- Jiten opposes, claiming special circumstances justify denying or reducing fees, including alleged false trial testimony and disproportional fees.
- The court determines Diaz is a prevailing party and awards reasonable fees and costs, subject to reduction for unviable claims and other adjustments.
- The court ultimately reduces attorney’s fees to $25,000 and costs to $9,434.74.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees under M.G.L. ch. 151B §9 | Diaz prevailed and is entitled to reasonable fees as a matter of law. | Fees should be denied or greatly limited due to special circumstances and disproportionate relief. | Diaz entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. |
| Whether special circumstances justify reducing fees | No special circumstances; full lodestar warranted. | False testimony and disproportionate fee relative to relief justify reduction. | No basis to deny; reductions may apply only as approved by the court; no special circumstances warrant denial. |
| Reasonableness of hours expended (lodestar) | Hours were reasonably expended including discovery and trial work. | Hours should be reduced for travel, state court appearance, and unviable claims. | Hours reduced: travel halved, state-court appearance removed, and 2/3 reduction for unviable claims; yielding 149.22 compensable hours. |
| Reasonableness of hourly rate | Hourly rate of $300 is market-rate for experienced employment/civil rights counsel in Boston. | Not contesting rate; nonetheless rate should reflect market conditions. | Hourly rate of $300 approved; consistent with prior awards. |
| Adjustment of the lodestar based on results and settlement offer | No adjustment; lodestar should reflect time and effort. | Adjust for settlement dynamics and relative value of verdict vs. settlement; risk of fee-driven settlements. | Court applies twelve Hensley factors and reduces fee to $25,000 to align with settlement value and policy considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (establishes lodestar method and adjustment framework)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1992) (fee recovery when prevailing party; considerations of damages)
- De Jesus Nazario v. Morris Rodriguez, 554 F.3d 196 (1st Cir. 2009) (special circumstances may render fee award unjust)
- Marrotta v. Suffolk Cnty., 726 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2010) (lodestar calculation framework in District of Massachusetts)
- Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2001) (guidance on reasonablehourly rates and prevailing market rates)
- Torres-Rivera v. O’Neill-Cancel, 524 F.3d 331 (1st Cir. 2008) (First Circuit addressing fee-shifting and hours/diligence)
- System Mgmt., Inc. v. Loiselle, 154 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D. Mass. 2001) (non-severable vs. severable claims and fee allocation)
- Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 2d 284 (D. Mass. 2011) (cautions on fee adjustments and contingency considerations)