El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas
370 S.W.3d 757
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Olivas, a Applebee’s El Paso manager, sued for sex discrimination and retaliation under the TCHRA; a jury found retaliation but no sex discrimination.
- Trial court awarded Olivas back pay, past and future compensatory damages; Olivas sought attorney’s fees under TCHRA §21.259(a).
- Affidavits claimed 850 total hours; lead counsel Gonzalez ~700 hours; Dominguez ~150 hours (later 190 hours).
- Trial court calculated lodestar: $250/hr × 700 hrs for Gonzalez and $300/hr × 190 hrs for Dominguez, then doubled the base lodestar by a 2.0 multiplier; added paralegal fees and post-judgment fees.
- Court of Appeals affirmed most damages and fees, but remanded on fee issues; this Court reverses and remands for proper lodestar calculation with adequate documentation.
- The case centers on whether the affidavits and record sufficed to establish a reasonable lodestar and whether a multiplier was justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of fee documentation | Olivas’s affidavits enough; detailed records not required | affidavits insufficient; need contemporaneous time records | Record insufficient; remand for proper documentation |
| Appropriateness of multiplier | Multiplier permissible under Rule 42(i)(l) | No basis to enhance; time on unsuccessful discrimination claim should be discounted | Premature to decide multiplier without a lawful base lodestar; remand for proper base calculation |
| Use of lodestar in this case | Lodestar presumptively reasonable; minutes explained later | Court should limit reliance on lodestar without detailed task-by-task breakdown | Base lodestar not established due to inadequate records; remand for reconstruction of work hours and tasks |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Dillard Dept. Stores, 72 S.W.3d 398 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2002) (lodestar method primary basis for fee awards in Title VII and TCHRA-like actions)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (hours to be reasonably expended; billing judgment required)
- Garcia v. Gomez, 319 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. 2010) (lodestar-based approach; consistency with fee proof requirements)
- Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(i)(1), Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(i)(1) () (fee adjustment range 25%–400% of lodestar in class actions; applied by analogy here)