Harris v. Maricopa County Superior Court
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1068
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Harris served as an at-will Initial Appearance Hearing Officer for Maricopa County; no contract existed and he served at the court’s pleasure.
- Allegations of inappropriate conduct towards female staff and other duties led to administrative leave and his resignation.
- Harris, African American, filed an EEOC charge alleging sex and race discrimination; EEOC dismissed.
- In 2002 Harris filed a federal complaint naming State, County, Superior Court, and Arizona Supreme Court; ten claims followed.
- District court granted summary judgment on several claims; remaining claims later resolved; defendants sought substantial attorney’s fees and costs.
- Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the fee award, finding improper allocation methods and legal standards in awarding fees under multiple statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fees allocation among mixed claims | Harris’s nonfrivolous claims should not dilute award. | General fees may be apportioned across claims; proportional reduction adequate. | Allocating general fees pro rata across all claims was impermissible. |
| Contract-based fee eligibility | Contract claims arose from contract; fees should be recoverable. | Contract claims tied to civil rights; apportionment needed to reflect frivolous claims. | Fees for contract claims must reflect only work exclusive to frivolous claims; error in method. |
| Due process fee eligibility | Due process claim worthy of fee recovery under §12-341.01(A). | Not properly arising from contract or non-contract basis. | Fees not appropriate under §12-341.01(A) for the due process claim. |
| Civil rights fee standard application | Christiansburg framework should govern civil rights fee awards. | Defendants entitled to fees only for frivolous claims under civil rights statutes. | Standards applied; remand for proper apportionment and consideration of fee motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1990) (fee shifting in civil rights cases requires exceptional circumstances)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation standard for fee awards)
- Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (allocation of fees among claims; interrelatedness concerns)
- Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (pro rata allocation of general fees in some contexts)
- Sees v. KTUC, Inc., 148 Ariz. 366 (Ariz. App. 1985) (Arizona policy on fee awards in civil rights cases)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonableness and allocation principles for fee awards)