K. Wagner, Capitol Police Officer v. PA Capitol Police Department
132 A.3d 1051
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Wagner, a Pennsylvania Capitol Police officer, was released to light duty in Oct. 2005 but was not reinstated until Jan. 2006; he alleged the refusal violated due process and the PHRA.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the PHRA; federal claims were dismissed and state claims were remanded; trial of the PHRA claims proceeded in Dauphin County in Aug. 2014.
- A jury found Appellees failed to provide reasonable accommodation and awarded $14,000 in lost wages; no emotional damages awarded.
- Post-trial, Wagner sought $125,420.87 in attorney fees/costs, delay damages, and reinstatement of seniority; the trial court reinstated seniority, awarded $5,600 (40% of the verdict) in attorney fees, and denied delay damages.
- The trial court explained denial of delay damages based on Pa.R.C.P. No. 238 (applies only to bodily injury, death, or property damage) and reduced attorney fees due to lack of fee agreement, overlap with other matters, and absence of pervasive misconduct.
- Wagner appealed, arguing costs are mandatory for prevailing parties, the lodestar method should have been used, and delay damages were warranted; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of costs under PHRA | Costs are recoverable as a matter of course to prevailing party | PHRA §12(c.2) vests discretion; American Rule requires statutory authorization | Denied; PHRA uses "may" so award of fees/costs is discretionary (Hoy controls) |
| Method/amount of attorney fees | Trial court should use lodestar to calculate reasonable fee | Trial court has discretion under PHRA; may consider contingency and case-specific factors | Affirmed trial court's 40% award as not an abuse of discretion (court cited lack of fee agreement and mixed-record work) |
| Applicability of federal fee-shifting policy | Public policy and federal precedents support awarding full fees to encourage private enforcement | Federal law is persuasive only; PHRA is interpreted under state law and Hoy rejects federal compulsion | Rejected; federal fee-shifting policy not controlling under PHRA; no mandatory full-fee presumption |
| Delay damages under Pa.R.C.P. No. 238 | Delay damages available because of prolonged inactivity and no settlement offers | Rule 238 applies only to bodily injury/death/property damage actions; not employment discrimination | Denied; Rule 238 inapplicable to PHRA employment discrimination claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoy v. Angelone, 720 A.2d 745 (Pa. 1998) (PHRA’s "may" language gives trial courts discretion to award attorney fees and costs)
- Department of Environmental Resources v. PBS Coals, Inc., 677 A.2d 868 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (discusses lodestar and factors for fee awards where state law lacks guidance)
- Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 658 A.2d 341 (Pa. 1995) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re Farnese, 17 A.3d 357 (Pa. 2011) (recognizes the American Rule: parties bear their own litigation costs absent statutory authorization)
- Zelenak v. Mikula, 911 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2006) (addresses recoverable record costs under 42 Pa.C.S.)
- Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 1999) (federal view on private enforcement and importance of fee-shifting in civil-rights actions)
- Student Pub. Interest Research Group v. AT&T Bell Labs, 842 F.2d 1436 (3d Cir. 1988) (federal guidance on appropriate hourly rates for fee calculations)