Kevin West v. John Potter
405 U.S. App. D.C. 236
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- West sued USPS for racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII.
- A 2008 jury verdict awarded West $90,000 plus costs on some retaliation claims.
- West sought attorney’s fees based on current rates to reflect delay in payment; district court referred to magistrate for calculation.
- Magistrate recommended historic rates and a 75% recovery to reflect partial success; district court adopted the recommendation and granted interim fees.
- Subsequently, the parties settled, and the district court issued a revised supplemental judgment; West appealed on fee calculation.
- The court vacated and remanded to determine, under correct standards, whether and how to compensate for delay in payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay-compensation in Title VII fees was properly denied | West argues current rates should be used to reflect delay. | Postmaster argues no delay adjustment or proper use of historic rates. | Remand for correct legal standards on delay compensation. |
| Whether interim fee award became a final award warranting review on appeal | West contends the district court left issues unresolved but finalizes the award. | District court maintained the interim award; no final amount set. | Interim award became final after revised judgment; jurisdiction exists. |
| What method should compensate for delay in Title VII fees | Current rates are appropriate to reflect delay. | Historic rates (or interest) can reflect delay; current rates not required. | Court remands to apply correct method (not exclusively current rates). |
| Whether the magistrate erred by treating two factors as exclusive delay criteria | West contends multiple factors support delay adjustment. | Defendant argues delay factors were appropriate but not exclusive. | Not exclusive; remand to consider appropriate delay adjustment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (delay value of money and inflationary considerations in fees)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar generally reasonable; current-rate reliance discouraged when unwarranted)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) (delay in payment may be compensated to reflect present value)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (fee calculation must be reasonable and not produce windfalls)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (presumption of lodestar reasonableness and nuances for delay)
- Gilda Marx, Inc. v. Wildwood Exercise, Inc., 85 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (finality issue in fee awards when interim awards issued)
- Action on Smoking and Health v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 724 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (delay-compensation factors beyond stays or procedural delays)