2016 IL App (1st) 150791
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Elizabeth Mendez, a long‑time Town of Cicero employee, alleged she was transferred from executive administrative assistant to a clerk after reporting observed sexual harassment by the deputy police superintendent.
- Mendez filed IDHR charges (retaliatory transfer found to have substantial evidence) and then sued under the Illinois Human Rights Act and Whistleblower Act; most individual and other claims were dismissed before trial.
- At trial the jury found Cicero liable for retaliation (retaliatory transfer) but awarded no compensatory damages for emotional distress or lost future earnings.
- The trial court reserved equitable relief; after post‑trial proceedings it ordered reinstatement (practical resolution: Mendez placed as executive assistant to a gang unit commander), denied back pay and a requested salary increase.
- Mendez’s counsel petitioned for $346,337 in fees and $20,198 in costs; the court awarded $314,489 in fees and $15,923.09 in costs, then reduced and netted an award of $330,412.09; Cicero appealed only the reasonableness of the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees under the Illinois Human Rights Act | Mendez argued she was a prevailing party entitled to fees because she proved retaliatory transfer and obtained reinstatement/equitable relief; fees are appropriate to vindicate public policy and enable counsel to represent meritorious low‑damage claims. | Cicero argued Mendez obtained only nominal relief (no money damages) so fees should be minimal or vacated; court should apply Farrar/Hensley proportionality and reduce award 80–90%. | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion. The jury verdict and subsequent reinstatement made Mendez a prevailing party; court reasonably calculated fees and appropriately reduced time for dismissed/irrelevant claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rackow v. Human Rights Comm’n, 152 Ill. App. 3d 1046 (Ill. App. Ct.) (fee‑shifting under Act promotes representation and enforcement of public policy)
- Mathur v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 317 F.3d 738 (7th Cir.) (fee‑shifting in civil rights statutes enables access to counsel when damages are small)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S.) (degree of success is important in fee awards; nominal damages context)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (lodestar and factors for reasonable fees)
- Briggs v. Marshall, 93 F.3d 355 (7th Cir.) (application of Hensley principles)
- Barrow v. Falck, 977 F.2d 1100 (7th Cir.) (fee‑shifting discourages "petty tyranny")
- Buckhannon Board & Home Care, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S.) (prevailing party doctrine—court‑ordered relief required for fee entitlement)
- Brewington v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 161 Ill. App. 3d 54 (Ill. App. Ct.) (factors for fee awards under Illinois law)