Mitch Goree v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
W2016-01197-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jun 2, 2017Background
- Mitch Goree and James Wherry sued UPS under the Tennessee Human Rights Act for racial discrimination and retaliation; both won jury verdicts and the trial court awarded attorney’s fees and costs totaling $263,322.50 and ~$12,352.67.
- On the first appeal (Goree I), this Court affirmed Goree’s judgment (with some remittitur) but reversed Wherry’s judgment entirely.
- On remand UPS moved to reduce the attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to the plaintiffs, arguing it was the prevailing party as to Wherry; the trial court concluded fees/costs could not be segregated and reduced the award by 50% (to half the prior amounts).
- Goree appealed, arguing (1) the claims arose from an inseparable common core of facts so fees should not be reduced, (2) the court erred by not itemizing fees attributable solely to Goree, and (3) he should recover appellate fees.
- The trial court relied on Hensley-style discretion: because segregation was impracticable, it made an across-the-board reduction to account for the partial success of the litigation.
- This Court affirmed the 50% reduction as a reasonable exercise of discretion and denied Goree’s request for appellate attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by reducing Goree’s fees 50% because Wherry lost | Goree: claims arose from an inextricably intertwined common core of facts; fees should not be reduced by mechanical split | UPS: Wherry’s reversal means partial success; reduction appropriate when fees cannot be segregated | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; Hensley permits reduction when segregation is impossible |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to segregate fees attributable solely to Goree | Goree: court should identify specific hours/fees for Goree rather than apply a 50% cut | UPS: billing did not permit meaningful segregation; reduction is acceptable | Affirmed — trial court found segregation impracticable and reasonably applied an across-the-board reduction |
| Whether Crescent Sock requires remand to allocate fees between plaintiffs | Goree: Crescent Sock mandates remand to segregate fees | UPS: Crescent Sock is distinguishable (contractual fee-shifting, different posture) | Rejected — Crescent Sock distinguishable and not controlling here |
| Whether Goree is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees | Goree: prevailed in part on merits previously and seeks appellate fees | UPS: appellate fees are discretionary and should be denied given outcome | Denied — appellate fees denied; Goree did not prevail on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (trial court may reduce fee awards where some claims are unsuccessful and may either identify specific hours or make an overall reduction)
- Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2008) (courts should avoid mechanical reductions where claims share a common core of facts and legal theories)
- Goree v. United Parcel Serv., 490 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (prior appellate opinion reversing Wherry’s judgment and addressing remittitur)
- Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. 2011) (standard of review: attorney fee awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Lilley v. BTM Corp., 958 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1992) (discrimination and retaliation claims may be related such that fee reductions for unsuccessful claims are improper when claims are intertwined)