Payne v. University of Southern Mississippi, 681 F. App'x 384

Background

Thomas Payne, a tenured associate professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, sued the University and several officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and state law alleging religious discrimination, retaliation, and other employment-related torts and contract claims.
The district court dismissed most claims on summary judgment; the few claims that went to trial were dismissed on a Rule 50(a) motion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Defendants moved for attorneys’ fees under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Mississippi’s Litigation Accountability Act; the district court granted fees in part, finding certain claims frivolous.
The district court (1) found several § 1983 claims (claims based on a rescinded non‑renewal notice and equal protection) frivolous; (2) found Title VII claims against individual defendants frivolous; and (3) found certain state law breach‑of‑contract and negligence claims against individual defendants frivolous.
The court awarded monetary attorneys’ fees to the defendants in two grouped amounts (approximately $14,065.50 and $7,060.10) and also entered fee liability against Payne’s attorney under § 1927; Payne appealed the fee awards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review fee award against Payne’s attorney (Chaze) under § 1927	Payne contends fee order against his attorney is reviewable on appeal	Defendants note attorney did not appeal; Rule 3(c) requires naming appealing parties	No jurisdiction — Chaze did not appeal; court cannot review fees against him
§ 1988 fees for § 1983 claims (rescinded non‑renewal and due process)	Payne argued he was targeted for termination and thus protected; disputed characterization of his pleadings	Defendants argued claims were frivolous/misrepresented (Payne sometimes claimed actual termination)	Affirmed — district court reasonably found rescinded non‑renewal due process claims frivolous
§ 1988 fees for equal protection claim	Payne argued adverse actions showed religion‑based disparate treatment	Defendants argued evidence was speculative and unsupported	Affirmed — equal protection claim was speculative; fees properly awarded
Title VII fees against individual defendants	Payne contended Title VII claims were intended only against the University	Defendants argued individual defendants are not employers and cannot be sued under Title VII; complaint alleged violations against "defendants" generally	Affirmed — Title VII claims against individuals were frivolous; fees properly awarded
State Litigation Accountability Act fees (breach of contract and negligence)	Payne argued some state claims were pursued but later conceded at summary judgment	Defendants noted individuals were not parties to employment contract and are immune from negligent acts in scope of duties	Affirmed — breach and negligence claims against individuals lacked substantial justification; fees limited to pre‑concession defense costs
Amount of fees and application of Fox v. Vice (allocating fees for frivolous claims)	Payne argued the court misapplied lodestar and Fox — fees should be limited to work that would not have been incurred but for frivolous claims; challenged lack of contemporaneous billing and failure to reduce via Johnson factors	Defendants provided detailed charts, affidavits, and argued reductions were already made; district court used lodestar, excluded general defense entries, and considered Johnson factors	Affirmed — detailed charts and affidavits sufficed; court applied Fox principle by excluding general entries and limited compensable hours; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant may recover fees only if plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (Sup. Ct.) (fees should be limited to work that would not have been incurred but for frivolous claims)
Merced v. Kasson, 577 F.3d 578 (5th Cir.) (prevailing defendants under § 1988 must show claims were frivolous)
Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036 (5th Cir.) (standard for awarding § 1988 fees to prevailing defendants)
Gagnon v. United Technisource, Inc., 607 F.3d 1036 (5th Cir.) (lack of contemporaneous billing does not preclude fee award if evidence suffices)
La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319 (5th Cir.) (lodestar method and billing proof standards)
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.) (sufficiency of fee documentation)
Autry v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 704 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for fee awards)