Tridico v. District of Columbia
235 F. Supp. 3d 100
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Philip Tridico, a D.C. Metropolitan Police officer and former Marine, sued the District alleging religious discrimination/hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and discrimination/retaliation under USERRA; four claims survived to trial.
- After a four-day jury trial, Tridico prevailed on his Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims and was awarded $20,000 in non‑economic compensatory damages; the jury found for the District on USERRA causation and awarded no damages on those claims.
- Tridico moved for attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) and 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(2), seeking $314,734.62 in fees and $2,797.66 in costs; the District agreed entitlement but contested reasonableness and proposed substantial reductions.
- The court applied the lodestar framework: hours reasonably expended, reasonable hourly rates (USAO/Laffey matrices recognized), and possible adjustments for limited success and billing practices.
- The court reduced fees for unsubstantiated work by co-counsel Berry & Berry ($20,163), applied historical rather than 2016 USAO rates for pre‑2016 work, reduced fees 10% for limited success (recovery only on Title VII non‑economic damages), discounted travel time to 50% using a 1.5‑hour estimate for travel in block entries, and made modest cost adjustments (printing, duplicate parking).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees | Tridico sought full prevailing‑party fees and documented hours/rates for JG&L | District conceded entitlement but challenged amount and reasonableness | Tridico is a prevailing party; fees awarded in part after adjustments |
| Documentation for co‑counsel fees (Berry & Berry) | Submitted hours/expenses but minimal supporting detail about attorneys | Fees unsubstantiated (no billing practices, experience) and DCOHR work not compensable in federal suit | Court disallowed Berry & Berry fees ($20,163) and related $47.30 costs for lack of justification |
| Hourly rates / time‑value adjustment | Requested applying 2016 USAO (current) rates to earlier years to compensate for delay | District argued historical rates should apply to pre‑2016 work | Court applied historical USAO/Laffey rates for the years work was performed (no compensation for delay) |
| Fees for preparing fee petition (“fees on fees”) | Sought full USAO rates for 52,524.50 hours spent preparing fee motion | District urged 50% reduction, arguing fee‑petition work is less complex | Court awarded full requested amount for fee‑petition work; no reduction warranted here |
| Limited success reduction | Tridico argued overall success and relatedness of claims justified full recovery | District sought 10% reduction because Tridico lost USERRA claims and economic damages | Court imposed a 10% reduction of total fee award for limited success |
| Block billing and travel time | Tridico disputed block‑billing reductions but conceded travel should be at 50% | District sought 5% overall reduction for block billing and 50% cut for travel billed at full rate; proposed 1.5‑hour estimate for travel in block entries | Court declined 5% block reduction but disambiguated travel in block entries, estimated 1.5 hours per trip, and discounted travel time to 50% of rate |
| Costs (printing, deposition, parking) | Sought specified printing and other costs; conceded some color copy reduction | District challenged color copy rate, certain reporter/deposition amounts, and duplicate/unverified parking | Court accepted reduced color copy rate ($0.25), allowed deposition costs on receipts, and disallowed duplicative/unsupported parking totaling $72.00 |
Key Cases Cited
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir.) (burden to document hours and justify rates for fee petitions)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (limited success and allocation when claims share a common core of facts)
- West v. Potter, 717 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir.) (presumption for historical rates; current rates may be applied to compensate for delay but presumption is strong)
- Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir.) (block billing can hinder evaluation of reasonableness and may justify reductions)
- Craig v. District of Columbia, 197 F. Supp. 3d 268 (D.D.C.) (discussion of fee‑petition adjustments and lodestar reductions)