Delci Lev v. New Haven Board of Education (2014)

Memorandum of Decision in Re Motion for Attorneys Fees, # 133

This is an action for money damages returnable on or about September 8, 2011.   The plaintiff, in her revised complaint, claims she was a tenured teacher employed by the defendant, City of New Haven Board of Education, when, in June 2010, she was forced to resign in retaliation for objecting to discriminatory employment practices by the defendant's employees.   The plaintiff claimed the defendant's conduct violated the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), as found in General Statutes § 46a–60 et seq.   The defendant denied any wrongdoing and claimed instead that the plaintiff had evidenced her intent to resign in June 2010, and, when the plaintiff attempted to withdraw her resignation, the defendant was unwilling to rescind the resignation.   The defendant, in its first special defense, claimed that any violation of the CFEPA was based on conduct that occurred more than 180 days prior December 20, 2010, the date on which the plaintiff filed her complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), and thus was time barred.   The defendant raised a second special defense that the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by failing to use diligence in seeking other suitable employment.   The plaintiff denied the defendant's special defenses.

The matter proceeded to a trial by jury over the course of approximately ten days of evidence, commencing September 10, 2013.   On September 26, 2013, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded her economic damages in the sum of $255,000.   The defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied.   On September 30, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for counsel fees along with an affidavit in support of her motion.   The defendant does not object to the motion for counsel fees in a general sense.   Specifically, the defendant does not challenge the substance of the affidavit or the reasonableness of the work performed by the attorneys for the plaintiff.   Rather, the defendant's sole objection to the request for counsel fees is premised on the reasonableness of the $500 per hour billing rate that the plaintiff's attorney claims here.   The defendant argues, instead, that $400 per hour is a more appropriate rate in this case.   For the reasons that follow, the plaintiff's motion/request for counsel feels is granted.   An hourly professional attorney rate in the sum of $500 per hour regarding Mr. Williams is reasonable here.   The defendant's objection to granting the same is overruled.

Legal Discussion

Our Supreme Court has stated that “[a] court has few duties of a more delicate nature than that of fixing counsel fees.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 258 (2003).   This court must address this delicate task here.  “The amount of attorneys fees to be awarded rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion ․ Sound discretion, by definition, means a discretion that is not exercised arbitrarily or willfully, but with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law ․ Judicial discretion is always a legal discretion, exercised according to the recognized principles of equity ․ The trial court's discretion imports something more than leeway in decision making and should be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and should not impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.”   (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Rodriguez v. Ancona, 88 Conn.App. 193, 201–02, 868 A.2d 807 (2005).

“It is axiomatic ․ that the determination of the reasonableness of attorneys fees appropriately takes into consideration a range of factors ․ It is well established that a trial court calculating reasonable attorneys fees makes its determination while considering the factors set forth under Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct ․ These factors include the time and labor spent by attorneys, the novelty and complexity of the legal issues, fees customarily charged in the same locality for similar services, the lawyer's experience and ability, relevant time limitations, the magnitude of the case and the results obtained, the nature and length of the lawyer-client relationship, and whether the fee is fixed or contingent ․ When awarding attorneys fees, the court must consider all of the factors and not seize on one to the exclusion of others.”  (Citations omitted;  footnote omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Id., 202.

“We long have held that there is an undisputed requirement that the reasonableness of attorneys fees and costs must be proven by an appropriate evidentiary showing ․ We also have noted that courts have a general knowledge of what ․ has occurred at the proceeding before them to supply evidence in support of an award of attorneys fees.”  (Citations omitted;  emphasis omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456, 471, 839 A.2d 589 (2004).

“[T]he initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys fee is properly calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate ․ The courts may then adjust this lodestar calculation by other factors ․ For guidance in adjusting attorneys fees, Connecticut courts have adopted the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir.1974).   The Johnson factors are (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee for similar work in the community, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys, (10) the undesirability of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.”   (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Ernst v. Deere & Co., 92 Conn.App. 572, 576, 886 A.2d 845 (2005).   The “list of [Johnson] factors is not ․ exclusive.   The court may assess the reasonableness of the fees requested using any number of factors ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Id., 576, n.3. Similarly, a contract clause providing for reimbursement of incurred fees “permit[s] recovery upon the presentation of an attorney's bill, so long as that bill is not unreasonable upon its face and has not been shown to be unreasonable by countervailing evidence or by the exercise of the trier's own expert judgment.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   N.E. Leasing, LLC v. Paoletta, 89 Conn.App. 766, 778, 877 A.2d 840, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 921, 883 A.2d 1245 (2005).

Here, the plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of John Williams of New Haven, Connecticut.   In his affidavit Attorney Williams attests that he has been a member of the bar in Connecticut since 1968.   Civil rights litigation has been among his legal specialties since 1971.   In his affidavit Attorney Williams cites a 2010 federal case of Muhammed v. Martoccio, Docket No. 3:06–CV–1137 (WWE), 2010 WL 3718560 (D.Conn. September 13, 2010), in which the court approved Attorney Williams' hourly rate of $500.   The court is also cognizant of a decision by a judge of the Superior Court here in the New Haven Judicial District in the matter of Taylor v. Department of Correction, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV–09–5030106–S (September 14, 2010, Wilson, J.).   In that case, which also involved a CFEPA claim, the court, Wilson, J., found that the plaintiff's claim for attorneys fees at Attorney Williams' hourly rate of $500 to be unsupported.   Instead, the court approved a rate of $375 per hour for Attorney Williams and $150 per hour for Kit Engstrom, Attorney Williams' associate counsel.

In the present case, Attorney Engstrom also assisted Attorney Williams.   Here, Attorney Williams seeks approval of an hourly rate of $350 per hour for Attorney Engstrom.   It is clear that Attorney Williams is an experienced counsel in the area of civil rights law.   Attorney Williams brought a one-count complaint that was very focused on the conduct complained about and illustrates, in this jurist's view, the adage that “simple is better.”   The claim itself centered around whether the defendant retaliated against the plaintiff by forcing her to retire following years of subtle and pretextual abuses and baseless criticisms that were heaped on the plaintiff and that commenced when she chose to criticize a principal for his clearly inappropriate comments about inner city school children and “white suburban teachers,” and that he was acting like a “Gestapo” agent.

The plaintiff was required to bring her claim before the CHRO. Counsel was required to navigate the plaintiff's claim through administrative and court processes.   The defendant vigorously defended this action.   Thus, litigation support services itemized by Attorney Engstrom are reasonable.   Although professional and courteous, the advocacy here was of the highest caliber on both sides.   The case was hard fought and not easily won.   This court finds that $500 per hour rate charged by Attorney Williams is reasonable, and the $350 per hour rate charged by Attorney Engstrom is equally reasonable.

Conclusion

Accordingly, this court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees measured by the reasonable hourly rate for each attorney, multiplied times the reasonable number of hours expended.   In accordance with General Statutes § 46a–104 and all relevant law for determining reasonableness of attorneys fees, the court awards attorneys fees in the amount of $32,750 for Attorney Williams, which represents 65.5 hours times $500 per hour.   The court also awards $8,120 for services performed by Attorney Engstrom, which represents 23.2 hours times $350 per hour.

It is So Ordered,

Nazzaro, J.

Nazzaro, John J., J.