Attorney's Fees

News & Analysis as of

Tennessee Legislative Update

Governor Haslam recently signed several bills into law that will impact Tennessee employees and employers in both the public and private sectors. Employers may wish to reassess certain policies and practices in light of these...more

T&E Litigation Newsletter- May 2016

In the past month, there were three decisions of note. First, in the case of Caffrey v. U.S. Trust, Case No. 15-P-920, 2016 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 454 (Apr. 27, 2016), the Appeals Court was confronted with the question...more

It’s About the Process…

When Irish and Northern Irish companies ask if there is *one* thing they can or should do to minimize the risk of operating in the US, I channel my inner Mr. McGuire (from the movie The Graduate) and say ‘process.’ It’s not...more

Supreme Court Tells EEOC It May Be on the Hook for Fees if It Does Not Fulfill Its Statutory Pre-Suit Duties

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to a party who prevails in a discrimination or retaliation claim brought under that statute. Although this fee shifting provision...more

Supreme Court Update: Green V. Brennan (14-613), Wittman V. Personhuballah (14-1504) And Foster V. Chapman (14-8349)

Three more decisions this morning—Green v. Brennan (14-613), holding that the 45-day limitations period for a constructive-discharge action under Title VII begins to run after the employee gives notice of his resignation;...more

Employment Law Navigator – Week in Review: May 2016 #4

Last week the long-awaited final FLSA overtime regulations were published. The regulations are intended to make an additional 4.2 million workers eligible for overtime. The new rules raise the salary threshold for exempt...more

Fee Wars: Supreme Court Eases Defendants’ Burden for Attorneys’ Fees in Baseless Discrimination Actions

In an 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that attorneys’ fees for successfully defending a Title VII action can be recovered by an employer even if the defendant’s victory is not based on the merits of the case....more

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects The Government’s Position In The Largest EEOC Fee Sanction Case Ever

Seyfarth Synopsis: In a landmark case for EEOC litigation involving fee sanctions, while employer CRST successfully argued that a ruling “on-the-merits” is not necessary to be a prevailing party, the SCOTUS remanded the case...more

SCOTUS Dodges EEOC Fee-Shifting

This morning, the Supreme Court dodged the final resolution of an issue we have all been dying to have resolved, but threw a nice bone to employers in the process. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC The case started when the...more

The Supreme Court - May 2016 #3

The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases on May 19, 2016: CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a suit in its own name...more

Major Changes to Federal Overtime Regulations Take Effect December 1. Are You Prepared?

This week, President Obama and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez announced the publication of a final rule to take effect December 1 that will overhaul the Fair Labor Standard Act’s overtime regulations. The U.S. Department of...more

How to Maximize Legal Fee Recovery in English Litigation

It is well known that in English courts, the losing litigant is at risk of being ordered to pay up to 90% of the winner’s legal costs, known as “costs shifting”. Less well-known but strategically important is the fact that...more

Supreme Court Leaves Massive Attorney's Fee Award Against EEOC Unresolved

But Decision Could Still Be Helpful For Employers - Today, in a unanimous 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a definitive ruling on whether an employer is entitled to recover nearly $5 million dollars...more

Supreme Court Holds a Party May be Entitled to Attorneys' Fees Absent a Favorable Ruling on the Merits

On May 19, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in CRST, Inc. v. EEOC, which addressed the definition of a “prevailing party” who may be awarded attorneys’ fees in Title VII cases. Although the Court ultimately...more

Did You Tell Them? Employers' Notice Obligations Regarding Whistleblowers Under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA"), an amendment to the Theft of Trade Secrets Act, became effective May 12, 2016. The DTSA provides trade secret owners an avenue to pursue claims for trade secret misappropriation...more

An Open Love Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas

I admit it. I have a crush on Justice Thomas. Today’s unanimous Supreme Court opinion in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC – holding that a merit-based dismissal is not necessary for a defendant to qualify as the “prevailing...more

Supreme Court Decides RST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC

On May 19, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided RST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375, holding that a defendant may be a prevailing party—and therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under...more

Southern District of California Rejects Coupon Class Settlement

The Southern District of California rejected a pre-certification class settlement because it provided for an inadequate coupon payment and a tenuous cy pres award, and included a clear sailing attorney fee provision....more

Implementing the Whistleblower Immunity Notice Provision under the Recently-Enacted Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act

The Defend Trade Secrets Act, signed into law on May 11, 2016, includes a whistleblower immunity notice provision. An employer that wants to preserve maximum recoveries for misappropriation against an employee should take...more

Introducing a New Product? Should a Freedom to Operate Study Be Undertaken?

When developing a new product, companies will frequently engage counsel to perform a “freedom to operate” study in an effort to identify patents that might raise a risk of patent infringement following the introduction of the...more

New Jersey Expands Fee-Shifting in Legal Malpractice Actions to Include Non-clients

On April 26, 2016, a sharply divided New Jersey Supreme Court held that attorneys may be liable for counsel fees if they are found to have intentionally breached their fiduciary duty to non-clients. In the matter of Innes v....more

Recovering Attorney's Fees for Breach of Contract Under Texas Law Recent Cases Say No!

In the energy sector, many contracts contain Texas choice of law provisions, or are performed in Texas, which means that Texas law probably applies. The conventional wisdom in Texas is that a prevailing party can recover its...more

Iowa’s Highest Court Enters First Decision on Certain Landlord-Tenant Issues Raised in 2013 Staley Case: Landlords Must Take Note...

As most landlords are aware, in 2013, the Iowa Court of Appeals entered a decision in the Staley v Barkalow case, which involved a group of tenants who sued their landlord over the content of their lease agreements....more

ASARCO’s Revenge: Do Estate Professionals Now Have to Charge the Same Fees to an Estate or Committee that They Would Charge a...

Either from our prior posts, or from the great posts from Stone and Baxter’s Plan Proponent blog or from Bracewell’s Basis Points blog, we all know the Supreme Court’s holding in ASARCO: a strict interpretation of Section...more

Is the American Rule Dead in New Jersey?

Ok, so maybe "dead" is a bit hyperbolic, but the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, No. 074291, ___ N.J. _____ (N.J. Apr. 26, 2016) has raised serious questions about just how far the New...more

1,071 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 43
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×