Davidson Drugs, Inc. v. Harrison

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davidson Drugs, Inc. v. Harrison

546 So. 2d 432, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1469, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3409, 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 344

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1989

DocketNo. 88-02958

StatusPublished

This text of 546 So. 2d 432 (Davidson Drugs, Inc. v. Harrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davidson Drugs, Inc. v. Harrison, 546 So. 2d 432, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1469, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3409, 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 344 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Staunton R. Harrison filed suit against his former employer, Appellant Davidson Drugs, Inc., alleging that he was discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 626, and the Florida Human Rights Act, section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1987). We have carefully considered the three issues the appellant raises and find no reversible error. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.

The appellee argues on cross-appeal that the award of attorney’s fees should be remanded to the trial court with directions that the lodestar figure be enhanced by a contingency multiplier. We reject this contention. The appellee moved for attorney’s fees under the federal act. The appellee’s reliance on Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), to support enhancement of his attorney’s fees is improper because the fee should be awarded in accordance with federal, rather than state, standards. Enhancement could be appropriate where it is necessary to secure competent counsel, but no such exceptional circumstances exist here. See Franklin County School Board v. Page, 540 So.2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (enhancement of lodestar fee by a contingency multiplier was error in a wrongful employment termination action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Staunton R. Harrison filed suit against his former employer, Appellant Davidson Drugs, Inc., alleging that he was discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 626, and the Florida Human Rights Act, section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1987). We have carefully considered the three issues the appellant raises and find no reversible error. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.

The appellee argues on cross-appeal that the award of attorney’s fees should be remanded to the trial court with directions that the lodestar figure be enhanced by a contingency multiplier. We reject this contention. The appellee moved for attorney’s fees under the federal act. The appellee’s reliance on Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), to support enhancement of his attorney’s fees is improper because the fee should be awarded in accordance with federal, rather than state, standards. Enhancement could be appropriate where it is necessary to secure competent counsel, but no such exceptional circumstances exist here. See Franklin County School Board v. Page, 540 So.2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (enhancement of lodestar fee by a contingency multiplier was error in a wrongful employment termination action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 432, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1469, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3409, 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-drugs-inc-v-harrison-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack