Neely v. City of Grenada

77 F.R.D. 484, 21 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 34, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19922
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi
DecidedJanuary 26, 1978
DocketNo. WC 74-33-K
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 77 F.R.D. 484 (Neely v. City of Grenada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neely v. City of Grenada, 77 F.R.D. 484, 21 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 34, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19922 (N.D. Miss. 1978).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

READY, Chief Judge.

This class action against the City of Grenada, Mississippi, and its several departments, was brought to remedy employment discrimination rendered unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83. Having successfully represented the plaintiff class, John L. Walker, lead counsel, and Ural B. Adams, Jr., co-counsel, have filed their motion for an award of attorney fees and expenses. The claim by Walker and Adams for attorney fees and expenses aggregates $124,-128.43.

The liability of the City for reasonable attorney fees as part of the cost of litigation rests upon § 706(k) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), which provides:

In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs [of the litigation].

and upon the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, P.L. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641 (Oct. 19, 1976), amending 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which provides:

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981,1982,1983 . of this title, . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.

In making an award of what constitutes reasonable counsel fees, we are controlled by the familiar standards set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5 Cir. 1974), and often applied in awarding fees in Title VII cases. At least twelve factors are pertinent to the determination:

(1) The time and labor required.

Attorneys Walker and Adams have submitted detailed affidavits setting out, item by item, the dates, nature of the work performed, and the time expended in this action. Walker and Adams respectively spent 510 and 145 hours engaged in work of a strictly legal nature during the course of this litigation. This includes (a) time in court; (b) immediate trial preparation; (c) legal research; (d) discovery; and (e) preparation of pleadings. In addition, Walker and Adams respectively spent 200 and 160 hours engaged in travel, conferences, correspondence, and other work not of a strictly legal nature, primarily the development of proof based on a detailed compilation and [486]*486analysis of defendants’ employment statistics.1

Walker Adams

Hours in court 70 70

Hours in'immediate trial prep-

aration 70 40

Hours in discovery, research

& pleadings 370 _35

510 145

Hours in conference, travel,

correspondence and office

work 200 160

(2) The novelty and difficulty of the questions.

This was by no means a case of first impression. This action was, however, novel in that the defendant municipality was charged with employment discrimination in all its departments, and difficult in that the development of proof imposed an extraordinary statistical burden on plaintiff’s counsel. Indeed, but for this extraordinary burden this court would not be inclined to allow an award of attorney fees for more than one lawyer.

(3) The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.

Counsel clearly performed with the requisite degree of skill as evidenced by their success at trial.

(4) The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case.

This factor does not weigh heavily in the eyes of the court since plaintiffs’ counsel emphasize, if they do not indeed specialize in, civil rights litigation. Their success in this action, and the enhancement of their reputation as a natural result thereof, will benefit, rather than hamper, the practice of these attorneys.

(5) The customary fee.

The prevailing hourly rate within the Northern District of Mississippi, including Grenada, for strictly legal work in federal court litigation of the nature performed by Walker, as lead counsel, and by Adams, as assistant counsel, would not exceed $45 and $35 respectively. For counsels’ additional work, not strictly of a legal nature, an hourly rate of $30 for both Walker and Adams would be in line with the customary rates charged within this federal district.

(6) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

Walker’s fee arrangement with the named plaintiffs was of a contingent nature, whereby Walker would receive the greater of (a) one-third of the monetary recovery, or (b) the reasonable attorney fees allowed by the court to the prevailing party. This award will, therefore, be in lieu of any sharing or participation by counsel in the plaintiffs’ monetary recovery for back pay.

(7) Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances.

This factor is not applicable, since there were no extraordinary time limitations involved.

(8) The amount involved and the results obtained.

Counsel was clearly successful in this action. In addition to substantial back pay awards, injunctive relief, including implementation of an affirmative action program, was secured on behalf of a large plaintiff class. Neely v. City of Grenada, 438 F.Supp. 390 (N.D.Miss.1977). On November 1, 1977, the court entered an order embracing a comprehensive affirmative action program. No appeal was taken by the defendants regarding the court’s finding of discrimination or the affirmative action program ordered.

[487]*487In addition, after reference of the 35 claims for back pay to the United States Magistrate, the parties have agreed to a settlement of $97,995.63 to dispose of all claims and have filed a stipulation to that effect in this court.

(9) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys.

Walker is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and the New York University Law School and has practiced for five years in Jackson, Mississippi. Adams is a graduate of Howard University and the Memphis State University School of Law and has practiced for five years in Memphis, Tennessee.

Both counsel exhibited competence throughout the trial of the case and in making adequate trial preparation. Both were of assistance to the court in submitting proposed findings of fact and proposed affirmative action programs.

(10) The “undesirability” of the case.

Although this case was decidedly unpopular with some elements of the Grenada community, resulting adverse consequences to counsel are not an important consideration in our award.

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

Related

Jackson v. Color Tile, Inc.
638 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Mississippi, 1986)
Langdon v. Drew Municipal Separate School District
512 F. Supp. 1131 (N.D. Mississippi, 1981)
Cantrell v. Vickers
524 F. Supp. 312 (N.D. Mississippi, 1981)
Loewen v. Turnipseed
505 F. Supp. 512 (N.D. Mississippi, 1981)
Willey v. Maben Manufacturing Co.
487 F. Supp. 1369 (N.D. Mississippi, 1979)
Crowe v. Lucas
479 F. Supp. 1258 (N.D. Mississippi, 1979)
Matthews v. Leflore County Board of Election Commissioners
477 F. Supp. 885 (N.D. Mississippi, 1979)
Steinberg v. Carey
470 F. Supp. 471 (S.D. New York, 1979)
Flora v. Moore
461 F. Supp. 1104 (N.D. Mississippi, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 F.R.D. 484, 21 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 34, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neely-v-city-of-grenada-msnd-1978.