The Court held that a defendant is a "prevailing party," potentially eligible for fees, if it prevails either on a ground going to the merits or on some other grounds, which here included statute of limitations and the EEOC's failure to properly investigate before filing suit.
The Court did not change the standard for determining when a prevailing defendant can actually recover fees. Whether it prevails on a merits or nonmerits ground, it still must show that the plaintiffs claim was "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless." Justice Thomas would have rejected that rule; he did not get a second vote. The separate standard for plaintiffs and defendants is unchanged. Few workers could ever take the risk of filing suit if they were responsible for the employer's attorneys' fees whenever they lost. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ________________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Peabody [mich...@californialaw.org] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:26 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: CRST v. EEOC - reasonable balance or chilling effect on Title VII plaintiffs? Today the Court ruled in CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1375_09m1.pdf ) that defendants don't have to prevail "on the merits" to get attorney fees in Title VII cases. In this case, the EEOC had gotten its suit brought by over 200 women for sexual harassment dismissed by failing to follow protocol and doing proper investigations, follow administrative resolution protocols, etc. CRST asked for fees as a "prevailing party" which the lower court awarded, but the Eighth Circuit reversed saying there had to be a judgement on the merits. Today the Supreme Court reversed and said that prevailing party simply means you have to win. Until now defendants had to show that plaintiffs cases were frivolous and completely without merit in order to get fees while plaintiffs simply had to win some money to get fees paid. In my humble opinion, this case balances things out and puts plaintiffs and defendants on an equal footing (i.e. "prevailing party") although defendants will likely only get reimbursed their fees if they are sued by the EEOC directly since most Title VIIs aren't exactly wealthy. The downside is that the EEOC may be unwilling to take on most cases itself in the future if there is a likelihood of losing while businesses will be more willing to fight all the way knowing that they could recover thus leading to a chilling effect on the big Title VII EEOC cases. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the long-term effect on this decision on future Title VII cases. Michael Peabody, Esq. http://www.religiousliberty.tv _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
