Jonathan Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Case ID: BC141746 Click to read the Published Opinion
Result: January 29, 1999
L.A. Superior Central West , Dept. 323 HON Harvey A. Schneider
Topic: Employment Law
Sub topic: Race Discrimination
Sub-sub topic: Hostile Work Environment
Bench verdict: $470,000 in attorney fees on a $40,000 judgment.
Attorneys:
Plaintiff- Lee Feldman, Law Offices of Lee Feldman, Los Angeles
Plaintiff- Alicia O. Uyeda, Law Offices of Lee Feldman, Los Angeles
Defendant- Irma Rodriguez R. Moisa, Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson, Los Angeles
Defendant- Melanie M. Poturica, Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson, Los Angeles
Technical Experts:
Plaintiff- Arnold W. Schwartz Esq., legal community standards for reasonable hourly rates for employment, Los Angeles
Facts: From 1988 through 1995, plaintiff Jonathan Vo, a Vietnamese-American Wastewater treatment worker was subjected to pervasive and continuing racial harassment. The harassment included being called “yellow dude,” “yellow-fellow,” “gook,” and “dog-eater” at least three times per week through the fall of 1993 by co-workers, one of whom was a veteran of the Vietnam war. The
plaintiff contended that he twice informed his supervisor of the harassment, but was told “they’re just joking, if you don’t like it, why don’t you leave.” The plaintiff’s supervisor also called plaintiff a “yellow-fellow” on one occasion. The plaintiff also alleged that other supervisors and
managers knew of, but failed to adequately remedy, the racial harassment perpetrated against plaintiff and another African-American supervisor. The plaintiff alleged that his African-American co-worker made numerous complaints to upper level management, including the director of Operations
and the Director of Human Resources, but that they ignored this. The Human Resources Administrator testified at trial that she had personally overheard the Director of Operations himself make one racially his insensitive remark.
The plaintiff insisted that the racial animus infected the promotional process and that, after filing his formal harassment and discrimination complaint, he was retaliated against by being given a negative performance evaluation. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based
on racial harassment, discriminatory promotion, hostile work environment and retaliation.
Contentions: The plaintiff contended that the defendant District was liable for all of the attorney’s fees he incurred because he succeeded on his primary claims, and the unsuccessful claims were inextricably interrelated with the successful ones. The plaintiff further contended that the “lodestar” figure was reasonable in light of the fact that the defendant’s counsel had billed nearly 1000 more hours than did plaintiff’s counsel. The plaintiff argued that defendant caused plaintiff to incur such high attorney’s fees by rejecting numerous settlement to settle the case - offers which were either less than or comparable to the $40,000 verdict, and instead chose not to offer one cent to settle the case. Lastly, the plaintiff asserted that, because his claimed general and special damages were low, and punitive damages were unavailable against a public entity, a $40,000 verdict, which amounted to more than 60 percent of the amount he originally demanded, was an excellent result. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s counsel should be awarded less than $100,000, if anything, as attorney’s fees. The defendant contended that the lodestar figure should be reduced by 50 percent because plaintiff prevailed on only 50 percent
of his claims. The defendant also contended that the lodestar figure should be reduced by another 50 percent because the $40,000 verdict also reflected a lack of success. The defendant further contended that it should not be liable for a significant percentage of the fees ultimately awarded because, under the retainer agreement between plaintiff and his counsel, plaintiff would share in the recovery of the fees awarded.
Damages: The plaintiff claimed attorney's fees of $640,000 after obtaining a judgment for $40,000 on his racial harassment and failure to prevent harassment claims. The plaintiff and defendant later stipulated to a "Lodestar" figure of $487,500 which defendant argued should be further reduced for "lack of success."
Settlement Discussions: The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $450,000, which included $60,000 for the verdict plus costs, later offered to accept $390,000 on the fee dispute. The defendant offered $150,000 and later offered an additional $25,000 if plaintiff would agree to resign his $50,000 per year job to resolve the fee dispute. The plaintiff, within the first six months of the litigation offered to settle for $200,000, and later increased his demand to $750,000. The defendants rejected the offer.
Other Information: The judgment for fees was handed down more than six months after the verdict was reached. The verdict was reached 2½ years after the case was filed. In August 1998, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found defendant Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
liable for creating a racially hostile work environment. The jury also found the employer liable for failing to discharge its statutory duty to prevent and remedy known harassment. The plaintiff’s claims for retaliation and failure to promote were unsuccessful. The court awarded attorney’s
fees in the amount of $470,000. The court determined that the “lodestar” figure should be reduced by only $17,500. The court found that the successful claims were interrelated to the unsuccessful claims, and that no reduction was justified on that ground. The court found that defendant caused plaintiff to incur the $470,000 in fees by rejecting numerous reasonable demands, while offering nothing to settle the case itself. The court dismissed defendant’s argument that plaintiff “over-litigated” the case and found that defendant’s own time expenditures, litigation tactics, as well as defendant’s settlement posture left plaintiff’s counsel with only two alternatives: dismiss a case which the jury ultimately found to be meritorious, or match defendant’s efforts and tactics.
|
