Date: 10-25-2024

Case Style:

Brandy A. Read v. Oklahoma Flintlock Products, LLP

Case Number: 4:21-CV-316

Judge: Jodi F. Jayne

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Tulsa Civil Rights Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Taylor Chase McBride and Cournty Jo DAvid Powell

Description:

Tulsa, Oklahoma civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff who was sexually harassed at work.

Plaintiff sued Defendant under Title VII, alleging one sexual harassment claim
and two retaliation claims. The district court denied Defendant’s summary judgment
motion. At trial, the jury found in Plaintiff’s favor on the harassment claim and
awarded her $1,440 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages. The
jury found in Defendant’s favor on the retaliation claims.

Plaintiff thereafter moved for a $79,401.75 attorney fee award. Defendant
opposed the motion and moved for its own fee award. The district awarded Plaintiff
$59,511.94 in fees and rejected Defendant’s fee motion. Defendant appealed.

2
harassed her. She alleged that when she complained to the company, Defendant
retaliated against her by (1) moving her to a sales position for which she was not
qualified, and (2) terminating her employment.

Plaintiff sued Defendant under Title VII, alleging one sexual harassment claim
and two retaliation claims. The district court denied Defendant’s summary judgment
motion. At trial, the jury found in Plaintiff’s favor on the harassment claim and
awarded her $1,440 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages. The
jury found in Defendant’s favor on the retaliation claims.

Plaintiff thereafter moved for a $79,401.75 attorney fee award. Defendant
opposed the motion and moved for its own fee award. The district awarded Plaintiff
$59,511.94 in fees and rejected Defendant’s fee motion. Defendant appealed.

In Title VII cases, a district court, “in its discretion, may allow the prevailing
party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Thus, a claim for
attorney fees requires proof of two elements: that the claimant is a “prevailing party”
and that the fee request is “reasonable.” Flitton v. Primary Residential Mortg., Inc.,
614 F.3d 1173, 1176 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Because
the district court is in a better position than an appellate court to determine the
amount of effort expended and the value of the attorney’s services, we review an
attorney’s fee award for abuse of discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under that standard, we will not disturb the district court’s decision unless we are left
“with the definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of
judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.”
Pandit v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 82 F.3d 376, 379 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: