Nearly $189,000 in Attorney Fees Awarded in Connecticut Employment Lawsuit
An arbitrator has awarded a Hartford attorney and his law firm $188,942 in a wage employment case.
July 20, 2020 at 02:58 PM
4 minute read
Plaintiffs attorney Michael Petela Jr. was successful in reaching a $233,450 settlement in a class-action employment case in January. But he knew that seeking almost as much money in attorney fees was going to be an uphill battle.
The defense in Poli v. NEHDS Logistics had argued that the $188,942 in attorney fees Petela sought was excessive and disproportionate to the settlement.
Petela, a trial attorney with Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore in Hartford, said it wouldn't have been unusual for an arbitrator or a judge to agree with the defense.
"The thing that professionals, even judges, often misunderstand about employment law cases is thinking that fees have to be proportionate to the damages for the individuals," Petela said. "It's that way in cases like personal injury, where attorney fees are no more than one-third of the damages awarded. Employment cases are a different kind of law and take a little bit more time to litigate."
Petela continued: "Even many judges think proportionality is relevant in all cases, but it's not according to our jurisprudence. This ruling certainly adds to the body of law that attorney fees don't have to be proportionate to the damages."
Petela said he submitted "reasonable attorney fees for the work we performed." Assisting Petela was colleague Richard Hayber.
In their pleadings in proceedings before arbitrator Albert Zakarian, Petela wrote, "Class counsel should not be penalized for pursuing the case as a class action. Even if it had been a single plaintiff case, proportionality arguments have been held erroneous. … Defendant's excessive rates arguments should also be rejected because they fail to account for the specialized area of practice of wage and hour class actions in Connecticut. These cases are more complex, contain additional hurdles, and require additional experience which most labor and employment attorneys simply do not possess within this local market."
In its opposition to the plaintiff's petition for attorney fees, the defense wrote, "The amount sought in the fee petition is not reasonable in light of the specific circumstances of this case, especially when the attorneys' fees sough are considered in relation to the amount of the settlement. … The fees sought by class counsel are excessive, and they should be substantially reduced."
Arbitrator Zakarian in his four-page July 9 ruling disagreed with the defense's argument, and awarded $188,942 in attorney fees to the plaintiff's firm.
Zakarian wrote: "There is no requirement under the applicable statutes that an award of attorneys' fees be proportional to the amount of the underlying award of damages. However, higher billing rates are frequently warranted for class action work than for simple single-plaintiff cases because of the nature of the expertise called for and because of the kind and complexity of the issues involved, and the skills required to gain and maintain class certification."
Representing NEHDS Logistics were Gabriel Dym of Eckert Seamans in Boston and Geraldine Cheverko of Eckert Seamans in White Plains, New York. Dym declined to comment and Cheverko didn't respond to a request for comment Monday.
The case stems from when the plaintiffs sued NEHDS Logistics over allegations it improperly classified drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, a move that allowed the business to charge employees for merchandise damaged in transit. NEHDS delivers retail merchandise on behalf of companies such as Bob's Discount Furniture, Costco Wholesale Corp. and Ashley Furniture HomeStore.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorney Overcomes Low Medical Bills, Captures $1 Million Policy Limit
2 minute readConn. Appeals Court Slices $150 Million in Statutory Damages From Judgment Owed by Alex Jones
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1House Passes Bill to Add Federal Judgeships in Face of Biden Veto Threat
- 2As AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
- 3Texas Lawyer, Client Sued for $10 Million Over Bitcoin Mining Deal
- 4Final Misconduct Hearing Date Impending for Fulton Judge
- 5Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250