The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not have to be conditioned on a “merits” determination, paving the way for possible reinstatement of a multi-million-dollar fees judgment against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
At issue in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375 (May 19, 2016), a long-running case, was whether a defendant can recover attorney’s fees and costs where a lawsuit brought by the EEOC is thrown out on procedural grounds due to agency missteps, as happened in this case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that a defendant is not entitled to a fee award unless the underlying case has been decided on the merits in the defendant’s favor.
In reversing the Eighth Circuit, a unanimous Supreme Court found that Title VII does not place any limitations on the circumstances under which such awards are allowed. In so ruling, the High Court agreed with arguments made in a “friend of the court” brief written by NT Lakis lawyers.
The Court declined, however, to weigh in on whether the EEOC’s actions in this case were sufficiently unreasonable or frivolous to justify an award of attorney’s fees, and sent the case back down to the lower courts for specific findings on that question.
Members of the Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC) can read more here.