Phillips v. Fashion Institute of Technology

Background

Marjorie Phillips, an employee of the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), sued FIT, her supervisor Mary Davis, and her co-worker Marilyn Barton for employment discrimination and retaliation. The district court previously granted summary judgment for all defendants and closed the case. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against FIT and Davis, but reversed the dismissal of Phillips’s retaliation claims against Barton and remanded those claims for trial. The Second Circuit also held that liability for those claims could not be imposed on FIT.

FIT then moved for entry of final judgment in favor of FIT and Davis and for an award of $15,983.75 in costs. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the motion in full. No party objected to that recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Because there were no objections, Judge Daniels reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake after reviewing the record. He found none and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.

The court concluded that Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allowed final judgment for FIT and Davis even though the claims against Barton remained unresolved. The claims against FIT and Davis had been finally determined through summary judgment and the Second Circuit’s affirmance. The court also found no just reason to delay judgment. Phillips’s argument that a later recovery against Barton might help pay FIT’s costs did not justify delay because the outcome of that trial and any damages award were uncertain.

The court also applied Rule 54(d)(1), which generally creates a presumption that a prevailing party may recover costs other than attorney’s fees. It agreed that FIT was a prevailing party and that Phillips had not overcome that presumption. The court considered Phillips’s financial circumstances, including her employment income and savings and retirement accounts, and concluded that neither her financial status nor the wealth difference between her and FIT justified denying or reducing the costs. The $15,983.75 represented amounts FIT paid court reporters to record depositions and prepare transcripts.

Disposition

Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation in full. FIT’s motion for entry of final judgment and an award of $15,983.75 in costs was granted. The clerk was directed to enter final judgment in favor of FIT and Mary Davis and close the motion. The opinion does not enter judgment for or otherwise resolve the retaliation claims against Marilyn Barton in this order.