Payne v. UNISYS Corporation

Background

Molly Payne sued her employer, UNISYS Corporation, alleging that UNISYS paid her less than her male coworkers. She asserted claims under the federal Equal Pay Act, the Minnesota Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

On July 22, 2020, UNISYS filed a notice accepting and offering judgment. The notice stated that the parties had agreed to settle Payne’s claims for $18,000 and that UNISYS agreed Payne was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties did not agree on the amount of those fees.

A fee motion was initially due August 7, 2020. In May 2021, Magistrate Judge Cowan Wright set additional deadlines, ordering Payne to make a fee demand by June 30, 2021, and, if the parties could not agree, to file a fee motion no later than July 21, 2021. The docket did not show a fee demand. Payne’s counsel filed the motion on July 22, 2021—363 days after judgment was entered.

The Court’s Analysis

Payne’s counsel sought fees and costs under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, the Minnesota Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). The court explained that some of these laws mandate fees and costs, while awards under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act are discretionary. Rule 54(d) requires a motion for attorney’s fees to be filed no later than 14 days after judgment, although the court may extend that deadline for good cause and excusable neglect.

The court applied the factors for excusable neglect: the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the filer’s control, and whether the filer acted in good faith. Counsel referred to computer and software problems, COVID-19-related challenges, family medical conditions, and other work, but did not provide a detailed explanation. The court also noted that counsel repeatedly waited for others to contact her instead of proactively addressing the delays. It concluded that counsel had not shown excusable neglect for the nearly yearlong delay.

The court separately considered the requested amount under the lodestar method, which evaluates whether the hours worked and hourly rates reasonably support the requested fee. Counsel sought $53,390 in fees and $729.52 in costs, based on 122 hours of work. The court did not challenge counsel’s hourly rate, but found the claimed hours unreasonable because the case involved no discovery, depositions, motion briefing, or experts.

The court identified several categories of inadequately supported or unrecoverable work, including administrative tasks billed at the attorney’s hourly rate, work on “pattern claims” that Payne did not pursue, unfiled documents, discovery that was not served, travel, professional development, and correspondence entries lacking sufficient detail. The court also noted that the requested fees were much larger than the $18,000 settlement and than the fees requested in Payne’s earlier lawsuit against UNISYS, but emphasized that the amount sought was unreasonable given the work described in counsel’s declaration.

Disposition

The court ordered that Payne’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Docket No. 24, was DENIED. Judge Paul A. Magnuson relied on both the failure to establish excusable neglect for the late filing and the failure to justify the requested fees and costs.