Labor - Overtime Pay - FLSA - Attorney’s Fees

By Deborah Elkins
Published: May 25, 2009

An Alexandria U.S. District Court rejects use of the Laffey Matrix to determine a fee award for plaintiff employees of group homes for disabled clients, who are entitled to attorney’s fees as prevailing parties under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and awards plaintiffs $36,000 in attorney’s fees and $408 in costs.

Defendants correctly contend that the Laffey Matrix, which was developed in the District of Columbia, does not accurately reflect the prevailing rates in Northern Virginia, where this case was litigated. Defendants also provide affidavits of lead defense counsel and of another extremely experienced Northern Virginia employment lawyer, both of which provide strong support for the conclusion that prevailing hourly rates in this district are significantly less than the hourly rates plaintiffs’ counsel charged in this civil action.

The 4th Circuit recently noted in Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009), that the Laffey Matrix does not control in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The court will reduce the hourly rate to $350 for two senior counsel, $170 for the associate, and $60 for the legal assistant. The court will award no fees for the private investigator.

The court further finds that the fees charged for running background checks on the parties and performing additional research on defendants were unnecessary to litigate the FLSA claims, as were fees related to the case evaluation meeting on July 18, 2008.

Jackson v. Estelle Place LLC (Brinkema, J.) No. 1:08cv984, May 8, 2009; USDC at Alexandria, Va. VLW 009-3-273, 13 pp.


© Copyright 2010 Virginia Lawyers Media. All Rights Reserved.

POST A COMMENT

Today's Top Opinion

Domestic Relations - Court Divides Commingled Accounts
For a couple who worked long hours to build up their carpet-cleaning business and commingled their business and personal accounts, a Salem Circuit Court divides the marital property, with an extra monetary award to wife for husband’s use of marital assets to buy his separate floor-refurbishing business.
Reynolds v. Reynolds (VLW 010-8-132) (7 pp.)

GET THE VLW DAILY ALERT

The Daily Alert from Virginia Lawyers Weekly brings you the latest legal news every morning in your e-mail. You’ll get headline news, a link to the day’s Top Opinion and more!

Click here to sign up for the Alert

STAY CONNECTED WITH VLW

Stay up-to-date with the latest news and information from Virginia Lawyers Weekly by subscribing to our RSS feeds and visiting our social media pages.

Feeds/Web 2.0: