 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O'Neill v. Home IV Care2/5/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order awarding her attorney fees, costs, and interest pursuant to MCL 15.364 of the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. Plaintiff disputes the amount of the award. Plaintiff also appeals as of right from a subsequent order awarding defendants attorney fees and costs as mediation sanctions pursuant to MCR 2.403(O). We reverse and remand for a proper determination of plaintiff 's attorney fees and costs pursuant to MCL 15.364, and we vacate, without prejudice, the award of mediation sanctions to defendants.
Plaintiff was terminated from her job with defendants after she alerted the United States and Michigan Departments of Labor concerning defendants' wage practices. Plaintiff filed a complaint, and subsequent amended complaints, alleging that she was terminated in violation of the WPA. Plaintiff also alleged retaliatory discharge against public policy and age discrimination in violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq. The lower court record indicates that both the retaliatory discharge and age discrimination claims were summarily dismissed.
The case was submitted to mediation that resulted in a mediation evaluation of $30,000 in favor of plaintiff. Defendants accepted, and plaintiff rejected, the mediation evaluation. A four- day jury trial was held on plaintiff's WPA claim, and the jury found in her favor, awarding plaintiff $20,245 in economic damages.
Plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment under the seven-day rule, MCR 2.602(B)(3), in which plaintiff sought entry of a judgment incorporating the $20,245 jury verdict and awarding her $48,869 in attorney fees and costs pursuant to MCL 15.364, plus $2,922 in prejudgment interest.
Defendants timely objected to the proposed judgment, arguing that the prejudgment interest plaintiff was entitled to only amounted to $1,484. In regards to plaintiff 's attorney fees, defendants argued that plaintiff failed to submit documentation supporting the award, that the request was not reasonable in light of the small jury verdict, and that plaintiff was not the prevailing party under MCR 2.625 because two of the causes of action had been dismissed. Further, defendants argued that plaintiff was not entitled to any fees incurred after rejection of mediation, and that to award plaintiff the requested attorney fees would defeat the purpose of mediation sanctions that defendants were rightfully entitled to receive.
Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion to settle the judgment and for an award of attorney fees and costs incurred in litigating the WPA claim. Plaintiff argued in the motion that the mediation evaluation should not be considered in determining her attorney fees and costs, and that the amounts requested were assessable costs to be added to the jury verdict under MCR 2.403(O)(3).
Although a judgment on the jury verdict had yet to be entered, defendants filed a motion for taxation of costs and attorney fees, requesting $1,097 in costs and $40,526 in attorney fees on the basis that they were entitled to mediation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O). A hearing on plaintiff's motion to settle the judgment and for an award of attorney fees and costs was held, and the trial court decided, over plaintiff 's objection, to also address defendants' motion for taxation of costs and attorney fees based on the mediation evaluation. The trial court rejected plaintiff 's argument that it should not consider the mediation evaluation and sanctions until a judgment was entered on plaintiff 's motion to settle the judgment, including the calculation of costs and attorney fees to be awarded pursuant to MCL 15
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|