In an ERISA claim, plaintiff Anderson sued AB Painting and Sandblasting to collect delinquent contributions to an employee benefit plan. The District Court granted summary judgment for plaintiff in the entire amount claimed delinquent, $6,500.00. The District Court awarded attorney fees to plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.00, which was far less than plaintiff’s request, which was $50,000.00.

On appeal, the court rejected the notion that attorneys’ fees must be proportional to damages. It took the position that rejection of a proportionality requirement is consistent with the purpose of fee shifting statutes, which reflect the congressional intent that violations of certain laws require redress, no matter the magnitude of the violation. Stated in a different way, fee shifting “helps to discourage petty tyranny.” Barrow v. Falck, 977 F.2d 1103 (1992). The court reasoned that the purpose of fee shifting statutes is to allow actions to be brought for even minor violations of certain laws. The court concluded that fee shifting would not “discourage petty tyranny” if fees were capped or measured by the amount in controversy.

Pat McGrath