Nanetti v. University of Illinois at Chicago, 88-1355

• Decision Date: 31 January 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-1355,88-1355
• Parties: 52 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1775, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,768, 51 Ed. Law Rep. 1153 Rafaella Y. NANETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 990

867 F.2d 990

52 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1775,

49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,768, 51 Ed. Law Rep. 1153

Rafaella Y. NANETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-1355.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Sept. 23, 1988.

Decided Jan. 31, 1989.

Martin J. Oberman, Gould & Ratner, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Carla J. Rozycki, Keck, Mahin & Cate, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before WOOD, JR., EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and GORDON, Senior District Judge. ^*

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge.

After two tenure reviews and the filing of a sex discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Plaintiff Rafaella Y. Nanetti received a tenure offer from the University of Illinois at Chicago (the University). Nanetti did not receive, and seeks now, the payment of her attorneys' fees.

The parties settled the discrimination suit, after the University offered Nanetti tenure at a salary of $34,720, but reserved the issue of attorneys' fees for the district court to determine. The University argued that Nanetti is not a prevailing party for purposes of obtaining attorneys' fees under Title VII. The district court agreed with the University and also held that, even if she had prevailed, her fees were unreasonable. We find that Nanetti prevailed with regard to a salary increase but not with regard to the grant of tenure. We also find that the fees incurred on the successful claim were not unreasonable for the reason stated by the district court. We therefore reverse and remand to the district court to determine the sum of fees that Nanetti reasonably incurred to obtain the salary increase.

I. FACTS

Nanetti joined the faculty of the University's School of Urban Planning and Policy in 1978 and came before the University's three tenure committees in the academic year 1983-84. At this first tenure review, a split developed between the members of the three reviewing committees and the administrative officers who headed the committees. Each committee recommended tenure while each of the three administrative officers voted against tenure. Because the split was controversial, the chancellor's office in April 1984 ordered the tenure committees to review Nanetti a second time, after her return from a fellowship at Oxford University in England. The chancellor's office described this second shot at tenure as "exceptional steps" in the tenure process.

Nevertheless, Nanetti hired an attorney in June 1984 and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Her attorney attempted to persuade the chancellor to reconsider his final decision on Nanetti's tenure, and failing that, to change the tenure process itself--all these efforts were to no avail. Nanetti then obtained authority from the EEOC to file suit against the University and filed a complaint in November 1985. Nanetti took no further legal action until the entry of the settlement.

At the second tenure review in May and June of 1986, Nanetti quickly received approval for tenure. The school director recommended a salary of $31,086. Nanetti's attorney demanded that the University award back pay to Nanetti, increase her salary to the same amount she would have obtained had the University given her tenure in 1984, and also pay her attorneys' fees. The parties settled the discrimination suit at a salary of $34,720 in September 1986 but left open for litigation the question of attorneys' fees. Nanetti brought this suit for attorneys' fees under Title VII.

The district court denied attorneys' fees because Nanetti was not a prevailing party, and even if she was, "her legal fees were not reasonably incurred." Nanetti appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Prevailing Party

A prevailing party in a Title VII lawsuit is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs reasonably incurred. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(k) (1982). ¹ " 'Plaintiffs may be considered "prevailing parties" for attorney's fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.' " Busche v. Burkee, 649 F.2d 509, 521 (7th Cir.1981) (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir.1978)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897, 102 S.Ct. 396, 70 L.Ed.2d 212 (1981). Thus, a party may prevail through settlement. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 2574, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Harrington v. DeVito, 656 F.2d 264, 266 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 993, 102 S.Ct. 1621, 71 L.Ed.2d 854 (1982). When a party claims that she prevailed through settlement prior to full litigation on the merits, we apply a two-part test:

[T]o prevail in a settled case, the plaintiffs' lawsuit must be causally linked to the achievement of the relief obtained.

Secondly, the defendant must not have acted wholly gratuitously, i.e., the plaintiffs' claims, if pressed, cannot have been frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.

In re Burlington Northern, Inc. Employment Practices Litig., 832 F.2d 422, 425 (7th Cir.1987) (quoting Harrington v. DeVito, 656 F.2d at 266-67).

The University did not challenge Nanetti's claim with respect to the second part of the test. The University did not assert that it acted gratuitously, and the district court made no specific findings with regard to the frivolity or groundlessness of Nanetti's claim. At one point in its discussion of causation, however, the district court referred to the University's denial of tenure as "wrongful," suggesting that the court did not perceive Nanetti's claim as groundless. We are convinced, based on the record, that Nanetti was not pressing a frivolous or groundless claim of gender discrimination. We find that part of the test satisfied and direct our attention to the issue of causation.

The lawsuit is causally linked to the relief obtained if it played "a provocative role in obtaining relief." Harrington, 656 F.2d at 267. In other words, the lawsuit must have been a "catalyst" or "material factor" in obtaining concessions from the opponent and a favorable outcome to the dispute. See Ekanem v. Health & Hospital Corp., 778 F.2d 1254, 1258 (7th Cir.1985); Stewart v. Hannon, 675 F.2d 846, 851 (7th Cir.1982). Whether the lawsuit caused Nanetti to obtain tenure and a salary of $34,720 is a question of fact for the district court. See Gekas v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n of the Supreme Court, 793 F.2d 846, 849-50 (7th Cir.1986). We will not disturb the district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). ²

With regard to the offer of tenure, the district court found that the University guaranteed Nanetti a second tenure hearing before she hired an attorney, commenced proceedings with the EEOC, and brought a lawsuit in federal court. According to the district court, all of Nanetti's attempts to change the tenure process itself proved futile. The district court also found that, by granting a rare second tenure hearing, the chancellor's office "tacitly informed" the administrative officials that they should reassess their previous rejection of Nanetti's tenure bid.

We do not find the district court's findings clearly erroneous. This court will consider the sequence of events to determine whether the lawsuit caused a satisfactory outcome. See Harrington, 656 F.2d at 267. The sequence of events indicates that the University was prepared to give Nanetti a second chance at tenure before she brought the discrimination suit and hired an attorney. Her attorney's efforts did not hasten the date for this review or entitle her to a definite grant of tenure.

Nanetti argues that, although her lawsuit may not have caused the University to grant her a second review, it encouraged the administrative officials to change their minds and vote the second time in her favor. Nanetti's own evidence, however, suggests that the administrative officials had ample reasons, independent of the threat of legal action, for changing their minds. As Nanetti's attorney found, several members of her own department felt the first denial of tenure was unreasonable given Nanetti's capability and scholarship. She had a good teaching and publication record, and members of her own department strongly supported her. Furthermore, the split on the first set of tenure panels suggests that many panel members would argue on Nanetti's behalf in a second round of evaluation. Most importantly, the chancellor's office recommended that Nanetti receive a second review. As the University admitted, the administrative officials perceived a second review to be unusual and perhaps were influenced by this factor to take a fairer look at Nanetti's record.

While Nanetti's version of what happened is plausible, she has not proven that the district court's findings were clearly erroneous. "Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (quoted in Gekas, 793 F.2d at 851). There is evidence to support the district court's finding that the administrative officials independently changed their minds.

The district court also made findings concerning the parties' dispute over Nanetti's salary. The district court stated:

As a result of her [Nanetti's] promotion, the University was prepared to pay her $31,086.00 for the 1986-87 academic year, but Oberman [Nanetti's attorney] demanded an additional $64,000, claiming that she was entitled to back pay and attorneys' fees. The parties eventualy (sic) settled on a yearly salary of $34,720.00, which is what Nanetti would have gotten had she received tenure the first time around.

Despite this finding, the district court held that Nanetti was not a prevailing party on the issue of the salary increase because the additional $3,600 she received was not nearly as much...