DAVIDSON DRUGS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STAUNTON R. HARRISON, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed judgment for an employee in an age discrimination case under the ADEA and Florida Human Rights Act, rejecting the employee's cross-appeal argument that attorney's fees should be enhanced by a contingency multiplier.
An award of attorney's fees in an ADEA case should be calculated under federal standards without a contingency multiplier absent exceptional circumstances requiring enhancement to secure competent counsel.
[1] Attorney's fees awarded under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act are calculated according to federal standards and may not be enhanced by a contingency multiplier u…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStaunton R. Harrison, a former employee of Davidson Drugs, Inc., sued his employer alleging discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employ…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lodestar Figure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee Staunton R. Harrison filed suit against his former employer, Appellant Davidson Drugs, Inc., alleging that he was discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 626, and the Florida Human Rights Act, section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1987). We have carefully considered the three issues the appellant raises and find no reversible error. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.
The appellee argues on cross-appeal that the award of attorney’s fees should be remanded to the trial court with directions that the lodestar figure be enhanced by a contingency multiplier. We reject this contention. The appellee moved for attorney’s fees under the federal act. The appellee’s reliance on Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), to support enhancement of his attorney’s fees is improper because the fee should be awarded in accordance with federal, rather than state, standards. Enhancement could be appropriate where it is necessary to secure competent counsel, but no such exceptional circumstances exist here. See Franklin County School Board v. Page, 540 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (enhancement of lodestar fee by a contingency multiplier was error in a wrongful employment termination action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Affirmed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bozeman v. Hernando Cnty., 548 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…r, assuming the plaintiff is able to prove all of the allegations set forth in the complaint, such would establish a cause of action against the defendant. Lanzo Construction Company, Florida v. Orange County, Florida, Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., 546 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). See also Dawson v. Blue Cross Association, 293 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). In contrast, when reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court is not limited simply to the four corners of the complaint. Rather, the tri…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- The Franklin Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Page, 540 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)