Pineda et al v. Skinner Services, Inc. et al

Filing 233

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS' CONTEMPT OF COURT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
JOSE PINEDA, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SKINNER SERVICES, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________________)

Civil Action No.
16-12217-FDS

ORDER CONCERNING SANCTIONS
FOR DEFENDANTS’ CONTEMPT OF COURT
SAYLOR, J.
For good cause shown, and after a hearing, the following sanctions are entered against
defendants Skinner Services, Inc. d/b/a Skinner Demolition and Thomas Skinner (“Defendants”)
for violating the Court’s September 15, 2017 protective order, subject to the conditions set forth
below.
1.

Back Pay. Defendants shall pay $4,046.33 in back pay to plaintiff Manuel

Goncalves. That amount represents wages payable to Goncalves from the date of his discharge
to the date of the hearing ($9,352.33) less amounts earned working at other positions
($5,306.00). That amount shall be subject to interest accruing from the date of the violation to
the date of this order.
2.

Front Pay. Defendants shall pay $21,329.88 in front pay to Goncalves. That

amount represents wages that would have paid to Goncalves for a period of six months going
forward had he not been terminated. Although plaintiffs have requested front pay for a two-year
period, such a period is longer than necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. The

purpose of this portion of the award is to compensate him for his losses arising from the
violation, not to provide him a windfall. The front pay award will provide for a period of
transition to other employment without providing excess compensation.
3.

Timing of Payments. All payments to Goncalves shall be made on or before

December 31, 2018; provided, however, that at plaintiffs’ option, the payments may be made in
part in 2018 and in part in 2019, provided that the full amount shall be paid no later than January
31, 2019. The Court takes no position as to whether the back-pay and front-pay payments are
subject to federal or state tax withholding.
4.

Emotional Distress Damages. Plaintiff has requested emotional distress

damages. Because such damages are not available for civil contempt violations, the Court will
not make such an award. See Coleman v. Yeutter, 955 F.2d 571, 577 (8th Cir. 1992); In re
Walters, 868 F.2d 665, 670 (4th Cir. 1989).
5.

Attorney’s Fees and Expenses. Plaintiffs have requested $85,122.19 in

attorneys’ fees and $4,522.67 in expenses, totaling $89,644.86. Defendants contend that
counsel’s hourly rates are unreasonable, and that the billing records contain a significant amount
of duplicative, excessive, or unnecessary work which should be reduced and discounted.
The Court agrees that the certain of the hourly rates charged are excessive under the
circumstances, particularly those of the more junior attorneys (including attorney Shockey, who
apparently is not yet admitted to the bar). It finds the following rates to be reasonable under the
circumstances:
Attorney Decter

$450

Attorney Goldstein

$400

Attorney Groner

$200

2

Attorney McKissock

$175

Attorney Shockey

$ 50

The Court also agrees that the hours requested are excessive and to a large extent
duplicative, for the reasons set forth in defendants’ memorandum. It finds the following hours to
be reasonable under the circumstances:
Attorney Decter

1.2

Attorney Goldstein

70

Attorney Groner

49.7

Attorney McKissock

14.7

Attorney Shockey

7.0

The total fees allowed are as follows:
Attorney Decter

$

540

Attorney Goldstein

$ 28,000

Attorney Groner

$ 9,940

Attorney McKissock

$ 2,572.50

Attorney Shockey

$

Total

$ 41,402.50

350

The Court will also allow 14.8 hours for handling of administrative tasks at a rate of $50
per hour, for a total of $740, and making the total amount of attorney’s fees $42,142.50.
Plaintiffs have not submitted the underlying invoices detailing their claimed expenses,
which total $4,522.67. The charge of $1,000 for an interpreter appears appropriate. Plaintiffs
seek $1,817.04 in Westlaw charges (reduced from the actual charges) and $1,541.00 in
photocopying charges, which defendants contend are excessive. Because of the lack of detail, it

3

is difficult to make an assessment as to whether those charges are appropriate; the photocopying
charge appears to be particularly high. Under the circumstances, the Court will reduce the
expenses awarded by $500, and thus award $4,022.67.
Accordingly, the Court awards attorney’s fees to plaintiffs in the amount of $42,142.50,
and expenses in the amount of $4,022.67, for a total of $46,165.17.
6.

Letter of Reference. Defendants shall, upon reasonable request made through

counsel, provide Goncalves with a neutral letter of reference for future employment or other
valid purposes.
7.

Notice to Employees. Defendants shall post the Notice to Employees attached to

this order as Exhibit A, together with a translation of the notice into Spanish and Portuguese, at a
conspicuous place within the workplace within 14 days of this order. Defendants shall keep the
notice posted for the duration of this litigation.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: December 10, 2018

4