* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20458

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

RHONDA L. GOERLITZ,

Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLEAR LAKE DODGE, ET AL.,

Defendants,

GULF COAST DODGE d/b/a

CLEAR LAKE DODGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

( H-91-CV-957)

February 14, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge: *1 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

2

Clear Lake Dodge appeals the judgment on remand resetting attorney’s fees

for counsel for Rhonda Goerlitz in her Title VII discrimination action. As the

unsuccessful defend ant in a Title VII action brought by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, in which Goerlitz was permitted to intervene and fully

participate, CLD was ordered to pay back pay, prejudgment interest thereon, and

attorney’s fees.

On the first appeal we affirmed th e judgment but vacated the award of

attorney’s fees and remanded in order that the district court might revisit the issue

and determi ne the extent to which the efforts by Goerlitz’s counsel were not

“ redundant or unnecessary” considering that counsel for the EEOC brought the

action. On remand the court faithfully implemented this court’s directive and

reduced its earlier award by over 30 percent. The trial court also awarded a sum

for fees on the earlier appeal; in doing so, the requested amount was reduced by at

least one-quarter.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 pro vides that a “prevailing party” in a suit

brought under Title VII is entitled to recover attorney’s fee s and costs. 1

Recognizing the “district court’s superior understanding of

. . . litigation,” we have2 Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983).

3 Johnston v. Harris County Flood Control Dist

., 869 F.2d 1565 (5th Cir. 1989), cert

. denied , 493 U.S. 1019 (1990).

3 committed the award of such attorney’s fees to that court’s discretion. 2 Thus we

wil l disturb the award of attorney’s fees only if the district court abused its

discretion in making or calculating the award or based it on factual findings that are

clearly erroneous. 3 With these principles in mind we again review the district

court’s award of attorney’s fees herein.

On remand the district court condu cted a hearing and required written

submissions of the parties, seeking to determine the relative contributions of

counsel for Goerlitz and counsel for the EEOC in the trial and first appeal of this

matter. At the hearing, Goerlitz’s counsel testified that she alone discovered

evidence, including a witness and personnel files, to prove Goerlitz’s claim that

CLD’s alleged reasons for termination were pretextual. In addition, an EEOC

attorney testified that the EEOC relied heavily on Goerlitz’s couns el to act as a

“privat e attorney general” and depended on Goerlitz’s counsel’s superior

knowledge of and experience in the prosecution of Title VII cases, and that the

EEOC and Goerlitz’s counsel work ed “collegially and cooperatively” in the

successful prosecution of Goerlitz’s claim.4

Based upon the testimony at the hearing and the submissions of the parties,

the district court concluded that “much of the work” performed by Goerlitz’s

counsel was neither redundant nor unnecessary. The district court further found

that Goerlitz’s counsel unilaterally produced the ultimate evidence it relied upon

in ruli ng against CLD. As noted, the court awarded attorney’s fees some 30

percent less than that previously awarded. In addition, the district court awarded

$32,547.66 in appellate attorney’s fees to compensate Goerlitz’s counsel for her

work on the first appeal, basing this award on the written submissions of the parties

which included a 19-page affidavit by Goerlitz’s counsel detailing the hours spent

on the appe al. The district court reviewed that affidavit with exacting scrutiny,

taking care to assure that any duplicitous hours and any hours spent on Goerlitz’s

unsuccessful cross-appeal were not included.

Our review of the record in this lengthy and contentious case persuades that

we should affirm the district court which, necessarily, is vested with great

discretion in the award of attorney’s fees. We find no abuse of that discretion with

respect to the fees awarded for either the trial or appeal.

Finally, to bring this matter to a termination, which is in the maximum best

interests of all concerned including the courts, we shall set the attorney’s fees for

this appeal. We therefore direct counsel for Goerlitz to submit an application and5

affidavit for fees for this appeal to this court within 20 days from issuance of this

opinion. CLD will have 20 days from that filing to submit any response it deems

appropriate. The matter will be deemed submitted and will be promptly addressed

by this panel which retains jurisdiction for that purpose.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.