2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-12-2009 

# H a wa J am a v . D i ane M c C lure P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2500

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" H a wa J am a v . Di a ne M c C lur e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 750. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/750P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

________ N o. 08- 2500

_________ HA W A A BD I J AM A, n / k / a HA LI HA SHI EGA L; J EYAKUM AR ANA NTHARAJ AH; ABU BAKA R; C E C IL IA K O U JE F F R E Y ; A B R A H A M K E N N E T H ; S H A M IM U N A N T E Z A ; D E N N IS R A JI; AGA THA S ERWAA ; AND S ARAH TET TE H YO W ER

v. E S M O R C O R R E C T IO N A L S E R V IC E S , IN C ., n / k / a CO RR E CT I ONAL S E RV I CE S CO RP OR AT I ON; JA M E S S L A T T E R Y ; A A R O N S P E IS M A N ; W I LLAR D STO VA LL; J OH N LI M A; DI AN E M CCLU RE; E S T AT E OF RI CH AR D S T AL E Y AND P HI L I P J OHNS ON

E s m o r C o rr e c tio n a l S e rv ic e s , In c .,

and J ohn L i m a, A p p e llan ts

_________H onor abl e Thom as I

. V anas ki e, J udge of t he U ni t ed St at es * D i s t r i ctC our t for t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ct of P enns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by d e s ig n a tio n . 2 __________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 97- cv- 03093) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D i ckinson R

. D ebev ois e

__________ A r gued M ay20, 2009 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d G A R T H , C i rcui tJud ges, a n d VA NA SKI E, D is tr i ct Judge. *
( Fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2009)

Jam es C

. O w ens, E sq V i r gi ni a A

. Sei t z, E s q. Fr ank R

. V ol pe, E s q. R e b e c c a K . W o o d , E s q . [ ARGUE D] S id ley A u stin 1 5 0 1 K S t r e e t , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 200053 L arr yS. R ei ch, E s q. Bl a n k Rome LLP 405 L exi ngt on A venue N ew Y or k, N Y 10174 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts Es m o rC o r r e c tio n a l S e r v ic e s , In c ., n/ k/ a C or r ect i onalSer vi ces C or por at i on; a n d J o h n L i ma

D r ew D or m an, E s q. D e re k S . T a rs o n , E s q . J u s tin P . S m ith , E s q . [ ARGUE D] M a ry B e th H o g a n , E s q . A l i s on J

. Page, E s q. W

. B ar t on Pat t er s on, E s q. E r i ca D avi l a, E s q. D ebevoi s e & Pl i m pt on 919 T hi r d A venue, 41s tFl oor N ew Y or k, N Y 10022 Fr ank A s ki n, E s q. R u tg e rs U n iv e rsity C o n stitu tio n a l L a w C lin ic 15 W as hi ngt on St r eet N ew ar k, N J 07102A p p e llee h a s s in c e c h a n g e d h e r n a m e to H o li H a sh i E g a l. 1 For cons i s t encyacr os s the pr ocee di ngs , w e us e heror i gi nal name her e. 4 P e n n yV e n e tis , E s q . [ ARGUE D] R u tg e rs U n iv e rsity C o n stitu tio n a l L iti g a tio n C lin ic 123 W as hi ngt on St r eet N ew ar k, N J 07102 C ouns el f orP l ai nt i f f s - Appel l ees H a w a A b d i Ja m a , n /k/a H a li H a sh i E g a l; Jeyak um ar A na ntharaj ah ; Ab u B aka r; C ec il ia Ko u Je

ff rey ; A b ra h a m Ken n eth; Sh a m im u N

a n teza ; D en n is R a

ji ; A g a tha S erw a a ; Sa rah T

et t eh Y ow er

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l ee H aw a A bdi J ama w as det ai ned as an il l egal 1 i m m i gr ant at a det ent i on cent er run by E s m o r C o r r ect i onal5 S e r v ice s, In c . (“E sm o r” ). Ja m a su e d E sm o r a n d c e rta in o f its offi cer s and empl oy ee s , i ncl udi ng fac i l i t yadmi ni s t r at orJ ohn L i m a, forvi ol at i ng herr i ght s undert he R el i gi ous Fr eedom R es t or at i on A ct ( “R FR A ”) , 42 U

. S. C

. § 2000bb et s eq. , and on t o r t t h e o r i e s . T h e j u r yf o u n d i n f

a v o ro f J a m a o n t h e RF RA cl ai m , agai ns t E sm o r and L i m a, and i n favorof J ama on one s t at e negl i gence cl ai m , agai ns tE s m or , L i m a, and tw o ot her D efe ndant s . T he j ur yaw ar ded $1 i n R FR A damages and $100, 000 i n t or tdamages

. T he D i s t r i ctC our taw ar ded J ama an a tto rn e y ’s f

e e a g a in st E sm o r a n d L im a a f ter c o n c lu d in g th a t a p o rt ion o f th e tortaw ard w as “ d esig n ed as c o m p en sati o n fo r” R F R A in ju ri e s . Jam a v. Es m orC or r . Ser vs . I nc. , 549 F. Supp. 2 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 7 (D .N .J . 2 0 0 8 ). E s m o r a n d L im a a p p e a le d

. A ppel l ant s ar gue thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the j ur y aw ar d w as err oneous , and ass er t t hat no fee m aybe a w a rd e d b e c a u s e J a m a ’ s s u c c e s s o n th e f e e - e li g ib le R F R A c laim w as d e m in im is , and the pende nts t at e cl ai m cannotbe cons i der ed. A ppel l ant s al t er nat i v ely ch all en g e t he r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a m o u n ta w a r d e d o n s e v e r a l g r o u n d s . We agr ee thatt he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n i nt erpr et i ng t he j ur yaw ar d, butdo notagr ee t hat t he C our t i s pr ecl uded fr om aw ar di ng fee s undert hes e ci r cumst ance s as a mat t er of l aw . W e w i l l r emand the m att er f

o r th e D istri ct C o u rtto rec o n side r th e f ee aw ard u n d e rt h e l e g a l s t a n d a r d s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w.T he r emai ni ng D efe ndant s s ubj ect t o cl ai m s t hatr eac hed the 2 j ur yw er e J ames Sl at t ery , R i char d St al ey( dece as ed) , and D i ane M cC lure. N o n e o f th ese ind ividu als, n o r th e E stat e o f R icha rd S tale y , is a p a rtyto th is a p p e a l. 6 I. I NT RO DU CT I ON M s . J ama, a S o m ali an i m m i gr antand M us l i m , fi l ed a com plai nt i n 1 99 7, al on g w i t h 19 otherplai nti ffs, t o redress a lleg e d lya b u siv e tre a tm e n t an d d e p lo r a b le c o n d iti o n s a t a pr i vat e det ent i on cent eri n E l i zabe t h, N ew J er s ey( “the Faci l i t y ”)

. T he Faci l i t yw as oper at ed by E s m or undercontr act w i t h t he U

. S. I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce. E s m or w as named as a D ef en d ant , as w er e ce r t ai n offi cer s and empl oy ees of the company , i ncl udi ng t he fa ci l i t yadmi ni s t r at or John L i m a. B yt he ti m e of the 20 07 verdi ct , Jam a w as the las t

2 r emai ni ng pl ai nt i ff w hos e cl ai m s had nots et t l ed. A tt r i al , s he p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e o f

g e n e r a l i n d i g n i t i e s s u f

f e re d in th e F a c ili t y, as w el l a s e v i d e n c e s p e c i f i c a l l yr e l a t i n g t o r e s tr i c t i o n s o n her pr act i ce of

r el i gi on. T hi s l at t er cat egory i ncl uded evi dence t hat her at t empt s t o pr ay w er e di s rupt ed by guar ds , t h at sh e w as pi cked up f

r om t he fl oorw hi l e pr ay i ng and thr ow n ont o herbed, t hatherK or an w as t hr ow n i n t he garbag e, thats he w as s u bjected t o unnece s s arys t r i p s ear ches , t hats he w as expos ed naked i n comm on vi ew , t hat s he w as for ced t o eat por k, and thatA s w e d o n o th a v e t h e c o m p l e t e t r i a l r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we 3 acc eptt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s char act er i zat i on of t he evi dence for th e lim ite d p u rp o s e o f p ro v id in g b a c k g ro u n d

. S e e J a ma , 54 9 F. Supp. 2d at607. R F R A p ro v id e s th a t a g o v e rn m e n t “s h a ll n o t su b sta n tially 4 bur den a pe r s on’ s exer ci s e of r el i gi on” unl es s t he governm ent
“ d e m o n stra tes th a t ap p lica tio n o f th e b u r d e n . . . is in fur ther ance of a c om pel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t ; and .

. . i s t he l eas tr es t r i ct i ve means of furt her i ng t hatcompel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t
. ” 42 U

. S. C

. § 2000bb- 1. A per s on w ho i s bur dened i n vi ol at i on of R FR A has a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on. 42 U

. S. C

. § 2000bb- 1( c)

. A l t hough R FR A is uncons t i tut i onal a s a p p lie d to s ta te g o v e r n m e n ts , C i t y of B oer ne v. F l or es , 521 U .S

. 5 0 7 , 5 3 6 (1 9 9 7 ), f

e d e ra l c la im s re m a in v ia b le , G onz al es v. O C entr o Es

pi r i t a B enef

i cent e U ni ao do V

egetal , 546 U

. S. 418, 4 3 9 (20 0 6 ). T he r emai ni ng t w o cl ai m s , not di r ect l y ati s s ue her e, al l eged 5 l i abi l i t y under t he A l i en TortC l ai m s A ct , 28 U

. S. C

. § 1350, and n e g lig e n t h ir in g o f

s p e c if ie d in d iv id u a ls u n d e r s ta te la w . 7 th e o n lyc ler ic a v a ilab le w a s a p rie st w h o u rg e d h e r to p ra yto Jesus. 3
T h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ts u b m i t t e d f o u rc l a i m s t o t h e j u r y, inclu d ing acl ai m that D ef en d an ts sub stan ti all yb u rde n ed Jam a’s abi l i t yt o pr act i ce he rr el i gi on i n vi ol at ion of R FR A , and a 4 cl ai m under s t at e l aw t hat cert ai n D efe ndant s , i ncl udi ng E s m or and Li m a, w er e negl i genti n hi r i ng, t r ai ni ng, s uper vi s i ng, and/ or retaining g u ard s at t h e f ac il ity . O n the R F R A claim , the C o u rt

5 in stru c ted th e ju ry th a t J a m a h a d to p ro v e e ith e r th a t th e o f f icia ls “i nfl i ct ed orcons t r ai ned conduc t or expr es s i ons t hatm ani fes t ed s om e ce nt r al t enet ” of he rbel i efs , t hatt hei ract s oro m issi o ns8 “meani ngful l ycur t a i l ed” he r“abi l i t yt o expr es s adher ence t o her f a ith ,” o r th a t th e o f

f icia ls d e n ied h e r a “ re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ity t o engage i n t hos e act i vi t i es t hatar e funda m ent al t o her rel i gion. ” (J A 19 4-95.) T o succe ed spec i fic a ll yagainst D e f e n d a n t E sm o r, th e C o u rt in stru c ted th a t th e v io latio n s h a d to be ca us ed by“an of

fi ci al pol i cyor cus t om ” or “ fr om t he ac t i ons o f a n o ff ici al w ith fin al po li cy -m ak ing au tho ri ty
. ” (JA 1 9 6

. ) For negl i genthi r i ng/ t r ai ni ng/ s uper vi s i on/ r et ent i on, t he C our ti ns t ruct ed that , underN ew J er s eyl aw , J am a mustpr ove t hat one orm or e of the enumer at ed D efe ndant s , i ncl udi ng E s m orand Li m a, w er e negl i gen t , and thatt hei rnegl i gence pr oxi m at el y caus ed J ama i nj ur y . N egl i gent act s o r om is s i ons w i t hi n t he pur vi ew of the cl ai m incl uded fa i l ur es byt he D efe ndant s t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e care i n i nves t i gat i ng t he g u a rd s’ c o n d u c t, an d f a ilu re s to e x e rc ise re a so n a b le c a re in tr ainin g an d su p erv isi n g the g u ard s to p rev en t fo rese ea b le ha rm t o the i nm at es. A s fo r d am ag es, if an y , the ju ryw as in stru cted to aw ard “an a m ountt hat w il l f

air l ycompensa t e herforanyi nj ur ys he a c tu a lly su s ta in e d a s a re s u lt o f a d e f e n d a n t’ s c o n d u c t.” ( J A 207. ) T he C our texpl ai ned thatJ am a cl ai m ed as damages “[p] hy s i cal harm . . . dur i ng and a ftert he eve nt s ati s s ue, phy s ical pai n, di s abi l i t y , di s fi gur ement , ordi s comfort , [and] emot i onal orm ent al har m . . . dur i ng and af t er the event s at is s u e , in c lu d i n g f

e a r, h u m ilia tio n , a n d m e n ta l a n g u is h . . . .” (JA 2 0 8 -09

. ) T h e C o u rtstat ed that the ju ry“m u st no t aw ard compensa t or ydamages m or e than once fort he s ame i nj ur y ” and that it“m u st no t aw ard h er a n yind ividu al co m p en sato ry d a ma g e s o n e a c h c l a i m i f t h e t wo c l a i m s r e s u l t e d i n t h e s a me injuries. ” (JA 2 0 9

. ) F u rth er, “i f d iffe ren t i n juri es a reB eca us e the j ur yaw ar ded compens at or ydamages on w hat 6 m a yb e ter m e d a n e g lig e n t o v e rsig h t cla im , the ju rye ss e n tially had t o fi nd t hat t hos e guar ds w ho w er e negl i gent l y hi r ed, t r ai ned, s uper vi s ed and/ orr et ai ned enga ged i n l i abi l i t y - cr eat i ng conduct

. In s uch ca s es , a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove thatt he n eg li g en tl yh ir ed , tr a in e d , s u p e rv is e d a n d /o r r etaine d em p loy ee ’s “i ncompet ence , unfi t nes s or danger ous char act er i s t i cs pr oxi m at el ycaus ed the i nj ur y . ” D i C os al a v. Kay , 450 A

. 2d 5 0 8 , 5 1 6 (N

. J. 1 9 8 2 ). 9 at t r i but abl e t o t he s epar at e cl ai m s , t hen y ou m us tcompensa t [e] M i s s J ama for a ll of heri nj ur i es . ” (I d. ) Th e C ou rtal so in s tru c te d th a t, “ If

y o u re tu rn a v e rd ic t f

o r M is s J a m a o n th e . .

. R FR A cl ai m [] , butM iss Jam a has fai l ed t o pr ove compensa t or y damages , t hen y ou m us taw ar d nom i nal damages o f o n e d o llar. A p e rso n w h o se f e d e ra l rig h ts w e re v io late d is ent i t l ed t o a r ecogni t i on of thatvi ol at i on, even i f s he s uffe r ed no a c tu a l in ju ry.” (J A 2 1 0 .) T he j ury fou nd t hat Jam a proved her R F R A cl ai m against b o t h Es mo ra n d J o h n Li ma , b u t a wa r d e d o n l y$ 1 o n t h e c l a i m. Itind icated o n the q u estio n n a ir e tha t no R F R A d am ag es w ere i ncluded i n d am ages aw arded on anyothercl ai m . T he juryal so found thatJ ama pr oved negl i genthi r i ng, t r ai ni ng, s uper vi s i on, and / or r et enti on againstE s mor , Li ma, a ndtw o ot her D efen dan t s, a n d a wa r d e d $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n c o mp e n s a t o r y d a ma g e s o n t h e c l a i m. 6 T he jur yfou nd for D efen dan t s on the t w o o t her cl ai m s. Ja m a m o v e d f

o r a n a w a rd o f

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s p u rsu a n t to 42 U

. S

. C

. § 19 88

. In ascert ai ning t he d egree of Jam a’s success under§ 1988, t he D i s t r i ct C our tr eas oned thatt he j ur y“w as not i n a pos i t i on t o cl ar i fyw hetheri thad conc l uded thatJ ama had s i m pl y n o t p roven a nycompensa bl e [RF R A ] i nj ur y. . . , or10 w hethert he resul trefl ect ed the j ury ’s i nab i l ityt o d i st i ng uis h betw een thos e and otheri nj ur ies, ” an d t hatt he j ur ym ayhave “b u n d le[d ] all o f Ja m a’s in ju ries into o n e su b stan ti al aw ard under Jam a’s N egl i gence C l ai m s . ” J a ma , 549 F. Supp. 2d at 606. T he C our ts t at ed that , bas ed on i t s as s essm entof the evi dence , “betw een 33 % and 50% of the j ur y ’ s N egl i gence C l ai m s aw ard of $100, 000 w as des i gned as compensa t i on for J a ma ’ s RFRA- r e l a t e d i n j ur i es . ” I

d. at 60 7

. T h e C o u rt cal culat ed a lodest ar of $6 42 , 39 8. 57 based e nti rel yon cou nsel s’ w or k on t he R FR A cl ai m , and aw ar ded t he en ti re am ount agai ns tE s m orand Li m a, t he t w o D efe ndant s found l i abl e under R F R A

. I d. at613. E s m orand Li m a appe al ed.

I I . DI S CU S S I ON T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o rev i ew t he aw ar d of a statu toryatt o rne y ’s fe e u n d er 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1 , o n ce the a w ard is re d u c e d to a d e f

in ite a m o u n t. I

nt er f ai th C om t

y. O r g. v. H oneywel lI

nt ’ l , I nc. , 4 2 6 F

. 3 d 6 9 4 , 7 0 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 )

. We r evi ew t he r eas onabl enes s of a f ee a w ar d for abus e of di s cr et i on, butourr evi ew of t he l egal s t andar d appl i ed i n cal cul at i ng a fe e is p le n a ry. E vans v. P or tA uth. of N ew Y ork & N ew Jer s ey , 273 F. 3d 346, 358 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. Pl enary r evi ew al s o ext ends t o a d is tr ic t co u rt’s in ter p re tatio n o f a ju ry ’s a n sw e rs to i n te rr o g a to ri e s . S e e Fa illa v . P a ss a ic , 1 4 6 F. 3 d 1 4 9, 153 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). A d istric t co u rt a b u s e s it s d isc re tio n w h e n its deci s i on “r es t s upon a cl ear l y err oneous fi ndi ng of fac t , an err ant c o n c lu s io n o f

la w o r a n i m p r o p e r a p p lic a tio n o f la w to f a c t.” P i neda v. For d Mot orC o. , 520 F. 3d 2 3 7 , 2 4 3 ( 3d C i r . 2008) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ).11 42 U

. S. C

. § 1988( b) pr ovi des t h at, “I n anyact i on or p roc ee d in g to e n f

o rc e [ c e rt a in f

e d e ra l s ta tu te s in c lu d in g R F R A ], t he cour t , i n i t s di s cr et i on, m ayal l ow t he p re v a ili n gp a rty , ot her th a n th e U n ite d S ta te s , a r eas onabl e at t or ney’s f ee as par tof the c o sts
. . . . ” 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 8 8 (b ) (em p h a sis a d d e d ). A p p e llan ts c o n c e d e t h a t , t h e j u r y h a v i n g a wa r d e d n o mi n a l d a ma g e s t o J a ma o n h e r fe e -e lig ib le R F R A c laim , Ja m a w a s the p re v a ili n g p a rty forthe purpos es of § 1988. H ow ever , A ppel l ant s ar gue thatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r echa r act er i zi ng t he j ur yver di ct , and that no fee aw ard can b e reas on able as a m at t er of l aw becau se Jam a’s success o n t he fee-el i gibl e fed eral cl ai m w as d e m in im is and the pende nts t at e cl ai m cannotbe cons i der ed.

A . I nt erpre t at i on of

t he Jury V erdi ct W e a g re e w ith A p p e llan ts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in a t t r i b ut i ng a p o r t i o n o f

J a ma ’ s t o r ta wa r d t o h e rRF RA c l a i m. T he j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed t h at “[n] om i nal damages of one dol l ar a re d e sig n e d to a c k n o w led g e th e d e p riv a tio n o f a f e d e ra l rig h t, even w her e no . . . i nj ur yoccurr ed. H ow ever , i f y ou fi nd actual i nj ur y , y o u mus ta war d c o mpe n s a t o r yd a ma g e s a s I i n s t ru ct ed y o u , rath e r th a n n o m in a l d a m a g e s.” (JA 2 1 0 .) T h e ju ryp lain ly i ndi cat ed on i t s ques t i onnai r e t hat $1 i n damages w as aw ar ded on t he R FR A cl ai m , and t hat no R FR A damages w er e i ncl uded i n the aw ard on a nyothercl ai m . A c o u rt g eneral l y“m ust assu m e tha t th e juryu n d erstoo d an d fo ll o w e d the c o u rt ’s i ns t ruct i ons . ” R i nehi m er v. C em col i f t , I nc. , 292 F. 3d 375, 383 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). W e find n o inco n sist en cies i n the ju ry ’s an sw ers to in ter ro g a to rie s th a t m ig h t h a v e re q u ire d th e D istric t C o u rt to exerci s e i t s l i m i t ed author i t yt o m ol d t he ans w er s t o achi eve c o n s is te n c y . See McAdam v. D ean W i t t er R eynolds, Inc

. , 896 F. 2d 750, 763- 64 ( 3d C i r . 1990)

. T he D ist ri ct C our tw as t husI n l i g h to f t h e n a tu r e o f

t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m o n wh i c h J a ma 7 p rev ail ed (ne g li g en t ov ersigh t) , an d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa m il iari tyw ith the ev iden ce , itis un d erstan d ab le t h at t h e C o u rt coul d s ur m i s e that negl i gent l yhi r ed, t r ai ned, s uper vi s ed, and/ or retaine d g u ard s ca u sed b o th co m p en sab le R F R A an d tort i nj ur i es . Per haps t her e w as a s hor t comi ng i n t he uncha l l enged s peci al ver di cts heeti n t hat t he j ur y w as notr equi r ed t o s peci fy the liabili ty -crea ti n g co n d u ct o f the g u ard s. H o w ev er, th e jury w as i ns t ruct ed t o det er m i ne dam ages acc or di ng t o t he cl ai m s for r el i ef, and the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nothave the pr er ogat i ve of r eal loc at i ng compensa t or ydamages aw ar ded s ol el yon t he n e g l i g e n to v e r s i g h tc l a i m. 12 r equi r ed t o pr esu m e thatt he j ur ydet erm i ned thatno actual i nj ur yw as s us t ai ned as a r es ul tof t h e R FR A vi ol at i on, and c o u ld n o t co n c lu d e th a t a n y p o r tio n o f th e $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 in c o mp e n s a t o r yd a ma g e s wa s a wa r d e d t o c o mp e n s a t e f o ra RF RA vi ol at i on. 7
W e a c co rdin g lyco n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s as s es s m entof the evi dence w as b as ed on an i m pr oper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s a n d v e r d i c ts h e e t , a n d we cannotaff

i r m t he r es ul t i ng or deraw ar di ng an att or ney ’ s fee

. B . Im p a ct o f Far r arv. Hobby O ur concl us i on t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed does notend o u r inq u iry . A p p ell an ts argu e tha t, u n d er Far r arv. H obby , 506 U

. S. 103 ( 1992) , no fee m aybe aw ar ded as a mat t erof l aw beca us e J ama w as onl yaw ar ded nomi nal damages o n h er feee lig ib le R F R A c la im

. Far r ar i s pl ai nlydis t i ng uis hab l e beca use J ama r ece i ved a s ubs t ant i al aw ar d on t he l i t i gat i on as a w hol e, w her eas t he pl ai nt i ffs i n Far r ar rec eive d o n lya n o m inal aw ard13 o f $ 1 in to ta l. Far r ar , 5 0 6 U .S . at 1 0 7 . Y e t e v e n if w e w e re to i g n o r e t h e s u b s t a n t i a l a wa r d o n J a ma ’ s p e n d e n t s t a t e c l a i m, we d o n o t ag re e w ith A p p e llan ts th a t Far r arw o u ld c o n c lu siv e ly p r o h i b i tt h e a wa r d o f

a f e e o n J a ma ’ s RF RA c l a i m. I n Far r ar , s t at e off

i ci al s cl os ed a s chool fort r oubl ed te e n s a n d s e c u re d a n in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t th e o w n e r. Far r ar , 506 U .S . at 1 0 5 . T h e o w n e r su e d , alle g in g d e p riv a tio n s o f lib e rty a n d p ro p e rt yw ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s . I d. a t 1 0 6 . H e , an d h is admi ni s t r at or s aft erhi s death, s oughtonl ym onet aryr el i ef i n t he f o rm o f $ 1 7 m i l l i o n in d a m a g e s . Id

. T he j ur yfound, t hr ough s peci al i nt err ogat or i es , t hat j us t one of t he s i x defe nd an ts had d e p riv e d F a rra r o f

a c iv il righ t. H o w e v e r, th e ju rye x p r e s sly fou nd t hat the d efen dan t ’s con du ctdid not pr ox i m at el ycause F arrar’s asse rt ed d am ag es. I d. T h e d istric t co u rt u lti m a tely a w a rd e d n o m i n a l d a m a g e s o f $ 1 a n d a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s . I d. A di vi de d p a ne l of

t he Fi fth Ci r c ui tr e ve r s e d the a w a r d o f f ees, h o lding that the p lai n ti ff s w ere n o t p rev ail ing p arti es, an d w ere th u s in e lig ib le f

o r f e e s u n d e r § 1 9 8 8

. I

d. T he Supr eme C our taff i r m ed i n a 5-4 d eci s i on, buton d if f e re n t g ro u n d s. T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t a p lain tiff w h o is aw ar ded nomi nal damages i s a pre vai l i ng par t y fort he purpos es o f § 19 8 8

. I

d. a t 1 1 4 . H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt a lso sta ted th a t, “A l t hough t he ‘ t echni cal ’ natur e of a nomi nal damages aw ar d or a n y o t h e rj u d g m e n td o e s n o t a f f e c tt h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n q u i r y, i tdoes bearon t he pr opr i ety of fee s aw ar ded under§ 1988. ” I d. I n det erm i ni ng t he r eas onabl eness o f fe es under§ 1988, t he C our tcont i nued, “‘ t he mostcrit ical f act or. . . i s t he degr ee of s ucce s s obt ai ned. ’ ” I

d. a t 114 ( quot i ng Hensl ey v. E ckerha rt , 461 U

. S. 424, 436 ( 198 3) )

. A ccor di ngl y , w hen a pl ai nt i ff s eeki ng compensa t or ydamages “r ecove r s onl y n o m i nal damages14 b e c a u se o f

h is f a ilu re to p ro v e a n e ss e n tial e lem e n t o f h is c laim for m on et aryrel i ef, t he o nlyreas on able fee i s u su a lly no fee at al l

. ” I d. at 11 5 (em p h asis ad d ed ) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). J us t i ce O ’ C onnorj oi ned the otherfo u rj us t i ces i n t he m aj or i t yw i t houtr es ervat i on, buts he fi l ed a conc ur r i ng opi ni on th a t f u rth e r e lab o ra ted o n th e d e g re e o f su c c e ss in q u iry . W h ile s he ac know l edged thatt he d i s par i t ybetw een the damages s oughtand aw ar ded w as i m por t anti n det erm i ni ng t he degr ee of s ucce s s , s he s t at ed t hat t hi s “i s not t he onl y cons i der at i on. ” I d. at 12 1 (O ’C o n n o r, J. , co n cu rri n g ). S h e asse rt ed that “a n aw ard of nom i nal damages can r epre s enta vi ct or yi n t he s ens e of v in d ic a tin g ri g h ts e v e n th o u g h n o a c tu a l d a m a g e s a re p ro v e d .” I d. J us t i ce O ’ C onnor s t at ed t hat “court s al s o m us tl ook t o ot her fac t or s ” i n as s es s i ng s ucce s s , i ncl udi ng “the s i gni fi canc e of the l egal i s s ue” de ci ded, and w hethert he dec i s i on “accom pl i s hed s om e publ i c goal

. ” I

d. at 12 1-22. U po n co nsi deri ng al l of these “r el evanti ndi ci a of s ucce s s , ” J us t i ce O ’ C onnorconcl uded that F arr ar’ s vi ct oryw as d e m in im is
. I d. at122. S ev era l cou rt s o f ap p ea ls, rely ing o n Ju sti ce O ’C o n n o r’s concurr ence , have pe r m i t t ed fe e aw ar ds des pi t e the aw ar d of onl y nom i nal damages

. I n Me rc e r v . D u ke U n ive rs ity , 401 F. 3d 1 9 9 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), a f

e m a le c o lleg e f

o o tb a ll p layer b ro u g h t a T i t l e I X di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m agai ns t a uni ver s i t yaft ers he had b e e n c u t f

ro m th e f

o o tb a ll te a m . I

d. at201. A lt h o u g h t he pl ai nt i ff w as aw ar ded onl ynom i nal damages , t he C our tof A p p e a ls f

o r th e F o u rth C irc u it u p h e ld a n a w a rd o f $ 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 in at t or neyfee s des pi t e the d e m in im is c o m p e n s a to ry re lie f

. I d. at 211

. Th e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a f e e a war d was wi t hi n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s cr et i on beca us e the l egal i s s ue on w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff pr evai l ed w as si gni fi cantand the l i t i gat i on s erved a15 p u b lic p u rp o s e . I

d. at206- 09. I n D i az - R i ver a v. R i ver a- R odr igu ez , 377 F. 3d 119 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), term in a ted m u n icip a l em p lo ye e s s u e d c ity offi ci al s , al l egi ng t hatt hei rt erm i nat i ons w er e mot i vat ed byt he e m p lo y e e s ’ p o litic a l a f f i l i a tio n s . I

d. at121. T he pl ai nt i ffs b ro u g h t F ir s t A m e n d m e n t a n d d u e p ro c e s s c la im s . I d. T h e jury found fort he def

endant s on t he Fi r s tA m endm en t cl ai m s and a w a rd e d o n ly n o m in a l d a m a g e s o n th e d u e p ro c e s s c la im

. I d. at 1 2 2

. T h e d istri ct co u rtaw ard ed an att o rne y ’s fe e, an d the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F irst C irc u it a f

f irm e d . T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls di s t i ngui s hed the fa ct s of t he cas e at bar fr om t hos e i n Far r arby app l y i ng Just i ce O ’C on no r’ s fact ors: H ere, al t ho ug h p l ai nti ffs’ vi ct oryw as d e m in im is as to the e x tent o f re li ef , the d istri ct co u rt ap p rop ri atelyex erc ised it s d iscre tion to aw ard f e e s, a s th e d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e m u n icip a lity v io late d p lain tiff s’ c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts r epr es ent ed a si gni fi cantl egal concl us i on s ervi ng an i m por t antpubl i c purpos e. I d. at125. O t hercour t s of appe als have al s o adopt ed J us t i ce O ’ C o n n o r ’ s f

a c t o r s f o r r e s o l v i n g t h e d e g r e e o f s u c c e s s i n q u i r y. S e e C u m m in gs v . C o n n e ll , 4 0 2 F

. 3 d 9 3 6 , 9 4 7 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); P hel ps v. H am i l t on , 1 2 0 F

. 3 d 1 1 2 6 , 1 1 3 1 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ); Johns on v. Laf

ayet t e Fi r e Fight ers A s s ’ n Local472 , 51 F. 3d 7 2 6 , 7 3 1 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); Jon es v. L ockh art , 29 F. 3d 422, 423- 24 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). In c o n tra st, w e f

in d n o c a se in w h ich a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls h as i nt erpr et ed Far r ar t o r e q u i r e t h e a u t o ma t i c d e n i a l o f fee sIn a d o p tin g th e se c o n sid e ra tio n s, w e d o n o t, as Ju d g e G a rth 8 s ugges t s , s etas i de the maj ori t yopi ni on i n Far r ar , n o rd o we a c c o rd Ju stic e O ’C o n n o r’s c o n c u rre n c e c o n tro lli n g w e ig h t. W hi l e the maj or i t yi n Far r arsta ted th a t a r e a so n a b le f e e is u su a lly no fee w hen a plai nti ff recei ves on l yno m i nal dam ages, t he ca s e i n v o lve d extr eme fact s and the maj or i t ypr ovi ded no gui dance fordi s t i ngui s hi ng t he us ual fr om t he unus ual cas e. J us t i ce O ’ C onnors etfor t h a pra ct i cal m ethod for r es ol vi ng s uch ques t i ons t hatot hercour t s of appea l s have found hel pful

. A l s o, w e do notagr ee w i t h J udge G ar t h t hata nomi n al aw ar d on a R FR A cl ai m nece s s ar i l yamount s t o a t echni cal and d e m in im is v ict o ry . T h e jury fo u n d that E sm o r a n d L im a v iolated J am a’s r i ght s bysu bs t ant i al l ybur deni ng herexer ci s e of r el i gi on. T he im p a c t o f su c h a v io latio n o n a v ictim m a yb e u n iq u e lyd if f icu lt t o expr es s i n m onet aryt erm s , butt he s i g n ifi ca n ce of t he r i ght vi ndi cat ed and the purpos e s erved byt he l i t i gat i on ca n n o tbe over l ooked and, es peci al l yi n t he pr i s on s et ti n g, s houl d notbe di m i ni s hed. 16 t hatA ppel l ant s s eek w hen onl ynom i nal damages ar e aw ar ded. W e ag ree w ith o u r sist er co u rt s o f ap p ea ls that a dist ri ct co u rt det erm i ni ng t he degr ee of a pl ai nt i ff’ s s ucce s s s houl d cons i der notonl yt he di ffe r ence betw een the r el i ef s oughtand ac hi eved, but al s o t he si gni fi canc e of t he l egal i s s ue dec i ded and w hether t he l i t i gat i on s erved a publ i c purpos e. 8
Y etouri nt erpr et at i on of Far r ar o n lytak e s u s p a rt w a yin res olvi ng t his app e a l. W hil e Jam a m i gh tbe en t i t l ed to atl east a p a r t i a l f

e e a wa r d s o l e l y o n t h e b a s i s o f h e r RF RA c l a i m, J a ma r ec eived m or e than mer e nomi nal damages as a r es ul tof her lit ig a tio n . T h e su b sta n tial a w a rd o n h e r p e n d e n t sta te c laim di s t i ngui s hes herfr om t he pl ai nt i ffs i n Far r ar , Mer cer , and D i az-Rivera , w ho recei ved on l yno m i nal dam ages i n t ot al

. WeA ppel l ant s al s o as s er t another“exc ept i on” foral l ow i ng t he 9 co n s i d e r a t i o n o f s t a t e c l a i ms b y p o i n t i n g t o c a s e s whe r e fee

el i gi bl e cl ai m s w er e notdeci ded forprudent i al r eas ons , butfee s w e re p e rm itt e d o n th e b a sis o f o th e r su c c e ss f u l cla im s. S in c e it i s u n d i s p u t e d t ha tJ a ma p r e v a i l e d o n h e rf e e - e l i g i b l e RF RA cl ai m , t hes e ca s es ar e al l di s t i ngui s habl e and of l i t t l e as s i s t ance .
For i ns t ance , A ppel l ant s ci t e M aherv. G agne , 448 U

. S. 122 10 (1 9 8 0 ), b u t th e lan g u a g e c ited d e a lt w ith a n E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t is s u e th a t is ir re le v a n t h e re . I d. at 13 2

. M o reo v er, Mahercann ot s up po rta res t rict i ve rul e on fee aw ards because t he C our t i nt erpr et ed § 1988 expans i vel y , rul i ng t hatfee aw ar ds a r e p e r mi s s i b l e on no n - c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms u n d e r4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 9 8 3

. I d. at 128. A ppel l ant s al s o ci t e t o Luri a B r others & Co. v. A l l en , 6 7 2 F

. 2 d 3 4 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 2 ), a c ase in w h ich a tt o rne y ’s fees w ere denied, bu tt his case i s p l ai nly dis t i ng uis hab l e beca use t he pl ai nt i ff i n L ur ia , u n l i ke J ama, di d notpr evai l on a 17 m us tt her efor e dec i de w hether J ama’ s s ucce s s on hers t at e l aw cl ai m m ayi ndepende nt l yi nfor m t he degr ee of her s ucce s s under § 1988. C . P e n d e n t S ta te C la im W e ar e s urpr i s ed t o fi nd t hatt he i m pactof su cces s on s t at e cl ai m s as r el at ed t o t he aw ar d of fees under § 1988 has not b e e n sq u a re lya d d re ss e d b y th is C o u rt, an d h a s b e e n sp a rse ly l i t i gat ed el s ew her e. A ppel l ant s ar gue thatpendents ta t e l aw cl ai m s m ayonl ybe cons i der ed i n t he s ucce s s i nqui r yi f the l egal s t andar ds and oper at i ve facts for the s t at e and f eder al fee

el igible clai m s ar e i dent i cal

. H ow ever , t he ca s es r el i ed on by 9 A ppel l ant s do notr eal l ys uppor tt hi s r es tr i c t i ve rul e bec aus e they ei t herper m i t t ed fee aw ar ds orw er e mat er i al l ydi s t i ngui s habl e. 10f e e -e lig ib l e f

e d e r a l c la im

. I

d. at358. O t hercas es as s er t ed by A ppel l an t s ar e Ma rti n i v. Fed era l N a ti o n a l M

o rtga g e A ss’n , 17 8 F. 3d 1336 ( D

. C

. C i r . 1999) , and P as s ant i no v. Johns on & Johns on C ons um erP r oduct s , I nc. , 2 1 2 F

. 3 d 4 9 3 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). Mar t i ni i nvol ved a de t erm i nat i on as t o w hethera fe der al damages cap shoul d appl yw her e the s t at e and l ocal s t andar ds in stru c ted to th e ju ryw e re id e n tica l. 17 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 9 -5 0 . T h is ca se is o f li tt le he lp b ec au se n o fe e a w ard w as a t i ssu e. In P as s ant i no , a p lai n ti ff p rev ail ed o n h er f

ed era l T it le V II retali ati o n c la im s , b u t did n o t prev ail o n h er f ed era l T it le V II d is c ri m in a tio n c la im s . P as s ant i no , 2 1 2 F

. 3 d at 51 7 -18

. In sh o rt s hr i ft , t he courtof appe al s r ej ect ed defe ndant ’ s ar gum entt hat t he at t orneyfee sho uld have been reduced for l i m i t ed succ ess, not i ng t hatt he cl ai m s w er e “i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned. ” I d. at 518. N o s t at e cl ai m w as i nvol ved, and not hi ng s ugges t s t hatt he cour tw oul d have r equi r ed th e c laim s to b e in e x trica b ly in ter tw in e d in o rd e r to c o n c lu d e th a t th e f e e a w a rd w a s w ith in t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s cr et i on. 18 A ppel l ant s poi ntt o no cas e w her e a c our tdeni ed fe es t o a pl ai nt i ff w ho had pr evai l ed o n a q u a l i f

y i n g f e d e r a l c l a i m and als o r e c e i v e d a s u b s t a n t i a l a wa r d o n a s t a t e l a w c l a i m. J ama cont ends t hatt h e expre s s l anguage of § 1988( b) author i zes t he cons i der at i on of pende nts t at e cl ai m s i n aw ar di ng fee s w hen a pl ai nt i ff pr evai l s on a fe e- el i gi b le c lai m . T he s t atut e does notr efe rt o “cl ai m s , ” but i ns t ead pr ovi des t hatfee s m aybe aw ard ed , “I n anyact i on o r pr ocee di ng t o enfor ce” var i ous pr ovi s i ons i ncl udi ng R FR A

. 42 U

. S. C

. § 1988( b) ( e mp h a s i s a dd e d)

. Un d e rt h e p l a i n t e x to f t h e s t a tu t e , J a ma as s er t s , i ti s w i t hi n a di s t r i ct cour t ’ s di s cr et i on t o cons i dert he s u c c e s s o f t h e a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g a s a who l e , t o i ncl ude s u c c e s s o n p e n d e n t s ta te la w c la im s .19 W e agr ee thatt h e lang uage of § 1988( b) s eems t o be s uffi ci ent l ybr oad t o endor s e the i ncl us i on of s t at e cl ai m s i n t he cons i der at i on of over al l s ucce s s . H ow ever , w e do notfi nd pr ece d en ton poi ntt hatcl ear l yadopt s t hi s i nt erpr et at i on as concl us i ve. J ama r el i es on Hensl ey v. E ckerha rt , 461 U

. S. 424 (1983 ), i n w hich pl ai nti f f s o b tained m i xed res ult s i n a case inv o lving m u lt iple fe d era l cl aim s. T h ere , the S u p re m e C o u rt i ns t ruct ed the di s t r i ctcour tt o cons i derw hethert he uns ucce s s ful an d su cc essf

u l cl aim s sh are d a c o m m o n co re o f f ac ts or w ere b a se d o n re late d leg a l th e o rie s , in o rd e r to in f o rm th e “ re su lts o b ta in e d ” in q u ir y . I

d. at 434, 437. W hi l e Hens l ey pr ovi des t he s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hethercl ai m s ar e r el at ed under § 1 9 8 8 , th e c a se d id n o t sp e c if ica lly in v o lv e p e n d e n t s ta te cl ai m s , nor di d t he cl ar i fy i ng and r eaf fi r m i ng cas e of T

ex a s S ta te Teacher s A s s ’ n v. G ar l and I

ndepende ntSchoo l D is tr i ct , 489 U .S . 7 8 2 (1 9 8 9 ). Th e Cou r to f

App e a l s f

o rt h e Se c o n d Ci r c u i td e c i d e d a cas e cl os ert o t he one be for e us i n B r i dges v. E as tm a n Kodak C o. , 1 0 2 F .3 d 5 6 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), cer t
. deni ed s u b n o m. , Y our don, I nc. v. B r i dges , 520 U

. S. 1274 ( 1997)

. T he pl ai nt i ffs i n B r i dges a lleg e d th a t th e yw e re se x u a llyh a r a s s e d b yth e ir e m p lo y e r in v io latio n o f

T itl e V II a n d a n a n a lo g o u s N e w Y o rk a n tid is c ri m in a tio n s ta tu te
. I d. at 57

. T h e d is tr ic t cou rth eld a jury trial o n th e sta te c laim s a n d a c o n c u rre n t b e n c h trial o n th e T itl e V II c la im s . I

d. T he j ur yfound thatt he def endant s vi ol at ed the s t at e l aw and aw ar ded pl ai nt i ffs s ubs t ant i al amount s forback p a ya n d c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s . Id. T he courtm ade pa r al l el fi ndi ngs underT i t l e V I I , but aw ar ded no m onet aryr el i ef on the f e d e r a l c l a i m s , s p e c i f

i c a l l y i n o r d e rt o a v o i d d o u b l e r e c o v e r y. I d. at58. T he di s t r i ctcour taw ar ded fe es t o t he pl ai nt i ffsT he j ur yher e w as i ns t ruct ed nott o compensa t e more t han 11 o n ce fo r th e sa m e inju ry. H o w ev er, th e interro g atoryfo rm as ked fort he amount of damages at t r i but abl e t o eac h cl ai m , and as ked w hetherR FR A damages w ere i ncl uded i n anyaw ar d on anothercl ai m . T he j ur yi ndi cat ed thatonl y $1 w as aw ar ded on th e R F R A c laim , an d th a t n o R F R A d a m a g e s w e re in c lu d e d in an aw ar d on any ot her cl ai m . W e t hus cannot concl ude thatt he 20 w i t houtm aki ng anyr educt i on forl ack of s ucce s s on t he fe der al c la im

. I d. T h e d ef en d an ts argu ed o n ap p ea l th at th e p lai n ti ff s w ere i nel i gi bl e for at t or ney ’ s fee s beca us e ther e w as no aw ar d on t he fee

- el i gi bl e cl ai m , and, al t ernat i vel y , t hatt he aw ar d s houl d have b e e n re d u c e d d u e t o t h e p la in tif f s ’ l im ite d s u c c e s s . I

d. T he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it d isa g re e d o n b o th poi nt s i n a br i ef opi ni on. T he cour t concl uded t hat t he pl ai nt i ffs pr evai l ed on the fe e- el i gi bl e cl ai m , and di s t i ngui s hed Far r ar beca us e Far r ardi d noti nvol ve “a pl ai nt i ff w ho had ac hi eved s ubs t ant i al s ucce s s - and a l ar g e m onet aryaw ar d - on pendent sta t e- l aw cl ai m s . ” I

d. a t5 9

. Th e c o u r ta f f i r me d t h e di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f

a w a rd w ith o u t a n yre d u c tio n . I d. at60. A l t hough B r i dges h e lp s Ja m a , th e c a se is d istin g u ish a b le beca us e the s t at e and f

eder al cl ai m s atbarw er e br oughtun d er p a ra llel e m p lo ym e n t d isc rim in a tio n sta tu tes
. H e re , th e e lem e n ts of Jam a’s st at e neg l i gen ce and fede ral R F R A cl ai m s ar e no tso cl os el yal i gned. M or eover , t he courti n B r i dges sp e c if ica lly d e c lin e d to a w a rd d a m a g e s o n th e f e d e ra l c laim in o rd e r to a v o id doubl e r ecove r y , s ugges t i ng t hatt he pl aint i ffs w oul d have re c o v e re d o n th e f

e d e ra l c laim b u t f

o r th e ju rya w a rd o n th e sta te cl ai m . Y etnot hi ng i n B r i dges can be r ead t o requir e i dent i cal

11ju r y a w a rd e d n o m in a l d a m a g e s o n th e R F R A c laim m e re lyto a v o i d d o u b l e r e c o v e r y. 21 o r n e a rlyid e n tica l sta te a n d f e d e ra l cla im s in o rd e r f

o r th e sta te c l a i m t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a s p a r to f t h e d e g r e e o f s u c c e s s i n q u i r y. T he B r i dges p a n e l c ited a p p ro v in g ly to a n e a rlier c a se in t he S ec o n d C i r cui tt hatal i gns m or e cl os el yw i t h t he i ns t ant circum s t ance s . I n Milw e v . C a v u o to , 653 F. 2d 80 ( 2d C ir

. 19 81 ), t he p l ai nti ff w as inj ured i n a scuf fl e w i t h p oli ce of

fi cers . I d. at81. Pol i ce of

fi ci als t her eaf

t ers ecur ed a w arr antforher arr es t , and cha r ged herw i t h i nt er fer i ng w i t h a pol i ce of fi cerand d is tu rb in g th e p e a c e . Id . T h e c h a r g e s w e re su b se q u e n tly d is m is s e d

. I

d. T he pl ai nt i ff br oughta s ui tagai ns ts ever al offi cer s and s upervi s or s forcompensa t o rya n d p uni t i ve damages un de r42 U

. S. C. § 1 98 3, a nd on pe nd e nts t a t e l a w t heo ri es. A ft era tr i al, the j ur yfound fort he pl ai nt i ff a gai ns tone defe ndanton a cons t i tut i onal exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m and a pendents t at e as s aul tcl ai m . T he j ur y aw ar ded $1 and $1, 320 on t hes e cl ai m s , r es pect i vel y . T he j ur yal s o found fort he pl ai nt i ff a g a in st o n e o th e r d e f

e n d a n t o n a c o n stitu tio n a l cla im re latin g to h er a rrest, an d a c lai m fo r fa lse arrest un d er state law

. T h e jury a w a rd e d $ 1 in to ta l f

o r b o th o f

th e s e c la im s . I

d. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed fe es under§ 1988, and the p lai n ti ff ap p e aled

. D ef

en d an ts argu ed that fe es w ere inap p ro p ri a te s in c e , in tera lia , th e o n ly sig n if ic a n t dam ag es w ere a w a rd e d o n th e p e n d e n t s ta te a s s a u lt c la im

. I d. at 84

. T h e c o u rt of appe al s r ever s ed fort w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , t h e co u r tquot ed Maher v. G agne , a n d sta ted th a t “a tto rn e y ’s f e e s a re a v a ilab le in c a s e s ‘ i n w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f p r e v a i l s o n a w h o l l y s t a tu t o r y, non- ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m pendentt o a s ubs t ant i al cons t i tut i onalA ppel l ant s ar gue thatal l ow i n g a d i s t r i ctcour tt o cons i der 12 s t at e comm on l aw cl ai m s w oul d vi ol at e M aher ’s “ w h o lly s t atut or y ” l an g u ag e. W e ar e notper s uaded. I n M aher , t he S u p re m e C o u rt w a s d istin g u ish in g b e tw e e n c lea rlyf e e -e lig ib le c o n stitu tio n a l civ il righ ts c laim s a n d s ta tu to ryS o c ial S e c u rity cl ai m s under § 1983. T he “w hol l y s t atut or y ” l anguage m arked an e x p a n sion of

§ 1 98 8 to i nclude n on -const i tuti on al cl ai m s. W e a g ree w ith th e D is tr ictC o u rtthat the w h o ll ystatu tory di s t i nct i on has no bear i ng on t hi s cas e. W e a lso n o te th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e F irst C irc u it 13 t r eat ed Mi lwe appr ovi ngl yi n A u b in v . Fu da la , 782 F. 2d 287, 291 ( 1s t C i r . 1986) ( ci t i ng Mi lwe an d d eterm ining that an aw ard o n a pen den tst at e neg l i gen ce cl ai m m ayi nfo rm t he succ ess i nqui r yw her e the plainti ff pr evai l ed w i t h a l es s eraw ar d on a f e e - e l i g i b le f

e d e ra l c l a i m ) , o v e r ru l e d o n o t h e rg r o u n d s b y Cr o we

22 claim

. ’” I

d. ( quot i ng M

aher , 448 U

. S. at 132)

. T he cour tt hus 12 ext ended Supr eme C our tj ur i s prudence r egar di n g pendent fede r al cl ai m s t o pendent s t at e cl ai m s . T he courtal s o concl uded t hat , l eavi ng as i de the s t at e l aw cl ai m , t he aw ar d of $1 on a feeel i gi bl e cons t i tut i onal cl ai m coul d al one s uppor tt he aw ar d of f e e s . I d. at84. T he courtacc or di ngl yr emanded t he mat t erfor f u rt h e r c o n s id e ra tio n . I

d. T he s ec o n d r eas on gi ven i n Mi lwe for perm i t t i ng fees, namely cons i der at i on of the fe e- el i gi bl e cl ai m onl y , s houl d be r ead w i t h caut i on i n li g h t of Far r arand ourdi s cus s i on above. H o w e v e r, Far r ardi d noti nvol ve a pe ndent s t at e l aw cl ai m , and th u s h a s n o e f

f e c t o n th e f

irst re a so n f

o r p e rm itt in g f

e e s in Mi lwe . W h ile w e re c o g n ize th a t Mi lwe pr edat es m anyi m por t ant § 1988 cas es , w e fi nd no cas e thatcontr adi ct s orunder m i nes t he Mi lwe cou rt ’s reas on i ng w i t h regard t o p en d e n tst at e cl ai m s. 13v. B olduc , 3 6 5 F .3 d 8 6 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 23 B a se d o n th e se c o n sid e ra tio n s, w e c a n n o t a g re e w ith A p p e llan ts t hata di s t r i ctcour tm ayonl y co ns i deran aw ar d on a pende nt sta te c la im if

th e o p e ra tiv e f

a c ts o r le g a l sta n d a rd s o f th e sta te a n d f e d e ra l cla im s a re id e n tica l. W hi l e i dent i ty b etw een the cl ai m s i s notr equi r ed, t he s ta te a n d f

e d e ra l cla im s m u st c e rta in lyb e a r so m e re latio n in or derfort he s t at e cl ai m t o b e co n sider ed under§ 1988. A l t hough Hens l ey did no t add res s pend ent s t at e cl ai m s, t he case does pr ovi de hel pful gui dance

. I n Hens l ey , the S u p rem e C o u rt des cr i bed how a di s t r i ctcour ts houl d det erm i ne w hether uns ucce s s ful cl ai m s ar e s uffi ci ent l y r el at ed t o cl ai m s on w hi ch a pl ai nt i ff pr evai l ed i n or dert o i ncl ude w or k on t he uns ucce s s ful cl ai m s i n a fe e aw ar d. T he C our ti ns t ruct ed thatcl ai m s t hat “i nvol ve a c om m on cor e of fac t s [or ar e] bas ed on r el at ed l egal theo ri es” are related fo r thes e pu rpo ses. Hen sl ey , 461 U

. S. at 4 3 5

. T h e C o u rt f

u rth e r in stru c ted th a t “[ t]h e re is n o p re c ise ru le orfor m ul a form ak ing t hes e det erm i nat i ons , ” and thatt he d istric t court “n e c e ss a rilyh a s d isc re tio n in m a k in g th is e q u itab le j udgm ent
. ” I

d. at43 6. T he C ou rta lso n oted that “[a] request foratt or ney ’ s fee s s houl d notr es ul t in a second m aj or l i t i gat i on. ” I

d. A ppl y i ng t hi s r eas oni ng her e, w e co n cl ude thatt he Hens l ey s t andar d s houl d gui de a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s cons i der at i on of pendents t at e cl ai m s in a l i t i gat i on w her e a pl ai nt i ff ha s pr evai l ed on a f

ee- el i gi bl e fe der al cl aim

. W e w i l l vaca t e the a w a rd a n d re m a n d th e m a tter f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to m a k e th is di s cr et i onary d et er m i nat i on i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . T he D i s t r i ct C our ts houl d det erm i ne w hetherJ ama’ s R FR A and pende ntA l t ho ug h w e do no thav e t he co m plet e t ri al recor d b efore us, 14 s t at ement s byt he D i s t r i ct C our ts ugges tt hati ts houl d notbe di ffi cul tt o r econs i dert he r el at i ons hi p betw een the s t at e and fede r al cl ai m s undert he i ns t ants t andar d. Fori ns t ance , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed i n i t s opi ni on t hat“the R FR A

- r el at ed conductw as . . . a s i gn ifi cantpartof J ama’ s N egl i gence C l ai m s , ” s ugges t i ng t hatt he C our ti dent i f i e d l egal and/ orfac tual re la tio n s h ip s b e tw e e n th e tw o c la im s . J a ma , 549 F. Supp. 2d at 606. J udge G ar t h cont ends t hatt he j ur y ’ s compensa t or yaw ar d on 15 t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m a n d me r e n o mi n a l a wa r d o n t h e RF RA cl ai m concl us i vel yfor ecl os es t he exi s t ence o f a s uffi ci ent r el at i ons hi p betw een the s tat e and f ee- el i gi bl e cl ai m s , and our deci s i on t her efor e i nt rudes upon t he r ol e of t he j ur y . W e do not a g re e . Hens l ey m akes cl eart hatan att or ney ’ s w or k on an u n su c c e ss f

u l cla im m a y b e c o m p e n sa ted if th e c laim is f

a c tu a lly orl egal l yr el at ed t o a cl ai m on w h i ch the pl ai nt i ff pr evai l ed. Hens l ey , 461 U

. S. at435. T he questi o n of w hetherpart i cul ar cl ai m s , s ucce s sfu l o r otherw i s e, ar i s e fr om a comm on cor e of fa cts d o es n o t tu rn o n a ju ry’s v erd ict

. M o reo v er, a j u ry ’s fac tual fi ndi ng s cannotpos s i bl yr es ol ve r el at i ons hi ps betw een le g a l th e o ri e s . Hens l ey l eave s no doubt t hat s uch i nqui r i es under § 1 9 8 8 a re le f

t to th e d is c re tio n o f

d is tr ic t c o u rt
. I

d. at436. 24 s t at e negl i gence cl ai m s i nvol ved a “ comm on co re of fac t s ” or w er e b ase d o n “re lat ed lega l th eo ri es.” If the claim s are 14 r el at ed undert hi s s t andar d, t he r es ul t s on J ama’ s t or tcl ai m s m ay i nfor m t he degr ee of J ama’ s over al l s ucce s s fort he purpos es of § 1 9 8 8

. W h ethe r or n o t th e s ta te a n d fe d era l cl aim s are

15 re late d , the D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld a lso c o n sid e r th e e x ten t to w h i c h J a m a ’ s R F R A c l a i m m i g h t , e v e n i n d e p e n d e n t l y, j u s t i f y a f e e a w a rd u n d e r th e f

a c to rs a rticu late d b yJu stic e O ’C o n n o r in Far r ar . T h u s, w h ile th e ju ry ’s n o m in a l aw a rd m u st u n d o u b ted ly25 col ort he degr ee of

J am a’s su cce s s on herR FR A cl ai m , t he D i s t r i ctC our t s houl d al s o cons i der t he si gni fi canc e of t he l egal issue o n w h ich s h e p rev ail ed an d d eterm ine w h ethe r he r victory s er ved a publ i c purpos e.

D . R eas onabl enes s of

t he F ee A w arded A ppel l ant s ar gue i n t he al t ernat i ve that , even i f a f ee aw ard i s per m i s s i bl e i n t hi s cas e, t he $642, 398. 57 amount a w a r d e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s u n r e a s o n a b l y h i g h

. S i n c e we concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s degr ee of s ucce s s anal y s i s w as p r e d i c a t e d o n a n e r r o n e o u s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f t h e j u r yv e r d i c t , we cannotr evi ew t he over al l fi gur e unt i l t he C our thas r econs i der ed Jam a’s su cc ess u n d er the stan d ard s d iscu ssed ab o v e. H o w ev er, w e w il l ad d ress tw o issue s relati n g to the o v era ll aw ard that are s ui t abl e forr evi ew at t hi s t i m e i n or dert o pr ovi de gui dance on re m a n d

. A p p e llan ts arg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u s e d its di s cr et i on byarr i vi ng at u n rea s onabl e hour l yr at es . A D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s det er m i nat i on of m arket bi l l i ng r at es “i s a f ac tual ques t i on w hi ch i s s ubj ect t o a cl ear l y err oneous s tand ard of r e v i ew . ” Sm i th v. P hi l adel phi a H ous . A uth. , 107 F. 3d 223, 225( 3d C i r . 1997)

. I n m ovi ng fora fe e aw ar d, T he pl ai nt i ff be ar s t he bur den of pr od u ci ng suffici ent evi den ce of w hat const i tutes a r eas onabl e mar ketr at e fort he es s ent i al char act er a n d c o m p lex ityo f

th e leg a l se rv ice s re n d e re d in or dert o m ake outa pri m a fa ci e ca s e. O nce the pl ai nt i ff ha s carr i ed thi s bur den, defe ndantm ay26 c o n tes t th a t p ri m a f

a c ie c a se o n lyw ith a p p ro p ria te r ecor d evi dence

. I d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. “U ndert he cl ear l yerr o n eous sta n d a rd , a f

in d in g o f f a c t m a yb e re v e rse d o n a p p e a l o n lyif it i s compl et el ydevoi d of a cr edi bl e evi dent i ary bas i s orbear s no rat i onal r el at i ons hi p t o t he s uppor t i ng dat a. ” Sh i r e US I nc. v. B ar rL a b s. , I

nc. , 329 F. 3d 348, 352 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). I n det erm i ni ng t he hourl y r at es i n t he i ns t antm at t er , t he D istric t C o u rt re lied o n a p r e v io u s a n a ly sis it h a d m a d e in co n n ect i on w i th a r eque st fo r disco v erysan cti o n s ag ains t E sm o r. Jam a v. Es m o rC or r . Ser vs . , I nc. , 20 07 W

. L

. 41 66 01 6 (D

. N

. J. N o v . 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 ). Ja m a ’s c o u n se l su p p o rte d its ra tes w ith aff i davi t s l i s t i ng s i m i l arr at es t hathad b een a cce pt ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey i n pr i or cas es . T he D i s t r i ctC our t acc ept ed counse l ’ s s ubm i t t ed ra t es , aft erm aki ng a r educt i on i n fee s fr om N ew Y or k m arketl evel s t o t he l evel s of th e m e tr o p o lita n N e w a rk m a rk e t. I d. a t * 3 . T h e a tto rn e yh o u rly r at es acc ept ed by t he D i s t r i ct C our tforD ebevoi s e & Pl i m pt on L L P r anged f

r om $ 6 0 0 fo ra part nert o $205 fora fi r s t
- y ear asso ciate, a n d $ 4 0 0 fo r M s. P en n yV en eti s o f th e R u tgers C o n s titu tio n a l L itig a tio n C lin ic

. A pp el l ants argue t hat their ow n evi den ce regardi ng rat es, and r at es acc ept ed i n ot hercas es , dem o n str at ed thatt he r at es us ed byt he D i s t r i ctC o u rt are unr eas onabl e. W hi l e the r at es appl i ed her e mayhave be en hi ghert han r at es ap pl i ed i n ot her cas es , w e fi nd not hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat i ng t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n was c l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s . J a ma ’ s c o u n s el s ub mi t t e d a f

f i d a v i t s a n d p r i o r e x a mpl e s o f s i mi l a r r a t e s . T he27 D istri ct C o u rt w eigh ed the s o p h ist icated n ature o f th e w o rk i nv ol ved, and made a r educt i on i n D ebevoi s e’ s r at es t o br i ng them in li n e w ith the N e w a rk m ark et. T h e ra tes ad o p ted a re nei t herdevoi d of a cr edi bl e evi dent i arybas i s , nordo t heyl ack a ra tio n a l re latio n sh ip to th e su p p o rtin g d a ta, a n d w e w ill a c c o rd in g lyn o t d istu rb th e m o n a p p e a l. Fi nal l y , A ppel l ant s ar gue t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by i ncl udi ng i n t he aw ar d $1, 485. 70 forex p ert fees beca us e s uch f e e s a re n o t au th o riz e d in R F R A c laim s. Ja m a c o n c e d e s th is poi nt , and di sclaim s herent i t l ementt o $1, 485. 70. T hus , t he D istri ct C o u rtsh all ex clud e the se e x p e rt fe es f rom an yfu ture aw ar d. I I I . CO NC L US I ON T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s degr ee of s ucce s s i n q u iryunder § 1 9 8 8 w as b ase d o n an im p erm issi b le re co n stru cti o n o f th e jury ver di ct , and w e w i l l V A C A T E t he r es ul t i ng or deraw ar di ng an at t or ney ’ s fee

. W e w i l l R E M A N D t he mat t erfort he D i s t r i ct C o u rtto rec o n side r Jam a’s m o ti o n fo r an att o rne y ’s fe e a w ard cons i s t entw i t h t hi s O pi ni on.

G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udge, di s s ent i ng: L e t m e re c o u n t th e f

u n d a m e n tal iss u e s p re se n ted o n th is appea l

— i n eff

ect : “l et ’ s r evi ew t he bi ddi ng. ” 1 . T h e c o m p lain t f

iled b yJa m a so u g h t $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 in s t atut or ydamages forvi ol at i ons of the R el igious Fr eedom28 R es t or at i on A ct (“ R FR A ”) ; i tal s o s oughta t ot al of nea r l y$5 m i l l i on for al l dam ages i ncludi ng gen eral neg l i gen ce dam ages, p u n i t i v e d a ma g e s , a n d RF RA

. 2 . R F R A p ro v id e s th a t, i f a v io latio n is f

o u n d , n o t o n ly m aydamages be aw ar ded but r eas onabl e at t or ney ’ s fee s m aybe a s s e s s e d . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 8 (b ). 3

. A fter 2 3 d a y s o f tri al be fo re a juryw h ich h ea rd evi dence of R FR A vi ol at i ons and t or t i ous co n ductbys om e of t he defenda nt s , t he j ur y w as char ged s peci fi cal l ybyt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a s f

o llo w s: Y o u m u st n o t aw ard co m p en sato ryd am ag es m o re th a n o n c e f

o r th e sa m e in

ju ry . F o r e x a m p le, if M i s s J ama pr evai l s on t w o cl ai m s and es t abl i s hes a dol l aramount forheri nj ur i es , y o u m us tnot aw ar d her anyi ndi vi dual compensa t or ydamages on eac h cl ai m i f the tw o cl ai m s resul t ed i n t he s ame i nj ur i es . M i s s J am a i s onl yent i t l ed t o be m ade w hol e once , and may not r ecove r m or e than sh e h as lo st. O f c o u rse, i f d iffe ren t i n juri es a re at t ri bu t able t o the separat e cl ai m s, t hen y ou m ust compensa t i on [s i c] M i s s J ama foral l of her in ju ri e s . . . . I f y o u retur n a ver di ctforM i s s J ama on t he A T C A and the R FR A cl ai m s , butM i s s J ama has fai l ed t o pr ove com p en s at or ydamages , t hen y ou m u s t a w a rd n o m in a l d a m a g e s o f o n e d o lla r. . . . H ow ever, i f y ou fi nd actual i njury , y o u m ust aw ar d compensa t or y damages as I i ns t ruct ed y ou,T he onl y ot her cas e ci t ed byJ ama i n w hi ch i nt err ogat or i es 16 w ere u ti li ze d b ythe D istri ct C o u rtw as F arrar it self. H o w ev er, t he i nt err ogat or i es i n Far r ar w er e not det ai l ed as t heyw er e her e, d id n o t in v o lv e th e d istin c tio n b e tw e e n e lig ib le a n d in e lig ib le fee s t atut es , and di d notaff or d t he expl i ci tand unequi vocal answ ers t o the i nterrogat ori es that the inst ant ver dictprovides. 29 rather t han no m i nal dam ages. J .A . 2 0 9 -1 0

. 4. N o exce pt i ons w er e t aken t o t he char ge. N o addi t i ons w er e s ought byt he pl ai nt i ffs t o t he cha r ge. See Farr arv. C ai n, 756 F. 2d 1148, 1150-51 ( 5t h C i r . 1985) , aff’ d 506 U

. S. 103 ( 1992) ( fai l ur e t o obj ectt o the j ur ychar ge and s peci al i nt err ogat or i es pr ecl udes ourr evi ew i n t he abs ence of pl ai n err or o r m an ifest m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce ). 5. T he evi dence befor e the j ur ycons i s t ed of a ct i ons w hi ch vi ol at ed R FR A , butal s o cons i s t ed of otherneg li g ent t o r t i o u s a c t i o n s b yt h e d e f e n d a n t s . W e n o t e t h e m i nf r a. 6

. T h e juryw as a sk ed to an sw er a series o f in terrog atory q u e stio n s in d e liv e rin g its v e rd ict. T h e ju ryc o m p lied f u lly 16 w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons and ans w er ed the r el evant in ter ro g a to rie s a s f

o llo w s: 1 . [n o t re lev a n t to th is a p p e a l]

2. H as M s . J ama pr oved bya pr ep o n d er ance ofT he jur yfou nd t hat the R F R A cl ai m w as notproved against 17 D efe ndant s Sl at t ery , St al ey , and M cC l ur e. “Y es ” w as t he fi r s t ans w er gi ven byt he j ur y . T hatans w er 18 w as cr os s ed outand “N o” w as ent er ed i n i t s pl ace . 30 t he evi dence herR el i gi ous Fr eedom R es t orat i on A ctcl ai m agai ns tE s m or. . . and/ orL i m a? Y es 17

. . . 2F. W hat i s t he amount of compensa t or ydamages t o w hi ch M s . J ama i s ent i t l ed on ac countof her R FR A cl ai m al one, w i t hout cons i der i ng damages on acc ountof any ot her cl ai m on w hi ch y ou found a D efe ndantl i abl e? $1. 00

2G

. W as t he amount of t he damages aw ar ded on t he R FR A cl aim i ncl uded i n t he amountof damages aw ar ded on anyot hercl aim , and, i f s o, w hich cl ai m s?

. . . Ne g l i g e n c e Cl a i m # 1 : No 1831 . . . 2H

. I s M s . J ama ent it l ed t o puni t i ve damages a g a i n s ta n yDe f

e n d a n tf o u n d l i a b l e o n h e rRF RA c l a i m? N o

. . . 3 F

. W h at i s the am o u n t of the c o m p en sa to ry damages t o w hi ch M s . J ama i s ent i t l ed on ac count o f h e rn e g l i g e n c e # 1 c l a i m? $100, 000 J .A . 2 4 0 -4 3

. 7. N o exce pt i ons orobj ect i ons w er e t aken t o t he form or t o t he cont entof the i nt err ogat or i es , nor w er e addi t i ons s ought t o the i nterrogat ori es. 8. W hen the j ur yr etur ned w i t h i t s v erd ic t , t he C l erk of t he C our thad t he fol l ow i ng excha nge w i t h t he j ur yfor eper s on: T H E C L E R K : O kay

. W h a t i s t he amount of

co mpe n s a t o r yd a ma g e s t o whi ch M i s s J ama i s ent i t l ed on ac countof h e rRF RA c l a i m al one , w i t hout cons i der i ng damages on acc ountof anyot hercl ai m on w hi ch y ou found a de fenda ntl i abl e?32 T H E F O R E P E R S O N : O n e d o ll ar. THE CLERK: W as t h e a mou n t

— I ’ m s o r r y . W as

t he am ount of dam ages aw ar ded on t he R F R A cl ai m i ncl uded i n t he amount of damages aw ar ded on any o t h e rc l a i m? T H E FO R E PE R SO N : N o. TH E CL ER K : O k a y . Is M iss Jam a en tit led to

puni t i ve damages agai ns tany defen dantfound l i abl e on her RF RA c l a i m? T H E FO R E PE R SO N : N o. J. A

. 2 3 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 9. T he D i s t r i ctC our taw ar ded att orney ’ s fee s hol di ng t hat33% t o 50% of the damages aw ar ded w er e al l ocabl e t o t he R F R A c la im

. 10. M ycol l eague s i n t he m aj or i t ycorr ect l yhol d t hatt he Di s t r i c tCo u r te r r e d i n i t s d e t e r mi n a t i o n , a n d I a g r e e wi t h t h e m. W her e I par tcompanyw i t h m ycol l eague s i s t hei rs t ark r efus al t o r ecogni ze the j ur y ’ s expl i ci t decl ar at i on, m ade a ft err ece i vi ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s peci fi c i ns t ruct i ons , t hat t he $1 aw ar ded for t he R FR A cl ai m w as not inclu ded i n t he ca l cul at i on of the $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 aw ard ed o n th e g en era l st ate n eg li g en ce claim

. In ot herw or ds , t he fee- el i gi bl e R FR A conduct puni s hed byt he $1 aw ar d w as w hol l yapartfr om , and di sti nctfr om , t he33 non- fee

- el i gi bl e conduc tpuni s hed byt he aw ar d of $100, 000 for n e g lig e n t c o n d u c t. T hus , i n t hi s cas e, onl yt he nomi nal damages m aybe cons i der ed for purpos es of fe e- el i gi bl e att or ney ’ s fee s , and the o n l y r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y’ s f e e i s n o f e e a ta l l

. F a r r a rv . H o b b y, 5 0 6 U .S . 1 0 3 (1 9 9 2 ). I w o u ld n o t re m a n d to th e D istric t C o u rt. R a th e r, I w o u ld re v e rse o u trig h t an d in stru c t th e D istric t C o u r t to d e n ya ll at t or ney ’ s fee s as I bel i eve no fur t hercons i der at i on i s r equi r ed. I. T he maj or i t yoffe r s t w o t heor i es under w hi ch i tbel i eves t he D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d aw ar d fee s . Fi r s t, u n d er H ens l eyv. E c k e rh a rt, 4 6 1 U .S . 4 2 4 (1 9 8 3 ), th e D istric t C o u rt c o u ld det erm i ne thatt he state c l ai m of negl i genthi r i ng, t r ai ni ng, s upervi s i on, and r et ent i on i nvol ved a “comm on cor e of fa ct s ” or w as bas ed on a “ r el at ed l egal t heory ” s uch thatt he $100, 000 aw ar d o n that cl ai m coul d enhanc e the over al l “degr ee of s ucce s s ” of the $1 aw ar d obt ai ned on the R FR A cl ai m . B utt he ju ry ’s v e rd ic t, ex p re ss e d u n e q u iv o c a llya n d u n a m b ig u o u slyin t he i nt err ogat or yans w er s and i n t he ans w er s t o t he C our tC l erk, for ecl os es thi s ar gum entbydr aw i ng an unmi s t akabl e l i ne betw een the t w o cl ai m s . A l t ernat i vel y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tm i ght appl yJ us t i ce O ’ C onnor ’ s concurr enc e i n Far r arand fi nd t hat f a c t o r s o t h e rt h a n t h e a moun to f d a ma g e s ma k e t h e RF RA aw ar d, s t andi ng al one, m or e w or t hyt han a “ t echni cal ” or“de m in im is” v icto ry . A g a in , h o w e v e r, th is a rg u m e n t is c o m p lete ly under cutbyt he fa ctt hatt he j ur yexpl i ci t l ys etapartt he conduc t as cr i babl e t o t he R FR A cl ai m , and det erm i ned thatt hi s conduct34 m e rited n o d a m a g e s o th e r th a n th e b a re a c k n o w led g m e n t th a t a vi ol at i on occurr ed. A. A n exami nat ion of

t he ver di ctfor m rul es outt he p o ss ib ili ty th a t th e p lain tiff ’s su c c e ss o n th e n e g lig e n c e c laim h a d a n yb e a r i n g o n t h e no mi n a l a wa r d o n t h e RF RA c l a i m. I nt err ogat or ynum ber2G as ked s peci fi cal l yw hether“the am ou nt of t he d am ages aw arded o n the R F R A cl ai m [w as] i ncl uded i n the am ountof damages aw ar ded on anyot her c la im .” J .A

. 2 4 1

. In re s p o n s e , th e ju ry in itia lly m a rk e d “ Y e s ,” s cr at ched out t hat r es pons e, and t hen m arked i t s fi nal ans w eras “N o. ” Id. T hi s amended r es pons e cl ear l ydemonst r at es t hatt he j ur ynotonl ycons i der ed, butul t i m at el yr ej ect ed, t he not i on t hat t he R FR A aw ar d and the negl i gence aw ar d s har ed anycomm on bas i s . A l l of t he pr os cr i bed conducti s di s t i nctfr om t he gene r al negl i gence conduct

. So t oo are the def endant s w ho have be en found l i abl e. O nl yt w o defe ndant s have b ee n found l i abl e for t he R FR A co n d uct , w her eas fourdefe ndant s have be en found l i abl e for t he gener al negl i gence conduct , t her ebyemphasi zi ng t he l ack of

l egal and fa ctual over l ap betw een the R FR A and neg l i gen ce cl ai m s. T he under l y i ng fac t s bearoutt hi s di chot om y . I ndeed, t he m aj or i t yi t s el f not es that J ama pr es ent ed “e vi dence of gene r al i ndi gni ti es suffe r ed i n t he Faci l i t y , ” on the one ha nd, and “evi dence s peci fi cal l yr el at i ng t o r es t r i ct i ons on herpr act i ce of r el i gi on, ” on the otherhand. M aj

. op. 5. T he maj or i t yt hen e n u m e r a t e s t h e c o n d u c tt h a tf e l l w i t h i n t h e l a t t e rc a t e g o r y, in c lu d in g e x p o sin g Ja m a n a k e d to c o m m o n v iew , fo rc in g h e r to eatpor k, di s rupt i ng herpr ay er s , and def i l i ng hercopyof the35 K o ra n . T he maj or i t ydoes not , how ever , expl ai n t hat t he “ge ner al in d ig n iti e s” w e re o f a n e n tirelyd if f e re n t n a tu re . T o ilets w e re in cl os e pr oxi m i t yt o s l eepi ng ar eas an d w ere cl ogged and over fl ow i ng w i t h hum an w as t e. Food s uppl i es w er e i ns uffi ci ent and oft en cons i s t ed of s poi l ed or r ot t en food. T he t ai nt ed food caus ed vomi t i ng and di arr hea, w hi ch exa cerbat ed the al r eady overw hel m ed pl um bi ng. H eat i ng w as i nadequa t e i n t he w i nt er ca u sin g ice to co ll ec t on the c ell w all s, w h il e p ri so n ers w ere d e p riv e d o f

w a rm c lo th in g a n d su f f icie n t b lan k e ts. F e m a le pr i s oner s , l i ke J ama, w er e gi ven o n l yone s ani t arynapki n per m ont h. T he guar ds t hemsel ves w er e phy s i cal l yand ps y chol ogi cal l yabus i ve t o t he pr i s oner s r egar dl es s of r el i gi on. T h e o n ly p o ss ib le u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e ju ry ’s a n sw e r to i nt err ogat or ynum ber2G i s t hatt he j ur ys egr egat ed thes e g e n er al i ndi gni t i es fro m t he r el i gi ous i ndi gni t i es , and then conc l uded th a t o n e se t (th e g e n e ra l co n d u c t) m e rited $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 in c o m p e n sa to ry d a m a g e s w h ile th e o th e r se t (th e R F R A c o n d u c t) m er i t ed none. T he j ur y expl i ci t l y di s avow ed anyover l ap i n t he damages i taw ar ded; acc or di ngl y , nei t herw e nort he D istr i ct C our tm ayal t ert hatver di ctbyconfe r r i ng t he s ucce s s obt ai ned o n the n egl i gence cl ai m t o t he R FR A cl ai m . B yal t er i ng t he jury ’s v erd ict , the D istri ct C o u rterred in as su m ing that the ju ry i gn ored i t s i nst ruct i on s and ac t ed im pro perl y . Iti s an “al m ost in v a ria b le a ss u m p tio n o f th e la w th a t ju ro rs f o llo w th e ir i ns t ruct i ons . ” Shannon v. U ni t ed St at es , 512 U

. S. 573, 585 ( 1994 ) ( quot i ng R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U

. S. 200, 206 ( 19 8 7 ) )

. Nei t h e rt h e Di s t r i c tCou r tn o rmyc o l l e a g u e s i n t he m a jo rityh a v e th e a u th o rityto a lter th e ju r y’s f in d in g s o r to cons t rue the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ngs i n a w ay t hat i s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he36 v e rd ict. T he Seventh A m endmentpr ovi des t hat “no fact t r i ed by a j ur y , s hal l be ot herw i s e r eexa m i ned i n any C our tof the U ni t ed St a t e s , t ha n a c c or di ng t o t he rul e s of t he c omm on l a w . ” U

. S. C ons t
. amend. V I I

. ; s ee a l s o D avi s v. O m it ow oj u, 883 F. 2d 1 1 5 5 (3 d C ir

. 1 9 8 9 ). M yc o llea g u e s in th e m a jo rityw o u ld p erm itthe D istri ct C o u rt to su b sti tute it s jud g m en t fo r th e jury ’s ver di ct byci r cumvent i ng t he j ur y ’ s actual R FR A aw ar d and addi ng t o i ta por t i on of the negl igen ce aw ar d s o t hat fee

- s hi ft i ng m aybe ac hi eved. T he maj or i t yopi ni on, by s uppl ant i ng t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct and fac t fi ndi ng w i t h t he D is t r i ct C our t ’ s fac t fi ndi ng, has t her ebyvi ol at ed the pr oper r ol es of j udge and j ur yundert he C ons t i tut i on. I b e liev e th e v e rd ic t f

o rm is d e f

in iti v e lyd isp o sitiv e in t hi s cas e. B. A l l w e ar e l eft w i t h, t hen, i s t he $1 aw ar d s t andi ng al one, i rr espect i ve o f the $1 00 , 00 0 aw ard. V i ew ed thus, t his case r evea l s i t s el f t o be an unexce pt i onal ci vi l r i ght s cas e w her e the p lai n ti ff h as p rev ail ed b u t faile d to p rov e a n yd am ag es. In Far r ar , t he Supr eme C our tannounced the def aul trul e that “[w ] hen a pl aintif

f r ecove r s onl ynom i nal damages beca us e of hi s fai l ur e t o pr ove an e s s ent i al el ementof h i s cl ai m for m o n e ta ry re lie f

, th e o n ly re a s o n a b le f

e e is u s u a lly n o f

e e a t a ll.” 5 0 6 U .S . a t 1 1 5 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Subse quent l y , s ever al co ur t s of appe al s have a ffi r m ed t hata nomi nal vi ct or ys houl d r ecei v e a fe e aw ar d onl yi n the37 r ar e orunus ual cas e. See Pi no v. L ocas ci o, 101 F. 3d 235, 238 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ( “[W ] hi l e there i s no per se rul e thata pl ai nt i ff r ecove r i ng nom i nal damages can never geta fe e aw ar d, Far r ar ind icates tha t th e a w ard o f f ee s in su ch a c ase w il l be ra re.”); D oe v. C h ao, 511 F. 3d 461, 467 ( 4t h C i r . 2007) ( i nt erpr et i ng F arrar a s p e rm itti n g fe e a w ard s o n ly“in s o m e ra re c ase s”); Poui l l on v. L i t t l e, 326 F. 3d 713, 717 ( 6t h C i r . 2003) ( concl udi ng t hatt he pl ai nt i ff ha d fai l ed t o di s t i ngui s h hi s case “fr om t he

‘ us ual ’ cas e w her e a pr evai l i ng ci vi l ri g h ts pl ai nt i ff i s not e n title d to a tto rn e y ’s f e e s w h e n a ll th a t h e h a s w o n is

. . . n o m inal d am ag es” ); M au l v. C o n stan , 2 3 F

. 3 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ) (s tatin g th a t “a tto rn e y ’s f e e s a re n o t a p p ro p ria te s im p ly beca us e pl ai nt i ff s ucce s s ful l yes t abl i s hes t hathi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s have be en vi ol at ed”) ; W i l cox v. C i t y of R eno, 42 F. 3d 550 ( 9t h C i r . 1994) ( “Farr art eac hes t hatan aw ar d of no m i nal damages is n o t e nough” t o s uppor tan aw ar d of fe es w i t hout s om e ot her t angi bl e r es ul t
. ) ; G r ay ex r el

. A l exande r v. B os t i c, ___ F. 3 d ___ , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 6 3 6 6 2 5 , a t* 4 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 2 0 09) ( “Pl ai nt i ffs i n nom i nal -damage ca s es s houl d notbe aw ar ded a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s in a n yb u t e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” ). T h e m ajoritysets asid e the co n tr o ll ing o p inion in F arrar, how ever , and t u rns i ns t ead t o J us t i ce O ’ C onnor ’ s concurr ence forthe pr opos i t i on t hatfee aw ar ds ar e occ as i onal lyperm i t t ed des pi t e an a w ar d of onl ynom i nal dama ges . B utJ us t i ce O ’ C onnor ’ s concurr i ng opi ni on— notj oi ned byanyot her m ember of the C our t

— i s j us tt hat : i ti s herow n expl anat i on of how s he h e r s e l f wou l d l i k e t o h o l d

. Fa r r a r , 5 0 6 U. S. a t 116 ( O ’ C onnor , J

. , concurr i ng) ( “I j oi n t he C our t ’ s opi ni on and co n cu r i n it s jud g m en t. I w ri te sep ara tel y o n lyto ex p lai n m o re f u llyw h y , in m yv ie w , it is a p p ro p ria te to d e n yf e e s in th is cas e. ”)

. Fi ve j us t i ces i ncl udi ng J u sti ce O ’ C onnorj oi ned the38 m aj ori t y op i nion i n holdi ng t hat a $1 no m i nal f e e do es not u su all yen ti tl e the p lai n ti ff to § 1 9 8 8 (b) att o rne y ’s f ee s. T h ere w a s n o p lu ra lityf

o r Ju stic e O ’C o n n o r’s c o n c u rrin g o p in io n to j oi n ort o bol s t er , and ther efo re w e do notl ook t o i tfort he “narr ow es tgr ounds ” of a s pl i nt er ed dec i s i on. S ee M arks v. U ni t ed St at es , 430 U

. S. 188, 193 ( 1977) ( “W hen a f r agm ent ed c o u rt d e c id e s a c a se a n d n o sin g le r a tio n a le e x p lain in g th e re su lt enj oy s t he ass ent of fi ve J us t i ces , t he hol di ng of the C our tm ay be vi ew ed as t hatpos i t i on t aken byt hos e M ember s w ho concurr ed i n t he j udgm ent s on t he na r r ow es tgr ounds

. ”) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee al s o Pl anned Par enthood of Se. Pa. v. C as ey , 947 F. 2d 682, 693 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ I n a ru n - o f

- t h e - mi l l c a s e whe r e a ma j or i t y of th e Ju stic e s e n d o rse a sin g le le g a l sta n d a rd , low e r c o u rts s im p ly fo ll o w that stan d ard

. ” (c it ati o n o m itted)). M o reo v er, t o th e ex tent that Ju sti ce O ’C o n n o r’s con curr ence is at t ract i ve, i t on l y el abo rat es that , i n som e cases, a fee aw ard m i gh tbe just i fi ed b yt he p res ence o f other fact ors, s u c h a s a s i g n i f

i c a n t l e g a l i s s u e o rt h e a c c o mp l i s h me n to f s o me p u b li c g o al, w h ich e leva te th e n o m inal d am ag es b ey o n d a m ere “tec h n ical” o r “d e m inim is” v ict o ry . Id. at 12 1 -22 (O ’C o n n o r, J

. , concurr i ng)

. A nd, i n s om e unus ual cas es , cour t s have i ndeed ci t ed these fact ors i n affi rm i ng fee aw ards for no m i nal dam ages. See, e. g. , M er cerv. D uke U niv., 4 0 1 F. 3d 199 ( 4t h C i r . 2005) ( not i ng t hatt he ca s e i nvol ved a ques t i on of fi r s t i m pr es s i on t hat h ad b roade ri m pl i cat i ons foral l w om en part i ci pat i ng on t r adi t i onal l ym al e s chool s por ts t eams) ; D i az- R i ver a v. R i ver a- R odr i guez, 377 F. 3d 119 ( 1s tC i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( concl udi ng t hat t he p l ai nti ffs’ vi ct oryi n a p oli t i ca l di scr i m i nati on sui tagainst t hei r m uni ci pal i t y w as a si gni fi cant l egal concl us i on s ervi ng an im p o rt an t pu b li c p u rpo se).39 N evert hel es s , an aw ar d of at t or ney ’ s fee s rem ai ns i nap propri at e i n the ordi naryci vil ri gh t s case w here t he o n ly damages obt ai ned w ere nom i nal

. See Pi no, 101 F. 3d at239 (“ T h e v a st m a

jo rityo f c iv il righ ts liti g a tio n d o e s n o t re su lt i n gr ound- br eaki ng concl us i ons of l aw . . . . ”) ; M aul , 23 F. 3d at 146 ( obs er vi ng t hatal l “Sect i on 1983 cl ai m s nece s s ar i l yi nvol ve th e v io la tio n o f

a ri g h t, p ri v ile g e o r i m m u n ity” ). In d e e d , n o n e o f

th e in d ica ted f

a c to rs a re p re se n t in th is cas e. N ot hi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s t hatJ ama’ s vi ct or yon her R F R A c laim w a s a n y th in g b u t a te c h n ica l an d d e m in im is vi ct or y . E ven the D i s t r i ctC our tw as unabl e t o j us t i fyaw ar di ng f e e s f o r Ja m a ’s R F R A c laim w ith o u t b o rro w in g su b sta n tia lly f ro m th e g e n e ra l n e g lig e n c e c laim . W ith o u t th e a b ili tyto c o n f late th e se tw o c laim s, h o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt w o u ld onl ybe l eftt o concl ude thatno fee aw ar d i s appr opr i at e. II. B e c a u se I w o u ld h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt is e n tirely p rec lud ed b ythe ju ry ’s sp ec ial interrog atories a n d v erd ictfo rm f ro m a u g m e n tin g th e n o m in a l d a m a g e s o n th e R F R A c laim w ith th e $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 d a m a g e s o n th e g e n e ra l n e g lig e n c e c laim , I w o u ld hol d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s judgm entm us tbe r ever s ed and t hatt he D i s tr i ct C our t m us t be i ns t ruct ed t hatno at t or ney ’ s fee s ar e t o be al l ow ed. T her efor e, I r es pect ful l ydi s s entfr om t he m aj or i t y ’ s opi ni on, w hi ch r emands t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor fur thercons i der at i on.