Document: 489 U.S. 782 109 S.Ct. 1486 103 L.Ed.2d 866 TEXAS STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitionersv.GARLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT al. No. 87-1759. Argued March 1, 1989. Decided 28, Syllabus Petitioners, state and local teachers' associations several of their members employees, brought suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that respondent school district's policy prohibiting communications by or with teachers during schoolday concerning employee organizations violated First Fourteenth Amendment rights various particular respects. The granted district summary judgment on most petitioners' claims. Appeals affirmed part reversed part, granting petitioners claims actions teacher-to-teacher discussion teacher use internal mail billboard facilities to discuss such were unconstitutional. After this summarily Appeals' judgment, filed instant application for an award attorney's fees 1988. held not "prevailing parties" within meaning 1988 thus ineligible any fee award, since, Fifth Circuit precedent, test prevailing party status was whether plaintiff prevailed central issue litigation acquiring primary relief sought. affirmed, ruling that, although had achieved success "significant secondary issues," they lawsuit—the constitutionality limiting organizations' access hours. Held: 1. lower courts' "central issue" determining party" is rejected favor a standard requiring only parties " 'succeed significant which achieves some benefit [they] sought bringing suit.' Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-279, quoted Hensley Eckerhart, 461 424, 433, 1933, 1939, 76 40. Pp. 788-793. (a) directly contrary thrust Hensley, supra, which, it did adopt one status, nevertheless indicated degree plaintiff's relation lawsuit's overall goals factor critical determination size reasonable fee, eligibility at all. also incongruous light clear congressional intent, as expressed 1988's legislative history, interim awards be available o partially civil plaintiffs. Congress cannot have meant depend entirely timing request: A must who has succeeded claim affording sought, either pendente lite conclusion litigation. Furthermore, search "central" "tangential" issues lawsuit, "primary" opposed "secondary" forces courts focus subjective intent parties, almost impossible determine; irrelevant prime purposes essentially unhelpful defining term party"; sure provoke prolonged disputes. 788-791. (b) crossed threshold kind if he she satisfies "some benefit" standard. Under standard, minimum, able point resolution dispute materially alters parties' legal relationship manner promote statute. Hewitt Helms, 482 755, 760, 107 2672, 2675-2676, 96 654. Where can characterized purely technical de minimis, court would justified concluding so insignificant insufficient support status. However, where been changed, goes reasonableness availability vel non. 791-793. 2. Petitioners are They litigation, altered communicate each other union activities. Moreover, obtained vindicating public employees workplace. served "private attorney general" role enacting P. 793. 837 190, (CA5 1988) remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Robert H. Chanin, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Earl Luna, Dallas, Tex., respondents. Justice O'CONNOR 1 We decide today proper "prevailed" action certain statutes eligible Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, This divided Courts both before after our decision 40 (1983). Eleventh Circuits require succeed achieve "primary sought" See, e.g., Simien San Antonio, 809 255, 258 1987); Martin Heckler, 773 1145, 1149 (CA11 1985) (en banc). Most Federal applied less demanding receive lawsuit qualify award. Gingras Lloyd, 740 210, 212 (CA2 1984); Lampher Zagel, 755 99, 102 (CA7 1985); Fast School Dist. Ladue, 728 1030, 1032-1033 (CA8 1984) banc); Lummi Indian Tribe Oltman, 720 1124, 1125 (CA9 1983); Nephew Aurora, 766 1464, 1466 (CA10 1985). In case, Appea concluded here Because conflicting views Appeals, because importance definition federal shifting statutes, we certiorari. 488 815, 51, 30 (1988). 2 * On 31, 1981, petitioners, Texas State Teachers Association, its affiliate Garland Education individual 1983 against Independent officials. Petitioners' complaint alleged rights. particular, focused attack Administrative Regulation 412, prohibits hours proscribes systems organizations. regulations do permit meet with, recruit, premises "upon request approval principal." Brief Respondents 4-5. 3 cross motions all found Perry Assn. Local Educators' Assn., 460 37, 948, 74 794 (1983), prohibitions themselves communication media constitutional. App. Pet. Cert. 55a-57a. policies unconstitutional prohibited promotion among Id., 46a, n. 13. As organizations, even officials interpreted prohibit speech, there no attempt enforce interpretation. speech promoting record but prohibition Ibid. find issue: requirement principal meetings representatives unconstitutionally vague guidelines limited discretion principal's grant deny campus. 58a. "minor significance," since evidence indicate ever denied nonschool 58a, 60a, 26. 4 appeal, Dist., 777 1046 (1985). agreed required allow foreclosed Perry. entry claim. 1050-1053. however, disagreed Court's analysis relating schoolday. It prohib tion activity 1054. distinct possibility discipline engaged schoolday, chilling effect Finally, allowed these personal messages kinds, shown disruptive educative mission. 1055. claims, motion judgment. appeal Court, Appeals. See 479 801, 41, 93 (1986). 5 then pursuant precedent 16a-20a. recognized "partial success," "[i]n circuit sought." 17a, quoting F.2d, 258. Looking "the background lawsuit" presented complaint, 19a. prevail issue, carried nor therefore precluded from recovering fees. 6 panel denying 190 majority noted Circuit's "definition 'prevailing party' narrower than appellate courts." 192. Applying here, while "did "main thrust" nonetheless desire gain campuses outside 192-193. Thus, test, correctly Judge Goldberg dissented. He argued inconsistent purpose decisions 193-197. now reverse II 7 amended, 1988, provides pertinent part: 8 "In proceeding provision sections 1982, 1985, 1986 title, title IX Public Law 92-318, VI 1964, court, discretion, may party, United States, costs." 9 dealt situati n much like us today. patients involuntarily confined mental hospital broad based challenge number institution's rules practices. five six general areas respondents challenged practices, conditions fell below those Constitution relief. requested "determined though every claim." 428, S.Ct., 1937. With exception, awarded entire "lodestar" figure, is, expended multiplied hourly rate. 10 clarify setting success." 431, 1938. At outset permissible until "statutory threshold" regard, "[a] typical formulation 'plaintiffs considered 278-279 (CA1 1978). went establish principles guide cases plaintiffs complete success. different facts theories, "[t]he limit [fee] requires unrelated treated raised separate lawsuits, services unsuccessful U.S., 435, 1940. more situation, arise out common core facts, involve related inquiry complex. obtained." 436, 1941. complex often identifying unlawful practices conditions," range possible vast," achievement alone "may say little about expenditure counsel's time achieved." should exercise equitable arrive attempting identify specific eliminated simply reducing account plaintiff. 437, Blanchard Bergeron, 87, 96, 939, 946, 67 (1989). 11 think Hensley. Although correct pointing does 12 Our consistent thi regard. clearly contemplated "where important matter course when ultimately issues." S.Rep. 94-1011, p.5 (1976); see H.R.Rep. 94-1558, p. (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 5908, 5912. discussing "has established his entitlement merits trial appeal." Hanrahan Hampton, 446 754, 757, 100 1987, 1989, 64 670 (1980). incongruence readily apparent. affirmance effectively ended what viewed suit, awarded. Yet, victory one, remanded further proceedings entitled successful fees: 13 Nor recommend viewpoint judicial administration provisions. By focusing litigants, asks question answer. Is disparate treatment Title VII reinstatement, backpay, injunctive relief? question, answer appears largely wholly behind provisions, promises mire entertaining applications two commentators described "excruciating." M. Schwartz J. Kirklin, Section Litigation: Claims, Defenses, 15.11, 348 Creating unstable deterring settlement disputes ensuring will spawn second dimension. sum, "primary," "secondary," golden fleece, distracts party." 14 language adequately captures made If "any achieve[d] suit," kind. Nadeau, 278-279. floor regard provided 654 (1987). there, "[r]espect ordinary least said prevail." S. t., 2675. changes between itself defendant. 760-761, 2675-2676; Rhodes Stewart, 3-4, 202, 203, Beyond absolute limitation, insignificant, near situations addressed Rhodes, For example, context hour conducted prior vague. "of minor significance" "no refused permission non-school hours." rendered them "generous formulation" satisfied. 279, 3; New York City Unemployed Welfare Council Brezenoff, 742 718, 724, Chicano Police Officer's Stover, 624 127, 131 1980) ("Nuisance settlements, course, give rise 'prevailing' plaintiff"). touchstone material alteration change occurred, III 15 Application enunciated above case hand difficult. Their remand Eckerhart. 16 ordered.

Category: 5