Opinion ID: 1353387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Tax Employee Case

Text: W.Va.Code, 29-6A-10 [1998], which applies to public employee grievances generally, but not to school board employee grievances, states: If an employee appeals to a circuit court an adverse decision of a hearing examiner rendered in a grievance proceeding pursuant to provisions of this article or is required to defend an appeal and the person substantially prevails, the adverse party or parties is liable to the employee, upon final judgment or order, for court costs, and for reasonable attorney's fees, to be set by the court, for representing the employee in all administrative hearings and before the circuit court and the supreme court of appeals, and is further liable to the employee for any court reporter's costs incurred during any administrative hearings or court proceedings: Provided, That in no event shall such attorney's fees be awarded in excess of a total of one thousand five hundred dollars for the administrative hearings and circuit court proceedings nor an additional one thousand dollars for supreme court proceedings: Provided, however, That the requirements of this section shall not be construed to limit the employee's right to recover reasonable attorney's fees in a mandamus proceeding brought under section nine of this article. (Emphasis added.) The appellants in the tax employee case argue that it is clear from the foregoing statutory language that the statutory caps of $1,500.00/1,000.00 are all-inclusive for all administrative hearings, circuit court, and supreme court proceedings in a grievance case, regardless of the number of employees in the casethat is, the appellants argue that the statutory fee caps apply per grievance, not per employee. [1] These appellants also argue that if the foregoing statutory language is not clear on this issue, and requires any construction, the applicable principle of construction should be that statutes in derogation of the common law should be given a strict and narrow constructionand that because West Virginia common law on attorney fees is the American Rule (parties are responsible only for their own attorney fees), the fee-shifting statute W.Va.Code, 29-6A-10[1998] should be strictly construed against a party claiming a right to receive an award of attorney fees. Finally, these appellants argue that in grievance cases involving multiple employees, there could be a potential windfall of unreasonably high fees to an attorney who is representing many employees, if the possibility exists that the attorney can receive fees in the amount of $1,500.00/1,000.00 per employee. Our review of the language of W.Va.Code, 29-6A-10 [1998] does not reveal the compelling clarityin their favorthat is asserted by these appellants. The statute does not authorize an award of attorney fees to a grievant (a term that may include multiple employees, see note 1.) Rather, in W.Va. Code, 29-6A-10 [1998], a fee award is authorized to be made to  an employeefor the work of an attorney representing  the employee. (Emphasis added). W.Va.Code, 29-6A-10 [1998] further states that the statutory fee caps apply to  such attorney fees; and the modifying term such refers directly back to  an  or  the  individual employee's attorney fees. (Emphasis added.) Thus, although not a model of clarity or certainty, W.Va.Code, 29-6A-10 [1998] can be quite plausibly read to apply the statutory fee caps to the reasonable attorney fees of each individual employee in a multiple-employee grievance proceeding. This construction permits the aggregation of the individual attorney fee limit in multiple-employee grievances, and authorizes the action taken by the circuit court in the instant case, the award of $10,500.00 in attorney fees (7 × $1,500.00). With respect to the appellants' contention that the circuit court's per employee interpretation could mean an undeserved windfall for an attorneyif, for example, a multi-employee grievance case has several hundred employeeswe note that W.Va.Code, 29-6A-10 [1998] does not automatically authorize an attorney fee award of $1,500.00/1,000.00 to each employee. W.Va.Code, 29-6A-10 [1998] clearly states that a total attorney fee award in a multiple-employee grievance fee award still must be justified as reasonableunder the standard this Court set out in Syllabus Point 4 of Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pitrolo, 176 W.Va. 190, 342 S.E.2d 156 (1986). [2] There is no dispute as to the reasonableness of the $10,500.00 fee award that was made by the circuit court in the tax employee case. Based on the foregoing reasoning, we hold that in a multiple-employee grievance proceeding to which W.Va.Code, 29-6A-10 [1998] applies, the statutory attorney fee award limits apply per employeethat is, to the attorney fees of each employeeand not per grievance. [3] The judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County in Case No. 31859 is therefore affirmed. B.