Court Opinion

ID: 9632826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:25:53.546633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:22.929409
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice,
dissenting in part, concurring in part.
The majority notes that the central issue here concerns the Commission's authority to award damages in a case of discrimination in a public accommodation. It goes on to conclude that because the Disco Management prevailed on this issue, appellees were not the prevailing party for the purpose of an award of fees under the Appellate Rules. I disagree with this conclusion.
The court has found the damages issue to be sufficiently severable from the others to justify holding for the Disco Management on the issue of the damages award and for appellees on the other issues: The Commission's treatment of the hearing officer's recommendation, including the finding that McDaniel had discriminated against complainants, the Commission's jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter, and appellants' claim for attorney's fees incurred in the administrative hearing. In my view these other issues were sufficiently significant to sustain the superior court's conclusion that appellees prevailed in this litigation, and I would therefore affirm the superior court's award of attorney's fees to the state.
I concur in the majority's resolution of all other issues raised in this appeal.