joyce v. town of dennis, ma, 1st cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Joyce v. Town of Dennis, MA, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/43

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 11- 1887, 11- 1928

ELAI NE J OYCE,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant / Cr oss- Appel l ee,

v.

TOWN OF DENNI S, ET AL. ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees/ Cr oss- Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS.[ Hon. Nat hani el M. Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eHoward, Ri ppl e, * and Li pez,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Laur a R. St uden, wi t h whomLawr ence P. Mur r ay, J ack S. Gear an,and Bur ns & Levi nson LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant / cr oss-appel l ee.

Leonard H. Kest en, wi t h whom Dei dre Br ennan Regan and Br ody,Har doon, Per ki ns & Kest en, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees/ cr oss-appel l ant s.

J onat han J . Mar gol i s, Rodger s, Power s & Schwar t z LLP, El l en J .Messi ng, J ames S. Wel i ky, and Messi ng, Rudavsky & Wel i ky, P. C. on

br i ef f or ami cus cur i ae Massachuset t s Empl oyment Lawyer sAssoci at i on.Anne L. J osephson, Kot i n, Cr abt r ee & St r ong, LLP, Sar ah

Wunsch, and ACLU of Massachuset t s on br i ef f or ami ci cur i aeAmer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on of Massachuset t s, Gay & Lesbi anAdvocat es & Def ender s, t he J ewi sh Al l i ance f or Law and Soci al

*Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/43

Act i on, t he Lawyer s' Commi t t ee f or Ci vi l Ri ght s and Economi cJ ust i ce, Massachuset t s Law Ref or m I nst i t ut e, and t he Nat i onalPol i ce Account abi l i t y Pr oj ect.

J une 17, 2013


3/43

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. I n May 2007, t hr ee days bef ore

pl ai nt i f f El ai ne J oyce ( "J oyce") expect ed t o pl ay gol f wi t h her

f ather i n a t our nament at a t own cour se i n Denni s, Massachuset t s,

J oyce' s f at her was t ol d he woul d have t o f i nd anot her par t ner

because women were not al l owed i n t hat "men' s" t our nament . The

Town Admi ni st r at or decl i ned t o r everse t he cour se of f i ci al s'

deci si on, and J oyce subsequent l y br ought f eder al and st at e cl ai ms

al l egi ng gender di scr i mi nat i on agai nst t he Town, t he gol f cour se,

and sever al i ndi vi dual s. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summar y

j udgment i n her f avor and t hereaf t er hel d a t r i al on damages. Thi s

appeal addr esses onl y t he nat ur e and ext ent of her r emedy. J oyce

cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n r ef usi ng t o i nst r uct t he

j ury on puni t i ve damages, denyi ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef , and awar di ng

at t or ney' s f ees i n an amount subst ant i al l y l ess t han her r equest .

The def endant s cl ai m t hat t he cour t er r ed i n concl udi ng t hat J oyce

was a pr evai l i ng par t y ent i t l ed t o any at t or ney' s f ees.

We f i nd no er r or i n t he cour t ' s t r eat ment of puni t i ve

damages, but must r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs on i nj unct i ve

r el i ef and at t or ney' s f ees. We r ej ect t he def endant s' cont ent i on

t hat t he cour t shoul d not have awarded any at t orney' s f ees and

i nst ead concl ude t hat t he cour t er r ed i n r educi ng t he r equest ed

awar d based on, i nt er al i a, J oyce' s r ej ect i on of a set t l ement

of f er . The di st r i ct cour t al so must r evi si t t he i ssue of

-3-


4/43

i nj unct i ve r el i ef and expl ai n i t s deci si on t o gr ant or r ef use such

r el i ef .

I.

We recount i n some det ai l t he ci r cumst ances under l yi ng

J oyce' s compl ai nt of gender di scr i mi nat i on, as wel l as t he

pr ocedur al hi st or y of t he case. Al t hough appel l ees do not

chal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng of l i abi l i t y, t he cour t ' s

r ul i ngs on puni t i ve damages, i nj unct i ve r el i ef , and at t or ney' s f ees

must be r evi ewed i n t he cont ext of t he l i t i gat i on as a whol e.

A. The Events at Dennis Pines

El ai ne J oyce i s an avi d and pr of i ci ent gol f er who si gned

up wi t h her f at her i n Apr i l 2007 t o pl ay i n a t our nament at t he

Denni s Pi nes Gol f Cour se t he f i r st weekend i n May. 1 The t our nament

was l i st ed on t he cour se schedul e as a men' s member s- onl y event .

Both J oyce and her f ather , Pat r i ck, are member s of t he cour se and,

i n t he f al l of 2006, had been assi gned a tee t i me f or a si mi l ar

t our nament t hat was r ai ned out . 2

On May 2, 2007 - - t hr ee days bef ore t he st ar t of t he

t our nament - - t he Town' s head gol f pr o, Russel l Champoux, cal l ed

Pat r i ck J oyce and t ol d hi m t hat t he Gol f Advi sor y Commi t t ee

1 Denni s Pi nes i s one of t wo publ i c gol f cour ses i n t he Townof Denni s.

2 J oyce t est i f i ed about t he 2006 event , but t her e i s nodocument ar y evi dence of ei t her t he J oyces' r egi st r at i on or t heci r cumst ances of t he t our nament ' s cancel l at i on.

-4-


5/43

( "GAC") , a vol unt eer gr oup r esponsi bl e f or cour se pol i cy, had

deci ded t hat hi s daught er coul d not pl ay i n t he Denni s Pi nes men' s

t our nament because of her gender . J oyce was never cont act ed

di r ect l y by Denni s Pi nes, but af t er her f at her r el ayed t he news t o

her , she sent an emai l t o the Town Admi ni st r ator , Rober t Canevazzi ,

seeki ng hi s hel p "t o make cer t ai n t hat t hi s di scr i mi nat or y pr act i ce

i s not condoned by t he Town of Denni s or any of i t s commi t t ees. "

I n her message, sent ear l y on May 3, J oyce asked Canevazzi t o "act

pr ompt l y t o get t he cur r ent deci si on r ever sed" so t hat she coul d

pl ay i n t he weekend t our nament . J oyce cont act ed Canevazzi because

she had had a si mi l ar exper i ence at a gol f cour se i n anot her t own.

Af t er a pr ol onged ef f or t t o per suade cl ub of f i ci al s i n t hat t own t o

al l ow her t o j oi n a men' s l eague, she was f i nal l y abl e t o secur e a

pol i cy change t hr ough t he t own admi ni st r ator .

Canevazzi r epl i ed t o J oyce l ater t he same day. He

r epor t ed t hat he had spoken t o Champoux and members of t he GAC, and

he had deci ded to uphol d J oyce' s excl usi on f r om t he t our nament

because changi ng t he r ul es so l ate "woul d not be f ai r t o t he 1600

pl us member s of t he Denni s Gol f Cour ses who may ei t her desi r e or

not desi r e t o pl ay i n such a t our nament . " I n addi t i on, he not ed

t hat t he Tour nament Commi t t ee ( a subcommi t t ee of t he GAC) had

sought t o schedul e more women' s t our nament s " t o al l ow great er

opport uni t i es f or women t o have such compet i t i ve event s. " He

st at ed t hat he di d not vi ew t he cl ub' s t our nament pol i ci es t o be

-5-


6/43

di scr i mi natory, but nonet hel ess had asked t he chai r man of t he GAC

t o i ncl ude di scussi on of t he cri t er i a f or t our nament par t i ci pat i on

at i t s May 14 meet i ng. Canevazzi di d not expr essl y i nvi t e J oyce t o

at t end t hat meet i ng, but he t ol d her i t s t i me and l ocat i on.

The GAC' s chai r man, J i m Hor vat h, sent J oyce an emai l on

May 4, i n whi ch he apol ogi zed f or "any conf usi on and i nconveni ence

t hat you encountered i n how you l ear ned about your non-

par t i ci pat i on i n t hi s weekend' s gol f event . " He expl ai ned t hat t he

GAC had vot ed i n December t o approve t he schedul e of t our nament s

set up by t he Tour nament Commi t t ee and the head gol f pr of essi onal .

He wr ote t hat , " [ t ] o me, i t was cl ear t hen t hat t her e wer e bal anced

opport uni t i es f or both men and women t o pl ay i n t he f i r st 3 event s

of t hi s year , " and not ed, " I t hi nk t hat i s st i l l t he case. " 3 He

cont i nued:

As chai r man of t he GAC, I wel come open

di scussi on on t hi s mat t er and have pl aced i ton t he May 14 Gol f Advi sor y Commi t t ee agenda( as Bob Canevazzi i ndi cat ed t o you yest er day) .The meet i ng i s at 5pm at Denni s Hi ghl ands. Ihope t hat you can at t end. Pl ease don' thesi t at e t o cont act me i n t he i nt er i m.

3 Denni s Pi nes' 2007 schedul e l i st ed f i ve men' s- onl y

t our nament s and two women' s- onl y t our nament s, f or a t otal of t enmen' s- onl y t our nament days and t wo women' s- onl y t our nament days.I n addi t i on, t here were seven t our nament s i n whi ch bot h men andwomen wer e schedul ed t o pl ay i n separ at e di vi si ons, f or a t ot al oft hi r t een days ( t wel ve f or women) . At l east one of t he t our nament si ncl uded a mi xed gender di vi si on, i n whi ch men and women pl ayedt oget her on t eams.

-6-


7/43

Hor vat h t hen t hanked J oyce " f or br i ngi ng t hi s i ssue t o our

at t ent i on. "

J oyce di d not cont act Hor vat h or at t end t he May 14

meet i ng. At t hat meet i ng, t he GAC voted t o ask the Tournament

Commi t t ee t o make a recommendat i on on t he gender - based t our nament

pol i cy and r epor t back t o t he GAC "as soon as possi bl e. " At i t s

next meet i ng, on J une 11, t he GAC accept ed t he Tour nament

Commi t t ee' s r ecommendat i on t hat no changes be made t o t he 2007

schedul e and t hat , begi nni ng i n 2008, every t our nament woul d have

a women' s f i el d. 4 Cr eat i ng separ at e di vi si ons was consi st ent wi t h

t he opi ni on of Town Counsel as r eport ed by Canevazzi at t he

meet i ng. Accordi ng t o Canevazzi , counsel had expr essed "al arm[ ] "

t hat t he cour se pol i cy "coul d be per cei ved as di scr i mi nat or y" and

st ated that " i t must be made more gender - neut r al of f er i ng more

women[ ' s] di vi si ons wi t hi n t he Tour nament s. " But Champoux, t he

cl ub pr o, obser ved at t he meet i ng that t he change woul d not r esol ve

J oyce' s compl ai nt , whi ch st emmed f r om her desi r e t o pl ay wi t h t he

men - - and not i n a par al l el di vi si on f or women. At t he GAC' s J ul y

meet i ng, t he "Gender Based Pol i cy" i ssue was t abl ed because "no

addi t i onal i nf or mat i on ha[ d] been r ecei ved. "

4 The meet i ng mi nut es i ndi cat e t hat t he Tournament Commi t t eeat t hat t i me had an equal number of men and women. Hor vat ht est i f i ed i n 2011 t hat i t had seven member s, f our of whom wer ewomen.

-7-


8/43

B. The Administrative Complaint and Aftermath

Frust r at ed by t he r esponse t o her concer ns, J oyce f i l ed

a pr o se compl ai nt i n J ul y 2007 wi t h t he Massachuset t s Commi ssi on

Agai nst Di scr i mi nat i on ( "MCAD") agai nst t he Town of Denni s and

Canevazzi . Af t er t he f i l i ng, an at t or ney r epr esent i ng t he Town,

Kr i st i n Har r i s, cal l ed J oyce t wi ce and l ef t messages aski ng her t o

cal l t o di scuss t he di sput e. J oyce di d not r espond. She al so di d

not r espond t o a l et t er Har r i s sent her r ef er enci ng t he MCAD' s

medi at i on pr ocess, t hough J oyce asked t he Commi ss i on i f she was

obl i ged t o t al k t o t he Town and was advi sed t o wai t unt i l t he Town

f i l ed i t s posi t i on st at ement . 5

The GAC agai n act ed on t he gender pol i cy at i t s Oct ober

2007 meet i ng. Af t er Horvat h r eport ed t hat t he Uni t ed St ates

Gol f i ng Associ at i on ( "USGA") al l ows women t o pl ay i n al l event s "as

l ong as t hey pl ay exact l y t he same as a man, " t he GAC voted

unani mousl y t o i nst r uct t he Tour nament Commi t t ee t o f ol l ow t he USGA

r ul es f or al l 2008 t our nament s. Thi s was t he t our nament pol i cy

t hat J oyce or i gi nal l y had sought , al l owi ng women t o pl ay al ongsi de

men. 6 Al t hough no gener al announcement of t he change i n pol i cy was

5 Canevazzi t est i f i ed t hat af t er r ecei vi ng t he MCAD compl ai nthe i nst r uct ed t he Town' s at t or ney to t r y t o schedul e medi at i on,

whi ch he underst ood t o be t he MCAD' s r ecommendat i on.

6 J oyce asser t s t hat no change i n pol i cy i n f act was adopt edi n Oct ober 2007, but t he r ecor d does not suppor t t hat cont ent i on.We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he r ecor d, consi st i ng ofdeposi t i on and t r i al t est i mony and exhi bi t s, can onl y reasonabl y ber ead t o show t hat t he GAC at i t s Oct ober 22 meet i ng "f ormal l y

-8-


9/43

communi cat ed t o member s, 7 t he 2008 Tour nament I nf ormat i on Packet

i ncl uded a st at ement ( whi ch di d not appear i n t he 2007 Packet )

advi si ng t hat "[ a] l l t our nament s wi l l f ol l ow USGA gui del i nes f or

par t i ci pat i on. " 8 Canevazzi acknowl edged t hat he woul d not have

under st ood f r om t hat st atement t hat a change i n gender pol i cy had

occur r ed, al t hough - - i n anot her r evi si on of t he 2007 Packet - - t he

2008 t our nament schedul e el i mi nated t he gender l abel s i n the

l i st i ngs of member s- onl y t our nament s.

The Town f i l ed i t s MCAD posi t i on st at ement on November 2,

2007, wi t hout ment i oni ng t he Oct ober vot e. Canevazzi , who si gned

t he document , t est i f i ed t hat t he st at ement had been pr epared weeks

ear l i er , and he had f ai l ed t o r eal i ze t hat i t di d not r ef l ect t he

Oct ober meet i ng when he si gned i t . The MCAD st at ement deni ed t hat

t he f act s showed "di scr i mi nat i on of any ki nd, " and not ed t hat "once

agr eed t o al l ow women t o pl ay i n men' s t our nament s, as J oyce hador i gi nal l y r equest ed. " J oyce v. Town of Denni s, 705 F. Supp. 2d74, 79 ( D. Mass. 2010) ; see al so J oyce v. Town of Denni s, 802 F.Supp. 2d 285, 290 ( D. Mass. 2011) ( not i ng t hat def endant s changedt he t our nament pol i cy bef or e J oyce f i l ed her compl ai nt ) .

7 Er i c Oman, GAC chai r i n Oct ober 2007, t est i f i ed about anemai l announcement sent by t he assi st ant di r ect or of gol f i n Apr i l2008 t o some member s of t he Town' s gol f cl ubs " r est at [ i ng] t hechange i n pol i cy adopt ed by t he Town of Denni s gol f cour ses onOct ober 22, 2007. " The announcement st ated t hat " [ a] l l men' s gol ft our nament s ar e open t o women compet i t ors. " J oyce t est i f i ed t hat

t he announcement al so was post ed on t he "men' s bul l et i n boar d" and,at l east as of 2009, on " t he websi t e" - - whi ch we pr esume t o meant h e D e n n i s G o l f w e b s i t e . S e eht t p: / / www. denni sgol f . com/ gui del i nes. php.

8 The st at ement was added, i n bol d t ype, at t he t op of a l i stof "Gener al Tour nament I nf ormat i on. "

-9-


10/43

t he Compl ai nant ' s concern was brought t o t he Respondent s'

at t ent i on, t he Respondent s[ ] i mmedi atel y eval uated t he t our nament

schedul e wi t h the Gol f Advi sor y Commi t t ee and agr eed to modi f y t he

schedul e, such t hat al l t our nament s woul d i ncl ude a men' s and

women' s di vi si on begi nni ng i n 2008. "

J oyce t hen hi r ed an at t or ney, who f i l ed a r ebut t al t o t he

def endant s' st at ement i n ear l y J anuar y 2008. Af t er r ecei vi ng t he

r ebut t al , Har r i s, t he Town' s at t or ney, pl aced a cal l t o J oyce' s

at t or ney and l ef t a message request i ng an oppor t uni t y t o di scuss

t he mat t er . J oyce' s at t or ney l at er r epor t ed t hat she was unawar e

of t hat message.

C. The Litigation

On Febr uar y 15, 2008, J oyce f i l ed a compl ai nt i n f eder al

cour t agai nst t he Town, i t s gol f cour ses, Canevazzi , and t hr ee

cour se pr of essi onal s, 9 al l egi ng, i nt er al i a, gender di scr i mi nat i on

under f eder al and st at e l aw. 10 A medi a r el at i ons consul t ant hi r ed

by J oyce' s counsel not i f i ed t he news medi a of t he l awsui t , whi ch

was f i l ed on t he Fr i day bef ore a t hr ee- day hol i day weekend. The

sui t qui ckl y gener at ed nat i onal publ i ci t y, i ncl udi ng an ar t i cl e i n

The New Yor k Ti mes on February 19. See Mar ci a Chambers, Bar r ed

9 The thr ee wer e Denni s Penner , Gol f Di r ect or dur i ng part of2007; Mi chael Cummi ngs, t he Head Gol f Cour se Super i nt endent at t het i me t he compl ai nt was f i l ed; and Champoux, t he Head Gol fPr of essi onal .

10 By t hi s t i me, J oyce had wi t hdr awn her MCAD compl ai nt .

-10-


11/43

From Men' s- Onl y Event , Woman Sues Publ i c Gol f Cl ub,

ht t p: / / www. nyt i mes. com/ 2008/ 02/ 19/ spor t s/ gol f / 19l i nks. ht ml ?_r =0.

The ar t i cl e r epor t ed t hat nei t her Canevazz i nor Har r i s r et urned t he

r epor t er ' s phone cal l s on Febr uar y 18, whi ch was t he Pr esi dent s'

Day hol i day. 11

A f ew days l at er , an at t or ney f or t he Town cal l ed J oyce' s

at t or ney and not ed t hat , as a r esul t of t he GAC vot e the pr evi ous

Oct ober , J oyce coul d pl ay gol f at Denni s Pi nes whenever and wi t h

whomever she chose. I n a f ol l ow- up l et t er i n mi d- March, def ense

counsel suggest ed t r yi ng " t o r esol ve t hi s mat t er i n t he best

i nt er est s of our cl i ent s" and st at ed t hat t he Town was " pr epar ed t o

not i f y al l member s expl i ci t l y t hat women ar e wel come t o pl ay i n al l

event s, as l ong as t hey pl ay f r om t he same t ees as t he ot her

compet i t ors and have t hei r handi caps adj ust ed accor di ngl y. " The

l et t er sol i ci t ed r eact i on f r omJ oyce and her at t or ney on t he Town' s

pr oposal s. Def ense counsel al so pl edged t o i nvest i gat e J oyce' s

al l egat i on t hat she had been i nt i mi dated by "def endant s and other

mal e member s" when pl ayi ng at Denni s Pi nes af t er l odgi ng her MCAD

compl ai nt , st at i ng t hat " [ m] y cl i ent s and I want t o ensur e that Ms.

J oyce has a pl easant exper i ence par t i ci pat i ng i n al l gol f i ng event s

11Oman, by t hen t he GAC Chai r , t est i f i ed t hat he l earned aboutt he l awsui t f r om "phone messages l ef t at [ hi s] pl ace of busi nessf r om var i ous TV st at i ons, newspaper s, t al k- show host s t hr oughoutt he count r y r egardi ng want i ng st at ement s about t he pendi ngl awsui t . "

-11-


12/43

i n t he Town of Denni s. " J oyce' s counsel ' s l engt hy r esponse, dat ed

Mar ch 31, concl uded as f ol l ows:

[ N] ei t her Ms. J oyce nor t he Cl ub member shi phas r ecei ved a cl ear and unequi vocal st at ement

agai nst gender di scr i mi nat i on, and t heaf f i r mat i ve dut y i s upon t he Def endant s t opr opose a pl an t hat addr esses t he i ssues t hatwi l l ot her wi se be sought i n a cour t or der edper manent i nj unct i on. Be assur ed t hat Ms.J oyce i nt ends t o pur sue her damages, i ncl udi ngpuni t i ve damages. I f t he Def endant s wi sh t omake a set t l ement pr oposal at t hi s j unct ur e i tmay be pr udent gi ven t hat t he at t orneys' f eescont i nue t o escal at e, and t hese ar e al sor ecoverabl e by Ms. J oyce. Once we haver ecei ved your answer , I woul d l i ke t o schedul edeposi t i ons.

Def endant s f i l ed t hei r answer t o t he compl ai nt on May 28,

2008, and t he l i t i gat i on pr oceeded.

D. The District Court's Decision on the Merits

I n March 2010, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summary

j udgment f or J oyce agai nst t he Town and i t s gol f cour ses on her

f eder al equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m, br ought under 42 U. S. C. 1983, but

gr ant ed j udgment f or t he i ndi vi dual def endant s on t hat cl ai m.

J oyce v. Town of Denni s, 705 F. Supp. 2d 74, 81 ( D. Mass. 2010) .

The cour t not ed t hat t he t ournament pol i cy excl udi ng women f r om

cer t ai n event s expr essl y di scr i mi nated based on gender , and t her eby

est abl i shed a suspect cl assi f i cat i on t hat r equi r ed j ust i f i cat i on.

The def endant s di d not meet t hat r equi r ement , t he cour t hel d,

havi ng at t empt ed t o do so wi t h a si ngl e "concl usor y st atement " :

"[ T] he def endant s of f er t hat t he j ust i f i cat i on f or t he men' s onl y

-12-


13/43

t our nament s i s t he exi st ence i t sel f of equal oppor t uni t y f or women

gol f ers i n t erms of t he women' s onl y t our nament s and t he mi xed

gender t our nament s. " I d. at 80 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

The cour t f ur t her st at ed:

I ndeed, [ def endant s' st at ement ] i s not aj ust i f i cat i on at al l but a r ei t er at i on of t hequest i on al r eady answer ed ( i . e. , whet her t het r eat ment of women was unequal ) . . . . Nor ,f or t hat mat t er , i s an exceedi ngl y per suasi vej ust i f i cat i on as obvi ous wi t h r espect t o t hegame of gol f as opposed to f oot bal l or someot her cont act spor t . I n any event , t he bur denl i es wi t h t he def endant s, not t he Cour t , andt hey have not met i t here.

I d. The cour t emphasi zed, however , t hat " t he hol di ng i n t hi s case

r esul t s f r om def endant s' f ai l ur e t o advance a per suasi ve

j ust i f i cat i on f or t hei r act s, not necessar i l y because no such

j ust i f i cat i on exi st s. " I d. at 82.

The cour t t hus t ook pai ns t o l i mi t i t s f i ndi ng of

unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on under f eder al l aw. Fol l owi ng t he st at ementabove, t he cour t cont i nued as f ol l ows i n a f oot not e:

To t hat end, t he Cour t car ef ul l y l i mi t si t s hol di ng t o t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case.What i s cri t i cal her e i s t hat t he bur den l i eswi t h t he def endant s t o j ust i f y t hei r conductand t hey have not done so. Thi s deci si on doesnot r equi r e al l publ i c gol f cour ses t o haveal l mi xed- gender t our nament s. I nst ead, i test abl i shes t hat when t he def endant s draw a

cl ear di st i nct i on based upon gender and t hei ronl y expl anat i on i s t o deny t hat anydi st i nct i on exi st ed, t hey wi l l not pr evai l .

I d. at 82 n. 1.

-13-


14/43

The cour t al so r ul ed f or J oyce agai nst al l def endant s on

her st ate l aw gender di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, see Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.

ch. 272, 92A, 98, 12 and gr ant ed j udgment f or t he def endant s on

a st ate l aw consumer pr otect i on cl ai m, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.

The cour t r eached t hree si gni f i cant concl usi ons about

Massachuset t s publ i c accommodat i ons l aw: ( 1) t her e i s no "' separ at e

but equal ' except i on t o t he st at ut e' s ot her wi se cl ear pr ohi bi t i on

of gender di st i nct i ons or di scr i mi nat i on, " 705 F. Supp. 2d at 84,

and, hence, ( 2) t he pl ai nt i f f does not bear t he bur den t o show

di f f er ent i al t r eat ment ; and ( 3) a t our nament at a publ i c gol f

cour se i s a publ i c accommodat i ons. I d. 13

12 Sect i on 98 pr ohi bi t s "any di st i nct i on, di scri mi nat i on orr est r i ct i on" on account of gender i n "any pl ace of publ i caccommodat i on, r esor t or amusement , " and f ur t her st ates, i n part :

Al l per sons shal l have t he r i ght t o t he f ul l and equalaccommodat i ons, advant ages, f aci l i t i es and pr i vi l eges of

any pl ace of publ i c accommodat i on . . . subj ect onl y t ot he condi t i ons and l i mi t at i ons est abl i shed by l aw andappl i cabl e t o al l per sons.

Sect i on 92A def i nes " [ a] pl ace of publ i c accommodat i on" t o i ncl ude"any pl ace . . . whi ch i s open t o and accept s or sol i ci t s t hepat r onage of t he gener al publ i c. "

13 Techni cal l y, i n r ej ect i ng t he def endant s' ar gument t hat t heMay 2007 t our nament was a "non- publ i c encl ave" wi t hi n the gol fcour se, t he cour t hel d onl y t hat t he speci f i c t our nament at i ssuehere was a publ i c accommodat i on. See J oyce, 705 F. Supp. 2d at 84.

Def endant s' argument , however , swept more broadl y. They not ed t hat" [ a] publ i c accommodat i on can have a non- publ i c encl ave, " andst at ed t hat " t he hol di ng of a non- publ i c event i n an ot her wi sepubl i c f or um cr eat es a pr i vat e encl ave, and t akes t he event out oft he scope of bei ng a pl ace of ' publ i c accommodat i on. ' " Def s. ' Mem.i n Opp' n t o Pl . ' s Mot . f or Par t i al Summ. J . and i n Supp. of Def s. 'Cr oss- Mot . f or Summ. J . , at 10. Def endant s r el i ed on t hese

-14-


15/43

The cour t t hus hel d t hat t he def endant s had vi ol at ed

J oyce' s r i ght t o equal prot ect i on under f eder al l aw when t hey

excl uded her f r om t he men' s onl y t our nament i n May 2007 and, i n

ef f ect , r ul ed t hat women may not be barr ed f r omsi mi l ar t our nament s

on t he basi s of gender wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on. As descr i bed above,

t he cour t al so hel d t hat t he def endant s unl awf ul l y di scr i mi nat ed

agai nst J oyce under Massachuset t s l aw.

The cour t l ef t f or t he j ur y t he deter mi nat i on of J oyce' s

damages.

E. Damages, Fees and Injunctive Relief

I n J anuar y 2011, i n advance of t he damages t r i al , t he

di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat J oyce coul d r ecover at t or ney' s f ees under

bot h f eder al and st at e l aw. The cour t del ayed set t i ng an amount

unt i l af t er t he damages ver di ct , however , because i t vi ewed " t he

degr ee of success obt ai ned" as " [ a] maj or f act or " i n det er mi ni ng a

r easonabl e f ee. J oyce v. Town of Denni s, 770 F. Supp. 2d 424, 427

( D. Mass. 2011) . At t he same t i me, t he cour t r ej ect ed J oyce' s

r equest t hat t he j ur y be i nst r uct ed on puni t i ve damages. The cour t

pr i nci pl es i n asser t i ng t hat , because Denni s Pi nes di d not al l owt he publ i c t o use t he gol f cour se dur i ng members- onl y tour namentweekends, and t our nament par t i ci pant s had t o meet cer t ai nqual i f i cat i ons, " t he gol f t our nament s t hus wer e not a pl ace of

' publ i c accommodat i on. ' " I d. at 10- 11; see al so i d. at 11( " [ D] ur i ng such t our nament s, t he gol f cour se was not a pl ace ofpubl i c accommodat i on. " ) .

Gi ven t hese ar gument s, t he cour t ' s r ul i ng sur el y const i t ut espr ecedent f or t he gener al pr oposi t i on t hat , absent some r eason f oran except i on, t our nament s at publ i c gol f cour ses are publ i caccommodat i ons.

-15-


16/43

expl ai ned t hat an i nst r uct i on on puni t i ve damages " woul d be

i nappr opr i at e because ther e i s no evi dence of ' evi l mot i ve or

i nt ent ' or awar eness of a r i sk that t he [ gol f cour se] r ul es wer e i n

vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw. " I d. at 428.

I n Febr uar y 2011, t he def endant s of f er ed J oyce a

set t l ement of $35, 001, i ncl usi ve of cost s and at t or ney' s f ees. She

di d not r espond, and a j ur y subsequent l y awarded her $15, 000 i n

compensat or y damages. 14 Fol l owi ng t he ver di ct , J oyce r equest ed mor e

t han $170, 000 i n at t or ney' s f ees and cost s under st at e l aw, see

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 151B, 9, as wel l as an i nj unct i on

or der i ng t he def endant s, i nt er al i a, t o adopt a pol i cy bar r i ng

gender - based di scr i mi nat i on. I n a r ul i ng i ssued on J une 30, 2011,

t he di st r i ct cour t awar ded $30, 000 i n at t or ney' s f ees, and $4, 600

i n cost s. The cour t deni ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef .

On at t or ney' s f ees, t he di st r i ct cour t endor sed t he

def endant s' cont ent i on that any awar d of f ees woul d be unj ust i n

t he ci r cumst ances of t he case, but i t nonet hel ess concl uded t hat

J oyce was ent i t l ed t o "modest " f ees as t he prevai l i ng par t y. J oyce

v. Town of Denni s, 802 F. Supp. 2d 285, 288 ( D. Mass. 2011) . Among

t he f act or s ci t ed by the cour t t o suppor t t he shar pl y r educed awar d

was t he r ej ect i on of what t he cour t consi der ed a reasonabl e

set t l ement of f er . Al t hough t he cour t acknowl edged t hat t he

14 Af t er bot h si des pr esent ed t hei r evi dence, t he cour tdecl i ned t o change i t s r ul i ng on puni t i ve damages.

-16-


17/43

def endant s shar ed t he bl ame f or pr ol ongi ng t he case, i t consi der ed

J oyce and her counsel as pr i mar i l y r esponsi bl e f or t he l engt h of

t he pr oceedi ngs. The cour t t hus f ound i t " f ai r and r easonabl e" t o

subst ant i al l y r educe pl ai nt i f f ' s request ed f ee awar d. I d. at 291.

On appeal , J oyce chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

at t or ney' s f ee awar d and al so cl ai ms er r or i n t he cour t ' s handl i ng

of puni t i ve damages and i nj unct i ve r el i ef . 15 The def endant s f i l ed

a cr oss- appeal asser t i ng t hat t he cour t er r ed i n awar di ng any

at t or ney' s f ees.

II.

J oyce ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mproper l y r ef used

t o gi ve a puni t i ve damages i nst r uct i on. We r evi ew de novo whether

t he evi dence was suf f i ci ent t o war r ant such an i nst r uct i on. See

McDonough v. Ci t y of Qui ncy, 452 F. 3d 8, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Under Massachuset t s l aw, puni t i ve damages may be awar ded

i n t he cont ext of a di scri mi nat i on cl ai m "onl y wher e t he

def endant ' s conduct i s out r ageous or egr egi ous. " Haddad v. Wal -

Mar t St or es, I nc. , 914 N. E. 2d 59, 75 ( Mass. 2009) ; see al so Mass.

Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 151B, 9 ( st at i ng t he avai l abi l i t y of puni t i ve

damages f or di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms) . 16 Such an award " r equi r es a

15 Al t hough t hi s appeal i s brought by t he Town, t he gol fcour ses, and t he i ndi vi dual def endant s, we at t i mes r ef er t o " t heTown" t o si gni f y al l appel l ees.

16 The Massachuset t s publ i c accommodat i on provi si ons have beeni nt egr at ed i nt o t he ant i - di scr i mi nat i on scheme gover ned by chapt er151B, and t he same r emedi al pr ovi si ons appl y. See Cur r i er v. Nat ' l

-17-


18/43

hei ght ened f i ndi ng beyond mer e l i abi l i t y and al so beyond a knowi ng

vi ol at i on of t he st at ut e. " Haddad, 914 N. E. 2d at 75. Det er mi ni ng

whet her puni t i ve damages ar e warr ant ed requi r es consi der at i on of

"al l of t he f act ors sur r oundi ng t he wr ongf ul conduct , " whi ch may

i ncl ude whet her t her e was " a consci ous or pur posef ul ef f or t t o

demean or di mi ni sh t he cl ass of whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f i s a par t , "

whet her t he def endant r eckl essl y di sr egar ded the l i kel i hood of

ser i ous har m, t he nat ur e of " t he def endant ' s conduct af t er l ear ni ng

t hat t he i ni t i al conduct woul d l i kel y cause har m, " and " t he act ual

harm t o t he pl ai nt i f f . " I d.

I n r ej ect i ng t he i nst r uct i on i n i t s J anuar y 2011 pr e-

t r i al r ul i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved t hat gender separ at i on i n

spor t s had been uphel d by f eder al cour t s, and i t poi nt ed t o t he

pol i cy change made by t he GAC i n Oct ober 2007, bef ore the l awsui t

was f i l ed, t o al l ow women t o pl ay wi t h men, not onl y i n separate

di vi si ons, but i n al l t our nament s star t i ng i n 2008. I t al so ci t ed

t he def endant s' i nvi t at i on t o J oyce t o par t i ci pat e i n di scussi ons

about changi ng t he r ul es. The cour t concl uded t hat t he def endant s'

"r api d and consi der ed r esponse t o the pl ai nt i f f ' s compl ai nt "

f or ecl osed a j ur y f i ndi ng t hat puni t i ve damages wer e j ust i f i ed.

Bd. of Med. Exam' r s, 965 N. E. 2d 829, 842 ( Mass. 2012) . J oycesought puni t i ve damages under chapter 151B, and we accor di ngl yanal yze t hi s i ssue sol el y as a mat t er of st at e l aw. I ndeed, t heonl y def endant agai nst whom J oyce pr evai l ed on her f eder al cl ai munder sect i on 1983 was t he Town, whi ch i s i mmune f r om puni t i vedamages under f eder al l aw. See Ci t y of Newport v. Fact Concert s,I nc. , 453 U. S. 247, 271 ( 1981) .

-18-


19/43

J oyce, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 428. As not ed above, t he cour t

r eaf f i r med t hat deci si on af t er hear i ng the evi dence pr esent ed at

t r i al .

We det ect no er r or i n t he di str i ct cour t ' s rul i ng. I t i s

of cour se undi sput ed at t hi s poi nt i n t he l i t i gat i on t hat t he

def endant s act ed i mpr oper l y. The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t hey

unl awf ul l y di scr i mi nat ed on t he basi s of gender when t hey ref used

t o l et J oyce pl ay i n t he May 2007 t our nament . A j ur y r easonabl y

coul d have concl uded as wel l t hat t he GAC act ed i ndef ensi bl y when

i t chose t o del ay i mpl ement i ng i t s newl y adopt ed t our nament

pol i ci es unt i l 2008. Mor eover , t he f i r st change t hat was appr oved

- - t o add women' s di vi si ons i n t our nament s t hat pr evi ousl y wer e

desi gnat ed f or men onl y - - di d not el i mi nat e t he gender di spar i t y

chal l enged by J oyce. A j ur y al so coul d condemn t he def endant s'

f ai l ur e t o communi cat e t hei r new gender - neut r al pol i cy t o gol f cl ub

member s i n a cl ear and t i mel y way, and coul d i nf er f r om t hei r

gr udgi ng behavi or a r esi st ance t o t he change.

We must t ake i nt o account , however , "al l of t he f act or s

sur r oundi ng t he wr ongf ul conduct . " Haddad, 914 N. E. 2d at 75.

Though t he def endant s di d not i mmedi at el y change t hei r gender- based

t our nament pol i cy, t hey di d i mmedi at el y move t o r econsi der i t . As

a r esul t , t hey t ook act i on t o i ncrease gender equal i t y t wi ce wi t hi n

si x mont hs and ul t i mat el y adopt ed J oyce' s desi r ed pol i cy, mont hs

bef or e she f i l ed her l awsui t . I n so doi ng, t he GAC went beyond

-19-


20/43

what Town Counsel had t ol d Canevazzi was necessar y: "of f er i ng more

women[ ' s] di vi si ons wi t hi n t he Tour nament s. " I ndeed, J oyce

acknowl edged i n her summar y j udgment memor andum t hat t he Town' s

obl i gat i on t o al l ow women to pl ay i n a t our nament desi gnated as

"men' s onl y" appear ed t o be a quest i on of f i r st i mpr essi on. 17 I n

addi t i on, t he Town made repeated ef f or t s t o communi cate i nf ormal l y

wi t h J oyce and her at t orney; each cont act , however , was rebuf f ed. 18

Among t hose ef f or t s was an at t empt i n March 2008, shor t l y af t er

J oyce f i l ed sui t , t o sol i ci t J oyce' s r eact i on t o t he Town' s

pr oposed pl an t o not i f y al l gol f cl ub member s t hat "women are

wel come t o pl ay i n al l event s, as l ong as t hey pl ay f r om t he same

t ees as t he ot her compet i t or s. "

Vi ewed agai nst t he backdr op of t he act i ons t he def endant s

di d t ake i n r esponse t o J oyce' s obj ect i on t o t hei r gender pol i cy,

17 J oyce al so not ed i n her Response and Repl y Br i ef on appealt hat " t hi s case was t he f i r st case t o have di r ect l y addr essed t h[ e]i ssue" of women seeki ng to pl ay i n a men' s onl y t our nament at apubl i c gol f cour se. Br i ef at 4; see al so i d. at 18 ( not i ng t hat"none of t he cases ever addr essed t he i ssue of t he l awf ul ness ofsi ngl e sex tour nament s at a publ i c gol f cour se" ) .

18 We r ecogni ze that t he conf l i ct i n t hi s case began wi t h acommuni cat i ons gaf f e when Champoux, t he cl ub pr o, cal l ed onl yJ oyce' s f at her t o r epor t t he deci si on t hat she coul d not pl ay i nt he May 5 t our nament . Cer t ai nl y, cal l i ng onl y J oyce' s f at her was

obj ect i onabl e behavi or and di sr espect f ul t o J oyce as a member oft he cour se. Nonet hel ess, t he f ai l ur e t o not i f y bot h member s of at eam, wher e Champoux' s pur pose was i n part t o t el l t he el der J oycet hat he coul d sel ect a new part ner , cannot r easonabl y be vi ewed - -i n t he cont ext descr i bed above - - as suf f i ci ent l y "out r ageous oregr egi ous" t o suppor t an award of puni t i ve damages. Haddad, 914N. E. 2d at 75.

-20-


21/43

t hei r censur abl e conduct cannot pr oper l y be char act er i zed as " so

of f ensi ve t hat i t j ust i f i es puni shment and not mer el y

compensat i on. " I d. Al t hough t he def endant s arguabl y shoul d have

moved more qui ckl y and more t r anspar ent l y t o ef f ect uate a pol i cy

change - - r at her t han wai t i ng unt i l 2008 - - t hey demonst r at ed a

wi l l i ngness f r omt he out set t o addr ess J oyce' s concer n and conf or m

t o t he l aw. I n ar gui ng t o t he cont r ar y, J oyce r el i es heavi l y on

her asser t i on t hat t he GAC di d not i n f act vot e i n Oct ober 2007 t o

open al l men' s t our nament s t o women, a cont ent i on we have r ej ect ed

based on our r evi ew of t he r ecord. See supr a note 6. She al so

asser t s t hat t he def endant s had under st ood f or year s bef or e her

obj ect i on t hat t hei r t our nament pol i cy was di scr i mi nat or y, ci t i ng

mi nut es f r om a GAC meet i ng i n August 2005. Accor di ng t o t hose

mi nut es, a coupl e who spoke dur i ng a "Publ i c I nput " sessi on

obser ved t hat "t hi s bei ng 2005 i t was ver y di f f i cul t t o j ust i f y

hol di ng onl y ' Men' s' t our nament s and not i ncl udi ng women. " The

husband of t he coupl e al so not ed t hat hi s cl ub i n Lowel l al l owed

women t o pl ay i n any cl ub event "as i t i s di scr i mi nat or y to excl ude

women. "

Ther e i s mor e t o t hi s st or y, however . Bot h Hor vat h, t he

GAC chai r i n 2005, and Oman, hi s successor , t est i f i ed t hat as a

r esul t of t he 2005 di scussi on more women' s t our nament s and women' s

di vi si ons wer e added t o t he schedul e. Unt i l J oyce chal l enged t he

gender r est r i ct i on on men' s- onl y tour nament s i n 2007, t her e was no

-21-


22/43

ot her compl ai nt . Par t i cul ar l y when vi ewed i n l i ght of t he advi ce

t he GAC l ater r ecei ved f r omTown Counsel , t he Commi t t ee' s r esponse

i n 2005 - - addi ng t our nament opport uni t i es f or women - - coul d have

been t hought suf f i ci ent t o meet t he concer n expr essed. 19 On t hi s

r ecor d, a j ur y coul d not r easonabl y concl ude t hat t he def endant s'

f ai l ur e t o open al l t our nament s t o women f ol l owi ng t he 2005

di scussi on est abl i shed "a consci ous or pur posef ul ef f or t t o demean

or di mi ni sh t he cl ass of whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f i s a par t " or any

ot her f act or j ust i f yi ng puni t i ve damages. Haddad, 914 N. E. 2d at

75.

We t hus f i nd no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o

i nst r uct t he j ur y on puni t i ve damages.

III.

J oyce' s pet i t i on f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef asked t he di st r i ct

cour t t o or der t he def endant s t o t ake f i ve act i ons: ( 1) i ssue an

19 I ndeed, i t appears t hat t he def endant s coul d have under st oodt hat unequal oppor t uni t i es f or t our nament pl ay r emai ned a f ocuseven af t er J oyce compl ai ned. As repor t ed i n t he mi nut es, J oyce' sf at her r ai sed t hat concern at t he GAC' s meet i ng on May 14, 2007,when t he Commi t t ee f i r st addr essed her compl ai nt :

Mr . Pat r i ck J oyce, f at her of El ai ne who had submi t t ed t hel et t er concer ni ng t he f act t hat she was not al l owed t opl ay i n t he men' s event st ated t hat he f el t t he men have

f ar mor e t our nament s t han t he women and i t was not anequal mi x of t our nament s.

Oman, t he GAC chai r af t er Hor vat h, al so t est i f i ed t hat Mr . J oyce"voi ced hi s concer ns and opi ni ons [ at t he meet i ng] t hat t hecommi t t ee shoul d have . . . equal t ournaments between men and womenand more oppor t uni t i es f or women t o pl ay. "

-22-


23/43

"af f i r mat i ve di r ect i ve" t hat pl ay at t he Denni s gol f cour ses wi l l

be based sol el y on qual i f i cat i on and gol f handi cap, not gender ; ( 2)

i ssue a di r ect i ve t hat , pur suant t o st at e and f eder al l aw, "t her e

shal l be no di st i ncti on, r est r i cti on or di scr i mi nat i on on t he basi s

of sex" ; ( 3) adopt r easonabl e st eps t o i nsur e t hat t he gol f cour ses

"mai nt ai n[ ] an envi r onment t hat i s nei t her uncomf or t abl e nor

emot i onal l y t axi ng f or Ms. J oyce" ; ( 4) adopt and di ssemi nat e a

wr i t t en pol i cy advi si ng gol f cour se member s t hat i t i s unl awf ul t o,

i nt er al i a, r et al i at e agai nst anyone f or suppor t i ng t he exer ci se of

pr ot ect ed r i ght s; and ( 5) conduct st af f t r ai ni ng sessi ons on gender

di scr i mi nat i on, i ncl udi ng t he obl i gat i on t o mai nt ai n a comf or t abl e

envi r onment f or al l gol f er s. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

pet i t i on wi t h l i t t l e comment , st at i ng onl y t hat t he def endant s had

"got t en the message" and that any f ut ur e conduct t o t he cont r ary

woul d be met wi t h severe sanct i ons.

I n asser t i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng

i nj unct i ve r el i ef , J oyce emphasi zes her vi ew t hat t he def endant s

had not changed t he t our nament r ul es by t he t i me she f i l ed her

l awsui t . Mor e f r ui t f ul l y, she al so compl ai ns t hat t he cour t f ai l ed

t o per f or m t he anal ysi s pr escr i bed by our pr ecedent f or assessi ng

t he need f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef . Under t hat f our - par t i nqui r y,

i nj unct i ve r el i ef may be or der ed wher e ( 1) t he pl ai nt i f f has

pr evai l ed on t he mer i t s, ( 2) t he pl ai nt i f f woul d suf f er i r r epar abl e

i nj ur y i n t he absence of i nj uncti ve r el i ef , ( 3) t he har m t o t he

-23-


24/43

pl ai nt i f f woul d out wei gh t he har m t o t he def endant s f r om an

i nj unct i on, and ( 4) t he i nj unct i on woul d not adver sel y af f ect t he

publ i c i nt er est . See Asoci aci n de Educaci n Pr i vada de P. R. , I nc.

v. Gar c a- Padi l l a, 490 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

We r evi ew deni al s of i nj unct i ve r el i ef f or abuse of

di scret i on, consi der i ng any under l yi ng l egal i ssues de novo.

Ani mal Wel f ar e I nst . v. Mar t i n, 623 F. 3d 19, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

Her e, t he absence of expl anat i on by t he di st r i ct cour t hamper s our

r evi ew. I t i s possi bl e t hat t he cour t concl uded t hat i nj unct i ve

r el i ef was unnecessary because t he def endant s had al r eady adopt ed

and di ssemi nat ed t he pol i cy t hat J oyce had demanded, gi vi ng her

equal access t o al l t our nament s f or whi ch she has t he r equi si t e

ski l l s. However , despi t e t he change i n t hei r t our nament pol i cy i n

Oct ober 2007, t he def endant s vi gor ousl y l i t i gat ed t he case, r ai si ng

var i ous l egal ar gument s i n assert i ng t hat t hey bor e no obl i gat i on

t o i ncl ude women i n men' s- onl y t our nament s. Thei r i ni t i al

di ssemi nat i on of t he Oct ober 2007 act i on was l i mi t ed and, i nsof ar

as t he change was present ed as an adopt i on of t he USGA gui del i nes,

l i kel y i nscr ut abl e t o many of Denni s Pi nes' member s. I n addi t i on,

t he host i l e r eact i on J oyce r ecei ved f r om some mal e member s af t er

she f i l ed her MCAD compl ai nt suggest s t hat di scr i mi nat or y behavi or s

may r emai n at Denni s Pi nes, not wi t hst andi ng t he change i n

t our nament pol i cy. The cour t ' s r ef er ence t o t he possi bi l i t y of

-24-


25/43

cont r ar y behavi or i n t he f ut ur e suggest s some doubt on i t s par t

about t he permanence and scope of t he def endant s' act i ons.

I f t he cour t i n f act was concer ned about gr udgi ng

compl i ance wi t h t he Oct ober 2007 pol i cy and t hus per cei ved a r i sk

of ongoi ng di scr i mi nat i on at t he Denni s gol f cour ses, i t s r ef usal

t o gr ant equi t abl e r el i ef woul d be l ess def ensi bl e because J oyce

easi l y sat i sf i es t hr ee of t he f our pr er equi si t es f or i nj unct i ve

r el i ef . She pr evai l ed on t he mer i t s, no appar ent har mwoul d bef al l

def endant s f r om di ssemi nat i ng and f ol l owi ng a pol i cy t hat t hey

al r eady have adopt ed, and bar r i ng di scr i mi nat i on woul d pl ai nl y have

no adver se i mpact on t he publ i c i nt er est . Mor eover , i t i s uncl ear

how sanct i ons coul d be i mposed i n the event of f ut ur e mi sconduct

absent i nj unct i ve r el i ef , unl ess J oyce or some ot her par t y f i l ed a

new l awsui t . J oyce shoul d not bear t he bur den of i ni t i at i ng

anot her act i on t o pr ot ect t he r i ght t o equal t r eat ment t hat she won

i n t hi s case.

Hence, t he key i ssue her e i n assessi ng t he need f or

i nj unct i ve r el i ef i s t he pr ospect of i r r epar abl e f ut ur e har m. We

have st at ed t hat , " [ t ] o be ent i t l ed t o a f or war d- l ooki ng r emedy, a

pl ai nt i f f must sat i sf y t he basi c requi si t es of equi t abl e r el i ef - -

' t he l i kel i hood of subst ant i al and i mmedi at e i r r epar abl e i nj ur y,

and t he i nadequacy of r emedi es at l aw. ' " St ei r v. Gi r l Scout s of

t he USA, 383 F. 3d 7, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( quot i ng O' Shea v.

Li t t l et on, 414 U. S. 488, 502 ( 1974) ) ; see al so Lopez v. Gar r i ga,

-25-


26/43

917 F. 2d 63, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( not i ng t hat "an i nj unct i on- seeker

must show ei t her t hat some past unl awf ul conduct has cont i nui ng

i mpact i nt o t he f ut ur e, or el se he must show a l i kel i hood of f ut ur e

unl awf ul conduct on t he def endant ' s par t " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . We

decl i ne t o uphol d t he di st r i ct cour t ' s rej ecti on of i nj uncti ve

r el i ef i n t he absence of i t s consi der ed eval uat i on of t hat f act or .

I t shoul d addr ess t hat def i ci ency i n i t s anal ysi s by conduct i ng on

r emand, on t he basi s of t he exi st i ng r ecor d, t he f our - f act or

i nqui r y set out by our pr ecedent . 20

IV.

Bot h par t i es chal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t ' s awar d of

$30, 000 i n at t or ney' s f ees. J oyce compl ai ns t hat t he cour t

consi der ed i mpr oper f act or s i n awar di ng l ess t han one- f our t h of t he

f ees t hat she r equest ed, and t he Town argues t hat t he cour t shoul d

not have awarded any f ees at al l . Bef ore addr essi ng t hese

cont ent i ons, we r evi ew t he per t i nent l egal pr i nci pl es and t he

di s t r i ct court ' s rul i ngs .

20 The di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat J oyce' s compl ai nt di d notr equest t he speci f i c t ypes of i nj unct i ve r el i ef t hat she l at ersought i n her pet i t i on and i nst ead r equest ed "onl y an Or derenj oi ni ng t he def endant s f r om di scr i mi nat i ng on t he basi s ofgender . " J oyce, 802 F. Supp. 2d at 292. The def endant s have ci t edno pr ecedent t hat woul d bar a pl ai nt i f f f r ommaki ng a mor e speci f i cr equest f or equi t abl e r el i ef af t er she has pr evai l ed on t he mer i t s.

-26-


27/43

A. Legal Framework

Al t hough J oyce pr evai l ed on bot h f eder al and st at e

di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms, she sought f ees onl y under Massachuset t s

l aw. The appl i cabl e f ee- shi f t i ng pr ovi si on st at es:

I f t he cour t f i nds f or t he pet i t i oner i tshal l , i n addi t i on t o any ot her r el i ef andi r r espect i ve of t he amount i n cont r over sy,awar d t he pet i t i oner r easonabl e at t or ney' sf ees and cost s unl ess speci al ci r cumst anceswoul d r ender such an award unj ust .

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 9. The amount of a r easonabl e f ee

under sect i on 9 i s "l ar gel y di scr et i onar y wi t h t he j udge. "

Font ai ne v. Ebt ec Corp. , 613 N. E. 2d 881, 890 ( Mass. 1993) . Hence,

our r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s awar d of f ees under t he

pr ovi si on i s f or l egal er r or or "mani f est abuse of di scr et i on. "

Di az v. J i t en Hot el Mgmt . , I nc. , 704 F. 3d 150, 153 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

I n eval uat i ng reasonabl eness, we may consi der both

f eder al and Massachuset t s pr ecedent , as " at t or ney' s f ees avai l abl ei n bot h f or a shoul d, f or t he most par t , be cal cul at ed i n a si mi l ar

manner . " Font ai ne, 613 N. E. 2d at 891. The Massachuset t s Supreme

J udi ci al Cour t ( "SJ C" ) has adopt ed t he " l odest ar " met hod commonl y

used by f eder al cour t s, obser vi ng t hat "[ a] f ai r mar ket r at e f or

t i me r easonabl y spent pr epar i ng and l i t i gat i ng a case i s t he basi c

measur e of a r easonabl e at t orney' s f ee under St at e l aw as wel l as

Feder al l aw. " I d. ; see al so Tor r es- Ri ver a v. O' Nei l l - Cancel , 524

F. 3d 331, 336 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( descr i bi ng t he l odest ar met hod of

"mul t i pl yi ng the number of hour s pr oduct i vel y spent by a reasonabl e

-27-


28/43

hour l y r at e" as t he t ypi cal st ar t i ng poi nt f or cal cul at i ng a f ee) .

The cal cul at i on may be adj ust ed up or down t o r ef l ect a var i et y of

f actor s:

I n determi ni ng t he amount of a r easonabl e f ee,we consi der " t he natur e of t he case and thei ssues pr esent ed, t he t i me and l abor r equi r ed,t he amount of damages i nvol ved, t he resul tobt ai ned, t he exper i ence, r eput at i on andabi l i t y of t he at t or ney, t he usual pr i cechar ged f or si mi l ar ser vi ces by ot herat t orneys i n t he same ar ea, and t he amount ofawar ds i n si mi l ar cases. "

Haddad v. Wal - Mart St ores, I nc. , 920 N. E. 2d 278, 281 ( Mass. 2010)

( Rescr i pt ) ( quot i ng Li nt hi cum v. Ar chambaul t , 398 N. E. 2d 482, 488

( Mass. 1979) , overr ul ed i n part on other gr ounds by Knapp Shoes,

I nc. v. Syl vani a Shoe Mf g. Corp. , 640 N. E. 2d 1101, 1104- 1105

( Mass. 1994) ) ; 21 see al so Tor r es- Ri ver a, 524 F. 3d at 336.

The Uni t ed St at es Supreme Cour t has i dent i f i ed " r esul t s

obt ai ned" as " a pr eemi nent consi der at i on i n the f ee- adj ust ment

pr ocess, " Cout i n v. Young & Rubi cam P. R. , I nc. , 124 F. 3d 331, 338

( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( ci t i ng Hensl ey v. Ecker har t , 461 U. S. 424, 432,

440 ( 1983) ) , but t hat f act or has mul t i pl e f acet s:

21 The Massachuset t s SJ C has not ed t hat t he l odest ar methodneed not be appl i ed as "a t wo- st ep appr oach of l odest ar andadj ust ment s, " whi ch i t descr i bed as "unnecessar i l y compl ex. "

St r at os v. Dep' t of Pub. Wel f ar e, 439 N. E. 2d 778, 786 ( Mass. 1982) .As t hat cour t poi nt ed out , some of t he "adj ust ment [ ] " f act or s arepr oper l y subsumed wi t hi n t he cal cul at i on of r easonabl e hour s andr at es. I d. The SJ C t hus concl uded t hat " f ai r mar ket r at es f ort i me r easonabl y spent shoul d be t he basi c measur e of r easonabl ef ees, and shoul d gover n unl ess t her e ar e speci al r easons t o depar tf r om t hem. " I d.

-28-


29/43

I t can r ef er t o a pl ai nt i f f ' s success cl ai mbycl ai m, or t o t he r el i ef act ual l y achi eved, ort o t he soci et al i mpor t ance of t he r i ght whi chhas been vi ndi cat ed, or t o al l of t hesemeasur es i n combi nat i on. We t hi nk t hat t hel ast meani ng i s t he best choi ce, and t hat , as

a consequence, al l t hr ee t ypes of " r esul t s"potent i al l y bear upon t he amount of an ensui ngf ee awar d.

I d. Consi st ent wi t h t hi s br oad not i on of t he l awsui t ' s out come,

Massachuset t s pr ecedent emphasi zes t he need t o consi der , i nt er

al i a, "t he i nt er est s t hat t he st at ut e i n quest i on i s desi gned t o

pr ot ect and t he publ i c i nt er est i n al l owi ng cl ai ms under t hat

st at ut e t o pr oceed wi t h competent counsel . " Haddad, 920 N. E. 2d at

281. Thus, "when a pl ai nt i f f ' s vi ct or y, al t hough ' de mi ni mi s as t o

t he ext ent of r el i ef [ , ] . . . r epr esent [ s] a si gni f i cant l egal

concl usi on servi ng an i mpor t ant publ i c pur pose, ' t he f ee awar d need

not be pr opor t i onate t o t he damages recovered. " Ki l l een v. West ban

Hotel Vent ur e, LP. , 872 N. E. 2d 731, 738 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2007)

( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( quot i ng D az- Ri ver a

v. Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 377 F. 3d 119, 125 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) ; see al so

De J ess Nazar i o v. Mor r i s Rodr guez, 554 F. 3d 196, 207 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ( not i ng Supr eme Cour t ' s r ej ect i on of t he pr oposi t i on t hat f ee

awards shoul d be propor t i onat e t o t he amount of damages r ecovered) .

I ndeed, sect i on 9' s expl i ci t st at ement t hat t he awar d of

f ees shal l be made " i r r espect i ve of t he amount i n cont r over sy"

conf i r ms t he l i mi t ed si gni f i cance of a pl ai nt i f f ' s modest monet ar y

success, i ncl udi ng when t he pl ai nt i f f had sought subst ant i al

-29-


30/43

damages. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 9; see al so Ol mst ead v.

Mur phy, 489 N. E. 2d 707, 709 ( Mass. App. Ct . 1986) ( "When t he publ i c

. . . has a par t i cul ar i nt er est i n t he vi ndi cat i on of a l egal

r i ght , t he mar ket val ue of l egal ser vi ces . . . shoul d not be

aut omat i cal l y di scount ed because t hat val ue i s hi gh i n r el at i on t o

t he amount r ecover ed. " ) . Mor eover , even " [ t ] he f act t hat . . . t he

sui t di d not conf er br oad benef i t s on t he publ i c[ ] shoul d not

r esul t aut omat i cal l y i n maj or r est r i ct i ons on compensabl e hour s. "

St r at os, 439 N. E. 2d at 787. At t he same t i me, however ,

"compensabl e hour s may be reduced i f t he t i me spent was whol l y

di spr opor t i onat e t o t he i nt er est s at st ake. " I d. at 786.

B. District Court's Rulings

The di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ngs on at t or ney' s f ees ar e

br i ef l y descr i bed i n t he pr ocedur al backgr ound sect i on of t hi s

opi ni on. For t he r eader ' s conveni ence, we r epr i se t hat backgr ound

her e, wi t h addi t i onal det ai l per t i nent t o our anal ysi s.

1. The Pre-Trial Ruling

I n J anuar y 2011, i n a wr i t t en deci si on i ssued bef or e t he

j ur y t ook up t he quest i on of compensat or y damages, t he di st r i ct

cour t r ul ed t hat i t woul d awar d J oyce " r easonabl e at t or ney' s f ees"

because she was a pr evai l i ng part y. J oyce, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 427.

The cour t r ej ect ed t he def endant s' ar gument t hat J oyce had not

pr evai l ed because t hey had changed t he t our nament r ul es bef ore her

sui t was f i l ed. Al t hough agr eei ng wi t h t he def endant s that J oyce' s

-30-


31/43

success was "ver y l i mi t ed and pyr r hi c i n nat ur e, " t he cour t hel d

t hat she was ent i t l ed t o f ees based on i t s f i ndi ng t hat she had

been a vi ct i m of di scri mi nat i on. I d. The cour t st at ed t hat "[ n] o

speci al ci r cumst ances whi ch woul d f or ecl ose t he awar d of f ees ar e

r eadi l y appar ent and t he def endant s do not r ai se any. " I d.

The cour t emphasi zed, however , t hat i t woul d l i nk t he

amount of f ees t o t he amount of compensat or y damages t o be awar ded

by t he j ur y, " i f any. " I d. The j udge expl ai ned t hat , "[ i ] f onl y

nomi nal or l i mi t ed damages ar e awarded, t he reasonabl e f ee wi l l be

cor r espondi ngl y l i mi t ed. " I d.

2. The Post-Trial Ruling

Af t er t he j ur y awarded J oyce $15, 000 i n compensat ory

damages, she sought r ei mbur sement f or $167, 855 i n at t orney' s f ees

and $4, 993 i n ot her cost s. The Town obj ect ed on t he gr ound t hat

t he amount sought was unr easonabl e and excessi ve, and i t agai n

assert ed t hat speci al ci r cumst ances r ender ed any award of f ees

unj ust . I n ar gui ng f or a f i ndi ng of speci al ci r cumst ances, t he

Town ci t ed J oyce' s l ast - mi nut e not i ce of her desi r e t o pl ay i n t he

May 2007 men' s t our nament and her f ai l ure t o engage wi t h the

def endant s about her concerns. 22

22 The def endant s speci f i cal l y not ed J oyce' s r ef usal t o at t endt he GAC meet i ngs at whi ch her compl ai nt was di scussed and herf ai l ur e t o r espond t o ei t her def ense counsel ' s phone cal l s or t heTown' s set t l ement of f er i n Febr uary 2011.

-31-


32/43

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t he def endant s'

ar gument s " compel l i ng, " i t concl uded t hat J oyce was ent i t l ed t o

"modest at t or ney' s f ees . . . commensur at e wi t h t he r esul t s she

obt ai ned and mi t i gat ed by t he f act or s pr esent i n t hi s case. "

J oyce, 802 F. Supp. 2d at 288. I n i t s anal ysi s, t he cour t

descr i bed t he degr ee of success obt ai ned as " [ t ] he ' most cr i t i cal

f act or ' i n det er mi ni ng t he r easonabl eness of a f ee. " I d. at 289

( quot i ng Far r ar v. Hobby, 506 U. S. 103, 114 ( 1992) ) . I t r ei t er at ed

i t s vi ew t hat J oyce had achi eved l i mi t ed r esul t s and st at ed t hat

t he l awsui t " coul d have easi l y been avoi ded or r esol ved wel l bef or e

t r i al . " I d. at 290. The cour t deemed t he r esul t s of t he l awsui t

"mi ni mal " because t he Town had changed i t s pol i cy f or 2008 bef ore

J oyce f i l ed sui t and because t he cour t had " l i mi t ed i t s summar y

j udgment r ul i ng t o t hi s case onl y. " I d. Agai nst t hi s backdr op,

t he cour t concl uded that " t he request ed f ee of more than t en t i mes

t he j ur y awar d i s excessi ve and unr easonabl e. " I d.

The cour t al so cr i t i ci zed t he pl ai nt i f f and her counsel

f or r ef usi ng t he def endant s' " r easonabl e" set t l ement of f er of

$35, 001, whi ch, i n t he cour t ' s vi ew, "obvi at ed t he need f or a j ur y

t r i al [ , ] whi ch al one account ed f or 60 hour s bi l l ed by pl ai nt i f f ' s

counsel . " I d. at 291. 23 The cour t i nvoked Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l

23 The cour t st at ed t hat "t he r ef usal by pl ai nt i f f ' s counselt o accept t he set t l ement of f er was unr easonabl e. " J oyce, 802 F.Supp. 2d at 291. We do not under st and t hi s st at ement as anasser t i on t hat counsel made t he set t l ement deci si on wi t houtconsul t i ng J oyce - - a vi ol at i on of et hi cal r ul es, see Mass. R.

-32-


33/43

Pr ocedur e 68, whi ch r equi r es a pl ai nt i f f who r ecover s l ess at t r i al

t han was of f er ed i n a f or mal pr e- t r i al set t l ement pr oposal t o pay

t he opposi ng par t y' s post - of f er cost s, see Fed. R. Ci v. P. 68( d) ,

and pr event s shi f t i ng of post - of f er at t or ney' s f ees and ot her

cost s, see Bogan v. Ci t y of Bost on, 489 F. 3d 417, 430 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) . The cour t not ed t hat Rul e 68 di d not t echni cal l y appl y, but

concl uded t hat i t s pur pose " t o pr omote set t l ement and avoi d t he

expense of t r i al " made i t r easonabl e t o awar d J oyce none of t he

cost s or f ees t hat accrued af t er t he def endant s' of f er on Febr uar y

4, 2011. 24 J oyce, 802 F. Supp. 2d at 291. The cour t observed t hat

i mposi ng on the def endant s t he f ul l bur den of t hi s " avoi dabl e

l i t i gat i on" woul d "encour age si mi l ar l y si t uat ed pl ai nt i f f s to

r ef use al l r easonabl e set t l ement of f er s and pr oceed t o t r i al . " I d.

at 292.

The cour t al so f ound t hat t he number of hour s cl ai med by

pl ai nt i f f ' s counsel was excessi ve f or t he case as a whol e and f or

Pr of . C. 1. 2( a) , 1. 4 - - but we i nst ead const r ue t he cour t ' sunf or t unat e phr asi ng t o ref l ect t he vi ew t hat counsel had advi sedJ oyce agai nst accept i ng t he of f er .

24 I t i s undi sput ed t hat t he def endant s made a f or mal of f erunder Rul e 68. The cour t pr esumabl y, and cor r ect l y, char act er i zedt he r ul e as i nappl i cabl e because, based on t he r ul i ng i t was about

t o i ssue, J oyce woul d be recover i ng an amount wel l i n excess of t he$35, 001 of f er , whi ch was i ncl usi ve of at t or ney' s f ees and cost s.She was awarded a t ot al of $49, 600: $15, 000 i n compensat orydamages, $30, 000 i n at t or ney' s f ees, and $4, 600 i n ot her cost s.See Bogan, 489 F. 3d at 431 ( st at i ng t hat t he cal cul at i on under Rul e68 " i ncl udes onl y t he j ur y awar d and t he pr e- of f er f ees and cost sactual l y awarded by t he cour t , " not t he amount r equest ed) .

-33-


34/43

par t i cul ar t asks, and i t specul at ed t hat "a si gni f i cant por t i on of

t he hour s enumerat ed r el at e t o t he bi cker i ng between counsel over

medi a cover age. " I d. I n t he cour t ' s vi ew, many of t he hour s spent

on t he l i t i gat i on wer e unj ust i f i ed because t he "case i nvol ved a

r el at i vel y si mpl e and st r ai ght f or war d f act pat t er n and . . . an

uncompl i cat ed l egal t heor y. " I d. at 291.

The cour t acknowl edged t hat t he def endant s shared t he

bl ame f or pr ol ongi ng t he case, not i ng t hat t hey had opposed summary

j udgment and f ai l ed t o of f er a f or mal set t l ement unt i l j ust bef or e

t he t r i al ' s st ar t dat e. Nonet hel ess, t he cour t pl aced most of t he

r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he l engt h of t he pr oceedi ngs on J oyce and her

counsel :

[ T] he Cour t f i nds t hat a f ai r and r easonabl esol ut i on i s t o r educe pl ai nt i f f ' s request edf ee awar d subst ant i al l y, t aki ng i nt o accountnot onl y t he l i mi t ed r esul t s obt ai ned but al sot he f act t hat t he pl ai nt i f f was l ar gel y

r esponsi bl e f or t he unnecessary pr ot r act i on oft hi s l i t i gat i on. For t he r easons al r eadyel uci dat ed, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he number ofhour s spent and t he cost s i ncur r ed bypl ai nt i f f ' s counsel wer e whol l y unr easonabl egi ven t he i nt er est s at st ake and t he benef i tgai ned.

I d. The cour t t hus concl uded t hat t here wer e "abundant r easons f or

subst ant i al l y r educi ng t he r equest ed f ees and expenses, " and i t

det er mi ned t hat $30, 000, pl us $4, 600 i n cost s, was a r easonabl eawar d. I d. at 292.

-34-


35/43

C. No Fees At All?

On appeal , t he Town cont i nues t o i nsi st t hat J oyce was

not a pr evai l i ng par t y and t hat , even i f we concl ude ot her wi se, t he

st at ut or y "speci al ci r cumst ances" qual i f i er appl i es t o r ender an

awar d of at t or ney' s f ees "unj ust " i n t hi s case. See Mass. Gen.

Laws ch. 151B, 9. The Town agai n r el i es pr i mar i l y on t he f act

t hat t he tour nament pol i cy was changed consi st ent l y wi t h J oyce' s

demands bef or e t he l awsui t was f i l ed, r ender i ng t he l i t i gat i on

unnecessary and l ar gel y i nconsequent i al . I t cont ends t hat J oyce

i nsi st ed on pr oceedi ng wi t h t he case i n t he hope of obt ai ni ng "a

f i nanci al wi ndf al l . "

As an i ni t i al mat t er , we may not l i ght l y di sr egar d t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment t hat , despi t e i t s concer ns about how t he

case was l i t i gated, some award of f ees was appr opr i ate. I ndeed,

J oyce succeeded on her pr i mar y cl ai ms, 25 and t he l i t i gat i on pl ai nl y

pr oduced r esul t s t hat i nur ed t o t he benef i t of J oyce and ot her s.

I n f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant s di scr i mi nat ed agai nst J oyce i n

vi ol at i on of f eder al and st at e l aw, t he cour t r ej ect ed mul t i pl e

def enses of f ered by the def endant s i n an at t empt t o show t hat her

cl ai m was not r emedi abl e under ei t her r egi me. I n r ul i ngs not

chal l enged on appeal , i t hel d t hat t he t our nament f r om whi ch J oyce

25Nei t her t he def endant s nor t he di st r i ct cour t suggest ed t hatJ oyce' s f ees shoul d be l i mi t ed because she prevai l ed on onl y someof her cl ai ms. Most of t he unsuccessf ul cl ai ms wer e agai nst t hei ndi vi dual def endant s and di smi ssed on t he basi s of qual i f i edi mmuni t y.

-35-


36/43

was excl uded was a " pl ace of publ i c accommodat i on" under

Massachuset t s' l aw, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 92A, t hat

pl ai nt i f f s do not bear t he bur den of pr ovi ng a deni al of "f ul l and

equal accommodat i ons" t o est abl i sh di scr i mi nat i on under t he st at e

publ i c accommodat i ons l aw, see i d. 98, and t hat "separate but

equal " f aci l i t i es do not sat i sf y t hat l aw. Mor eover , t he j ur y

determi ned t hat J oyce suf f ered compensabl e harmas a consequence of

t he def endant s' act i ons.

J oyce' s l i t i gat i on vi ct or y was t hus nei t her " ' pur el y

t echni cal [ n] or de mi ni mi s, ' " Cout i n, 124 F. 3d at 339 ( quot i ng

Far r ar , 506 U. S. at 117 ( O' Connor , J . , concur r i ng) ) . 26 Par t i cul ar l y

gi ven t he st at ut ory mandate t hat f ees be awarded unl ess i t woul d be

"unj ust " t o do so, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat J oyce i s

ent i t l ed t o a r easonabl e amount of at t or ney' s f ees. Whet her t he

di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y det er mi ned t hat f ee i s our next i nqui r y.

D. Calculating a Reasonable Fee

J oyce asser t s t hat t he cour t made t wo l egal er r or s i n

awardi ng her onl y $30, 000 of t he near l y $170, 000 i n f ees t hat she

r equest ed: ( 1) l i nki ng t he amount of compensabl e f ees t o the amount

of damages, and ( 2) f act or i ng i n her r ef usal t o accept t he Town' s

set t l ement of f er . We agr ee t hat t he cour t ' s reduct i on of t he f ee

award based on t hose r at i onal es was i mpr oper and, hence, an abuse

26 Of cour se, even "obt ai ni ng onl y nomi nal damages does notnegat e t he possi bi l i t y of a f ee awar d. " Cout i n, 124 F. 3d at 339n. 6.

-36-


37/43

of t he cour t ' s di scret i on. See Cout i n, 124 F. 3d at 336 ( st at i ng

t hat an abuse of di scret i on occur s, i nt er al i a, " ' when a mat er i al

f act or deser vi ng si gni f i cant wei ght i s i gnor ed [ or ] when an

i mpr oper f act or i s r el i ed upon' " ( quot i ng Fost er v. Mydas Assocs. ,

I nc. , 943 F. 2d 139, 143 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) ) .

The cour t began i t s di scussi on by descr i bi ng at l engt h

t he wel l est abl i shed pr i nci pl e t hat a f ees awar d shoul d r ef l ect t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s l evel of success, obl i gi ng t he cour t t o t r i m t he base

f ee gener at ed by t he hour s- t i mes- r at e cal cul at i on when t he

l i t i gat i on has achi eved onl y modest r esul t s. The di st r i ct cour t

al so r ecogni zed t hat t he " r esul t s" of l i t i gat i on embr ace mor e t han

t he amount of damages awar ded by the j ury.

The cour t ' s appl i cat i on of t hese pr i nci pl es, however , was

f l awed i n mul t i pl e r espect s. Fi r st , i n assessi ng t he benef i t s

achi eved by the l i t i gat i on, t he cour t emphasi zed t he Town' s pr e-

l i t i gat i on change of pol i cy and i t s own "l i mi t ed" f i ndi ng of

unl awf ul di scri mi nat i on t hat i t had decl ar ed appl i cabl e t o "t hi s

case onl y. " The cour t over l ooked, however , t he pot ent i al i mpact of

i t s st at e- l aw r ul i ngs char act er i zi ng t he gol f t our nament as a pl ace

of publ i c accommodat i on, r ej ect i ng a "separ at e but equal " except i on

t o t he publ i c accommodat i on l aw, and cl ar i f yi ng t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

bur den of pr oof . I t t hus appeared t o t r eat t he damages award as

t he onl y si gni f i cant r esul t obt ai ned. I ndeed, i t st at ed t hat ,

" [ i ] n accor dance wi t h t he subst ant i al body of case l aw ci t ed

-37-


38/43

her ei n, t he awar d of at t or ney' s f ees her e wi l l be cor r espondi ngl y

ci r cumscr i bed by t he j ur y award of damages. " J oyce, 802 F. Supp.

2d at 290. Thi s l i mi t ed vi ew of t he l i t i gat i on' s i mpact was

i ncor r ect.

Rel at edl y, as t he aut hor i t i es descr i bed above make cl ear ,

even i f J oyce' s l awsui t had achi eved not hi ng ot her t han

compensat or y r el i ef f or her , i t woul d have been an er r or of l aw f or

t he di st r i ct cour t t o l i nk the amount of r ecover abl e at t or ney' s

f ees sol el y t o t he amount of her damages. Fee- shi f t i ng pr ovi si ons

i n gener al r ef l ect a l egi sl at i ve j udgment t hat "' t he publ i c as a

whol e has an i nt er est i n t he vi ndi cat i on of t he r i ght s conf er r ed by

t he st at ut es . . . over and above t he val ue of a . . . r emedy to a

par t i cul ar pl ai nt i f f . ' " Ci t y of Ri ver si de v. Ri ver a, 477 U. S. 561,

574 ( 1986) ( quot i ng Hensl ey, 461 U. S. at 444 n. 4 ( Br ennan, J . ,

concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) ) . Wi t h r espect t o 9

i n par t i cul ar , t he Massachuset t s At t or ney Gener al has st at ed t hat

"an ' appr opr i at e awar d of at t or ney' s f ees pr omot es Chapt er 151B' s

pol i cy of enl i st i ng t he hel p of pr i vat e at t or neys gener al i n t he

f i ght agai nst di scri mi nat i on. ' " Bor ne v. Haver hi l l Gol f & Count r y

Cl ub, I nc. , 791 N. E. 2d 903, 917 n. 17 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2003) ( quot i ng

br i ef f i l ed by At t or ney Gener al as i nt er venor ) ; see al so St r at os,

439 N. E. 2d at 786 ( not i ng t he pur pose of f ee- shi f t i ng pr ovi si on " t o

encour age sui t s t hat ar e not l i kel y t o pay f or t hemsel ves, but ar e

never t hel ess desi r abl e because t hey vi ndi cat e i mpor t ant r i ght s" ) .

-38-


39/43

The di st r i ct cour t appeared t o r ecogni ze t hat t he amount

of damages i s onl y "one el ement i n t he const el l at i on of f act or s"

t hat must be consi der ed i n deter mi ni ng a r easonabl e f ee. Cout i n,

124 F. 3d at 338. As we have descr i bed, t he cour t di scussed a

number of r easons f or i t s deci si on. Yet i t s pr e- t r i al r ul i ng on

f ees expr essl y st at ed t hat i t woul d cor r el at e t he f ee awar d t o t he

j ury' s damages awar d: " I f onl y nomi nal or l i mi t ed damages ar e

awar ded, t he r easonabl e f ee wi l l be cor r espondi ngl y l i mi t ed. "

J oyce, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 427. The cour t conf i r med i t s i nt ent t o

dr aw such a l i nk i n i t s post- t r i al r ul i ng, not i ng t hat i t

pr evi ousl y had advi sed t he pl ai nt i f f t hat "any awar d of at t or ney' s

f ees woul d be pr opor t i onat e t o her r ecover y at t r i al . " J oyce, 802

F. Supp. 2d at 291. Whet her or not t he di st r i ct cour t ul t i mat el y

r el i ed excl usi vel y on t he amount of t he damage award t o cal cul ate

t he appr opr i at e f ee, i t i s appar ent t hat i t gave t oo much wei ght t o

t hat el ement .

The ot her subst ant i al probl em wi t h t he cour t ' s

cal cul at i on i s t hat i t unequi vocal l y t ook i nt o account J oyce' s

r ej ect i on of t he set t l ement of f er . Al t hough t he cour t r ecogni zed

t hat Rul e 68 di d not appl y because J oyce' s t otal award ( damages,

cost s, and at t or ney' s f ees) exceeded t he Town' s of f er , i t

nonet hel ess r epeat edl y poi nt ed t o her r ef usal t o set t l e. I t

observed t hat t he set t l ement of f er was r easonabl e, t hat t he of f er

"obvi at ed t he need f or a j ur y t r i al , " and t hat t he r ef usal t o

-39-


40/43

accept t he of f er was unr easonabl e. I d. The cour t st at ed t hat , i n

keepi ng wi t h " t he pr i nci pl e" of Rul e 68, i t woul d be r easonabl e t o

award no cost s or f ees i ncur r ed af t er t he of f er was made on

Febr uar y 4, 2011. I d. I ndeed, i t del et ed f r om J oyce' s r equest ed

cost s the expenses i ncur r ed af t er t hat dat e. Fi nal l y, t he cour t

concl uded i t s f ees di scussi on by comment i ng t hat pl aci ng t he f ul l

cost of t he l i t i gat i on on t he def endant s "woul d encour age si mi l ar l y

si t uat ed pl ai nt i f f s t o r ef use al l r easonabl e set t l ement of f er s and

pr oceed t o t r i al i nst ead. " I d. at 292.

We have hel d t hat " i t i s a mi st ake of l aw t o reduce an

awar d of at t or neys' f ees i n a ci vi l r i ght s case i n r esponse t o a

pl ai nt i f f ' s r ej ect i on of a def endant ' s set t l ement of f er when t he

subsequent j udgment exceeds t hat of f er . " Cout i n, 124 F. 3d at 341;

see al so i d. ( not i ng t hat t he hi gher j udgment amount "val i dat es t he

appel l ant ' s r ej ect i on of t he tender ed set t l ement and i mmuni zes her

f r om det r i ment al consequences based upon t hat r ej ect i on") . I t i s

pl ai n t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed such an er r or i n t hi s case

and, hence, f or t hat r eason al one t he f ees must be r ecal cul at ed.

The cour t di d not quant i f y t he r educt i on i t made on account of t he

r ej ect ed set t l ement , t hough i t di d not appear t o ent i r el y excl ude

payment f or t he post - of f er f ees. 27 Hence, we cannot r emedy t hi s

er r or by di r ect i ng t he cour t t o add a speci f i c amount or per cent age

27The cour t r epor t ed t hat pl ai nt i f f ' s counsel i nvoi ced $48, 254i n at t or ney' s f ees af t er Febr uar y 1, 2011.

-40-


41/43

t o J oyce' s f ee awar d. I nst ead, t he cour t shoul d cal cul at e a new

awar d on r emand t hat el i mi nat es as a f act or J oyce' s r ef usal t o

set t l e, and al so r ect i f i es i t s under val uat i on of J oyce' s success

and i t s over - emphasi s on t he amount of t he damages awar d.

Mor eover , t he cour t shoul d cl ear l y and f ul l y expl ai n t he

basi s f or i t s recal cul at i on. See i d. at 337 ( "[ T] he or der awar di ng

f ees, r ead agai nst t he backdr op of t he r ecor d as a whol e, must

expose t he di st r i ct cour t ' s t hought pr ocess and show t he method and

manner under l yi ng i t s deci si onal cal cul us. ") . That r ecal i br at i on

wi l l not necessar i l y pr oduce a f ees award at or near t he amount of

J oyce' s r equest . The di st r i ct cour t r ef er r ed t o a number of

f act or s t hat i t coul d pr oper l y consi der i n eval uat i ng t he

r easonabl eness of t he t i me expended. These i ncl ude "a r el at i vel y

si mpl e and st r ai ght f or war d f act pat t er n and . . . an uncompl i cat ed

l egal t heor y, " J oyce, 802 F. Supp. 2d at 291, and t he at t endance of

t wo exper i enced l i t i gat or s t hr oughout t he damages t r i al

( r epr esent i ng si xt y hour s of bi l l abl e t i me) .

We emphasi ze t hat we ar e not endorsi ng t hese f act ors as

j ust i f i cat i ons f or t he cour t ' s subst ant i al r educt i on of t he f ee

r equest , but not e t hem onl y as consi der at i ons t he cour t pr oper l y

coul d t ake i nt o account . On t he ot her hand, t he cour t coul d not

pr oper l y i gnor e t he Town' s vi gor ous def ense of t he case. Al t hough

t he cour t r ecogni zed t hat t he def endant s bor e some r esponsi bi l i t y

f or t he nat ur e and l engt h of t he l i t i gat i on, i t s i ncor r ect f ocus on

-41-


42/43

t he r ej ect ed set t l ement pl ai nl y col or ed i t s at t i t ude t owar d t he

def endant s' st r at egy. Not onl y di d t he def endant s oppose summary

j udgment on mul t i pl e ( unsuccessf ul ) grounds and propose set t l ement

at t he l ast mi nut e - - f act or s not ed by t he di st r i ct cour t - - t hey

al so repeatedl y ar gued agai nst any awar d of at t or ney' s f ees f or

J oyce ( i ncl udi ng i n a cr oss- appeal ) . I n deci di ng whether , and how

much, t o adj ust t he basel i ne l odest ar cal cul at i on, t he cour t shoul d

not over l ook J oyce' s need t o respond t o such def ense posi t i ons.

As we have obser ved, " t he t r i al cour t i s i n t he best

posi t i on t o gauge t he bona f i des of a r equest f or f ees. " Spooner

v. EEN, I nc. , 644 F. 3d 62, 70 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . So l ong as t he

cour t r el i es on pr oper f act or s, and "of f er [ s] r easonabl y expl i ci t

f i ndi ngs . . . t o spel l out t he whys and wher ef or es, " Cout i n, 124

F. 3d at 337 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , we wi l l not second-

guess i t s j udgment on t he "t i me reasonabl y spent pr epar i ng and

l i t i gat i ng [ t he] case, " Font ai ne, 613 N. E. 2d at 891. Her e, because

t he cour t ' s cal cul at i on i ncor por at ed mul t i pl e mi st akes of l aw, we

have no choi ce but t o remand f or r econsi der at i on of a reasonabl e

f ee.

V.

For t he r easons st at ed, we f i nd no er r or i n t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deni al of J oyce' s r equest f or a j ur y i nst r ucti on on

puni t i ve damages. We vacat e t he deni al of i nj unct i ve r el i ef and

t he awar d of at t orney' s f ees, and r emand both of t hose i ssues t o

-42-


43/43

t he di st r i ct cour t f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s

opi ni on.

So or der ed. Cost s t o appel l ant .

joyce v. town of dennis, ma, 1st cir. (2013)

Documents