A recent NLJ article, “Justices Make it Easier for Employees to Win Legal Fees in Disability Cases” reports that in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that workers suing over disability and other benefits under the federal law known as ERISA may win attorney fees and expenses if they achieve “some degree of success on the merits” of their case.  In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., the Supreme Court rejected a tougher standard imposed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit where fee claimants must be a “prevailing party” before seeking an attorney fee award.

In the underlying case, Reliance objected to paying Hardt’s attorney fees and expenses, arguing she was not the “prevailing party” because the insurance company had agreed to pay the benefits.  Hardt incurred $58,920 in attorney fees to recover $55,250 in disability benefits.  The district court awarded attorney fees, but the 4^th Circuit reversed.  In the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the words “prevailing party” do not appear in ERISA’s fee-award provision.  That provision, he said, “expressly grants district courts ‘discretion’ to award attorney’s fees ‘to either party’.”  Because the Court’s “prevailing party” precedents did not apply here, Thomas said a line of fee precedents that do not rely on prevailing-party status should apply, with 1983’s Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club being the principal case.  Under Ruckelshaus, success, before a court may award attorney fees must be more than “trivial” or a “purely procedural victory”.