doubting adequacy of class representative who failed to join union whose policies contributed to creation of suspect practices
How later courts described this case
- doubting adequacy of class representative who failed to join union whose policies contributed to creation of suspect practices
- Congress intended Title VII as remedial legislation and therefore procedural provisions should not serve as stumbling blocks to pro se plain tiffs
- Noting that whether fee is fixed or contingent is appropriate factor to consider in awarding reasonable attorney fee in Title VII cases
- adopting Johnson’s “list of 12”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBB, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part):
I concur in Parts I and II of the majority opinion, but I would affirm the award of an attorney’s fee.
In the exercise of his discretion the experienced district judge set a fee which he considered reasonable. He was of course familiar with the time-honored guidelines set out in the majority opinion and I must presume that he took them into consideration. I see no indication that he abused his discretion, or any reason to call upon him for an explanation. A district judge should not be treated as a special master who must give detailed explanation of his discretionary conclusions.