On November 17, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The complaint alleged discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More specifically, the defendant allegedly subjected African American employees to a racially hostile work environment that was so severe as to affect the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief. The case was assigned to District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III.
After two settlement conferences, the parties settled the case in October 2007, by entry of a consent decree.
The decree included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the development of an anti-discrimination policy and required the defendant to post and distribute the policy. The decree also required the defendant to train all of its managers, superintendents, tool pushers, drillers, crane operators, and human resource personnel with direct responsibility for its offshore platform rigs in the Gulf of Mexico on race, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation annually. The decree also called for the implementation of a complaint resolution process in which an aggrieved employee could notify the Director of Human Resources if a supervisor did not address a complaint of racial harassment. The defendant was required to submit biannual narrative summaries of each complaint of racial harassment made by aggrieved employees with the Director of Human Resources along with a statement regarding the resolution of each such complaint. The EEOC maintained the ability to enter and inspect the defendant's offshore platform rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. The injunctive parts of the decree had a two year term. If the EEOC found non-compliance, the decree allowed for court enforcement. In addition, the defendant agreed to pay $290,000 to be distributed among seven individual employees.
The claimant's attorney moved for an attorney lien on September 26, 2007. This attorney explained that he conducted research and represented the claimants in conciliation/settlement conferences in regard to this lawsuit before the EEOC got involved, so he should be granted a portion of the settlement fund. The court ordered the claimants to address the attorney’s fees.
On July 1, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part the attorney’s fees. 2008 WL 2690365. This attorney initially sought attorney fees from the claimants through contingency fees. But the claimants objected this request, and the attorney abandoned it to instead move for the full amount of fees reflected in his time sheets. He calculated that he worked for 113.9 hours and was entitled to $45,560 from the settlement fund.
Although the court agreed that the attorney should be awarded attorney fees, the court did not agree with the amount nor the hours calculated. The court concluded that the hours calculated by the attorney was not credible. After the court reviewed and analyzed the attorney’s time sheets and explanation, the court concluded that the attorney provided 36 hours of service and should be awarded $7,200.00.
Two weeks later, the court ordered a disbursement of the settlement fund.
The duration of the consent decree has lapsed and there has been no indication of non-compliance found in the case docket, so the case is presumably closed.
Justin Kanter - 05/29/2008
Sean Whetstone - 07/03/2018
compress summary
