Corbin v. Steak n Shake, Inc.

2020 WL 1899124 (2020)

From our private database of 47,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Corbin v. Steak n Shake, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
2020 WL 1899124 (2020)

Facts

Minor Hannah Corbin (plaintiff) worked at a fast-food restaurant owned by Steak n Shake, Inc. (Shake) (defendant). She sued Shake, asserting hostile-work-environment, gender-discrimination, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Corbin showed that adult coworker Will McCann verbally and physically sexually harassed Corbin for months. The restaurant’s managers, adult males friendly with McCann, refused to stop McCann and themselves made inappropriate comments. The jury held in Corbin’s favor on the hostile-work-environment claim and Shake’s favor on the other claims. The jury awarded Corbin $1,308 in compensatory damages—$308 in backpay and $1,000 for emotional distress—and $50,000 in punitive damages. Shake moved for remittitur, or a reduction, of punitive damages, arguing the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages was so excessive that the award violated due process. Corbin sought $273,680.75 in attorney’s fees with a multiplier of two for success in the suit, bringing the total to $547,361.50. The fees were based on work by Matthew Bruce and Brian Spitz, attorneys with 11 and 22 years of experience, respectively. Bruce listed an hourly rate of $475 and Spitz $550. From the suit’s initiation through mediation, Bruce billed 85.82 hours for litigation tasks and 25.25 hours for communications with the client. Spitz joined the case for the trial phase. In that phase, Bruce billed 181.45 hours and Spitz 225.9 hours. For Bruce, 11.28 hours were marked as communication. Many of Spitz’s hours reflected work that was duplicative of Bruce’s or necessary only because Spitz was not involved from the beginning. Shake objected to the requested attorney’s fees, arguing they were clearly excessive. The court considered remittitur and attorney’s fees.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Graham, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 916,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,300 briefs - keyed to 1,000 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership