U.S. District Court, Northern District of N.Y. Case Summaries: July

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Jul 8, 2008

U.S. District Court, Northern District of N.Y.

Job Discrimination

Title VII

Zhou v. State University of New

York Institute of Technology

08-CV-444

Judge Hurd

Background: The plaintiff alleges employment discrimination claims under Title VII and [section]1981. Among the defendants is an assistant professor of human resources, the dean of the business school and president. The plaintiff alleges a campaign of harassment was launched against him in retaliation for allegations of academic fraud he made against another instructor. The defendants moved to dismiss. The plaintiff withdraws his [section]1981 claims against these defendants in their official capacities, and the Title VII claims in their individual capacities. Otherwise, he opposes the motion.

Ruling: The court finds the complaint sets forth causes of action under [section]1981 and Title VII. Based on documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff, the Title VII claims are not time- barred.

Xu-Shen Zhou, pro se, and Douglas G. Goglia, New York State Attorney General's Office, for the defendants

Social Security

Legal Fees

Smoke v. Barnhart

02-CV-0764

Judge Kahn

Background: In this Social Security benefits case, plaintiff's counsel agreed to represent the plaintiff, beginning in 2000, before the Social Security Administration, the Appeals Council and the district court, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement that if the plaintiff was successful counsel received 25 percent of all past due benefits. Ultimately, counsel was successful in his representation, and the plaintiff received benefits. The plaintiff's attorney was awarded an administrative fee of $14,450 and is in receipt of a notice from the Social Security Administration indicating $16,039.00 is being withheld for anticipated legal fees. Before the court is a motion by the attorney to receive the second payment.

Ruling: The court alludes to the view that when there is a contingency fee agreement between the attorney and client, and the fee is within the 25 percent ceiling, it is entitled to deference. Since there is no evidence of fraud or overreaching, and in light of the attorney's credentials and success, the court finds that the fee of $16,039 is reasonable and the motion is granted.

Charles E. Binder for the plaintiff, and Dennis J. Canning, Social Security Administration, for the defendant