## Facts

- Philip J. Lanni, a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employee with learning disabilities, alleged workplace harassment and discrimination based on disability.
- Lanni filed suit against the State of New Jersey, the DEP, and multiple DEP employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), and other state statutes.
- After summary judgment narrowed the case, Lanni prevailed at trial on remaining ADA/LAD claims and obtained a judgment.
- Lanni sought attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party, requesting over $1.1 million based on claimed hours and rates.
- Lanni’s counsel operated under a written “partial contingency” retainer that set compensation as the greater of an hourly calculation, a court-awarded fee, or a contingency-based fee.
- The district court applied a lodestar approach, set counsel’s hourly rates on a graduated scale, reduced certain hours and rates, and awarded $277,723.50 in attorneys’ fees (plus certain costs).
- Lanni obtained a writ of execution to collect the fee judgment from the State; the district court quashed the writ, relying on New Jersey’s statutory method for paying judgments against the State.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in calculating a “reasonable” attorneys’ fee award under ADA/LAD fee-shifting, including the determination of reasonable hourly rates and reductions to hours and/or the lodestar.
2. Whether the district court properly quashed Lanni’s writ of execution seeking to enforce the fee judgment against the State of New Jersey.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in substantial part the district court’s use of the lodestar framework for calculating fees in ADA/LAD litigation.
- The court vacated the fee award in part and remanded for recalculation where the district court’s reasonable-rate determinations and certain reductions lacked sufficient record support and explanation.
- The court affirmed the order quashing the writ of execution, holding that Lanni could not enforce the judgment against the State through the execution method attempted under New Jersey’s payment scheme for state judgments.

## Legal Principles

- A prevailing plaintiff under the ADA may recover a “reasonable attorney’s fee,” generally calculated using the lodestar method (reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate), subject to justified adjustments.
- A reasonable hourly rate must reflect prevailing market rates in the relevant community for attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation; the fee applicant bears the burden of producing satisfactory evidence beyond counsel’s own affidavit.
- A district court may exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours, but must explain reductions and avoid duplicative discounting for limited success or modest damages.
- A private contingent or hybrid fee agreement does not control the statutory fee award, but it may be relevant evidence of market value and should not be disregarded without explanation.
- Even when a state is subject to a judgment, enforcement mechanisms may be restricted by state law; judgments against the State may be payable only through statutory fiscal procedures rather than ordinary execution against state assets.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit required a more evidence-based and fully explained market-rate analysis for the ADA/LAD fee award while leaving most lodestar principles intact, and it held that collection of the judgment against New Jersey had to proceed through the State’s prescribed statutory payment process rather than execution.


Lanni v. New Jersey, 259 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2001)