Yesterday, the federal judge in the Dawsey v. BMW case–the one that resulted in the landmark $5.1 million verdict against BMW back in February–issued his ruling on attorney’s fees and costs. [Read more: Greenville Jury Issues a $5.1 Million Verdict against BMW for National Origin Discrimination] In cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, like the national origin discrimination claims present in Mrs. Dawsey’s situation, if the employee is successful at trial, then the employee’s attorney has the right to be paid his or her attorney’s fees from the losing company. Here, Mrs. Dawsey resoundingly won at trial, with the jury finding that BMW engaged in national origin discrimination against Mrs. Dawsey by favoring German employees over American employees in personnel decisions. As I’ve written about before, the jury awarded $5.1 million in emotional distress and punitive damages, which the judge later reduced to $300,000 based on the damages caps under Title VII. At a later hearing, the judge awarded an additional $390,000 in lost wages. [Read more: After $5.1 Million Verdict, Judge Orders BMW to Pay Additional $390,000 in Back Pay]
The Court Had to Determine How Much to Award The Employee’s Lawyer for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
The final issue remaining for the judge to the decide was the motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff’s counsel Brian Murphy filed his motion back on March 10, 2026, seeking $448,000 in attorney’s fees and $30,000 in costs. Given that most plaintiff employment attorneys represent employees on a contingency fee arrangement–meaning the attorney only gets paid if he or she recovers something for the employee, instead of charging the employee by the hour–then how do you calculate a number like $448,000? Well, you have to track the number of hours that the attorney worked on the case, then submit affidavits and time sheets to the judge to support the specific number of hours worked. In this case, Mrs. Dawsey’s lawyer spent 838 hours on the case, which covered twelve depositions, substantial discovery, and defending multiple motions from BMW attempting to have the case dismissed before trial, not to mention the week-long trial itself.
Once the court determines the proper amount of hours worked, then the court decides what the proper hourly rate would be. In doing so, the judge looks at the attorney’s regular hourly rate in normal practice, as well as the hourly rate of other practitioners in the area. The court also looks at the experience of the attorney and the success of that attorney at trial.
BMW Argued that $500/hour Was Too High for the Plaintiff While Refusing to Disclose How Much It Paid Its Own Lawyers
BMW opposed the motion for attorney’s fees, arguing that the hourly rate sought–$500/hour–was too high. BMW also argued that plaintiff’s counsel improperly billed his time, an argument that the judge backhanded away rather quickly. In response to BMW’s argument that $500 was too much, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a separate motion demanding that BMW’s lawyer turn over their own billing records to show how much they charged BMW for legal representation. Typically, law firms that represent huge companies like BMW would charge hourly billing rate from anywhere from $500-$1,000/hour. BMW nevertheless opposed $500/hour being awarded to plaintiff’s counsel while refusing to produce their own billing records, which would have underscored just how much more BMW paid its own lawyers per hour.
Regardless, the court determined that $500/hour was a reasonable rate to assign for this case. With both the amount of hours and the hourly rate in hand, the rest is just math. The court granted the motion for attorney’s fees and costs in the amounts of $381,000 and $29,000. [Read More: Judge’s Order on Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Dawsey v. BMW)] That amount will be added to the final judgment amount, which BMW has already appealed.
Why Fee-Shifting Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is So Important for South Carolina Employees
Most employment cases involve smaller amount of lost wages, which can make it difficult to justify taking a case to trial, even where the underlying facts are meritorious. That’s why the fee-shifting provision of Title VII and other federal anti-discrimination statutes are so important, as it serves two purposes: (1) to encourage plaintiffs’ attorney’s to take on these types of cases; and (2) to discourage employers from engaging in the discrimination to begin. These cases are not easy. They last a long time. Mrs. Dawsey filed her lawsuit in 2022, and it took four years to get to a trial. She still faces an appeal that she has to win, and BMW seems perfectly content to keep spending money to fight the idea of paying Mrs. Dawsey for the harm BMW caused.
It might take Mrs. Dawsey a while longer to receive her just compensation in this case. But I’ll keep you updated once we learn more about the appeal and what the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals up in Richmond, Virginia decides about this case. Until then, if you have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace, feel free to contact Summerlin Law at (864) 278-5389 or via our “Contact Jeremy Summerlin” page to provide more information about your situation.
