[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-326075-105":59,"doc-detail-326075-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","court-will-not-rethink-affirmative-action-case-allows-high-attorney-fees","COURT WILL NOT RETHINK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE - ALLOWS HIGH ATTORNEY FEES","","U.S. Supreme Court declines to reconsider its May decision overturning a Michigan school district’s affirmative action layoff plan, leaving intact faculty racial composition after layoffs by using a seniority approach. The Court upholds an attorney-fee award eight times the plaintiffs’ damages, emphasizing proportionality concerns and fee awards at prevailing market rates while limiting fees after a pre-trial settlement offer. Related rulings address disability rights, narrowing applicability to airlines under the Rehabilitation Act.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/court-will-not-rethink-affirmative-action-case-allows-high-attorney-fees/326075/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/court-will-not-rethink-affirmative-action-case-allows-high-attorney-fees/326075.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Genevieve","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why did the Supreme Court refuse to reconsider the affirmative action case?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The Court declined to rehear its May decision overturning the Michigan school district’s affirmative action layoff plan, despite requests for a remand based on arguments presented for rehearing.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the Court decide about attorney fees in the related case?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The Court upheld attorneys’ fees that were eight times the damages awarded, reasoning that proportionality would make it difficult to secure legal representation for smaller claims and allowing fees at prevailing market rates.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did the Court limit the Rehabilitation Act disability rights ruling?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the Rehabilitation Act does not apply to airlines under the current interpretation of civil rights laws, even though broader reasoning suggested potential implications for schools.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},326075,1790372337,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1374391974585,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Tuesday,July 1,1986  \nVol.14,No。126  \n# COURT WILL NOT RETHINK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE,ALLOWS HIGH ATTORNEY FEES\n\nThe U.S.Supreme Court yesterday,resisting new and unexplored argumentsdangled before it,refused to reconsider its May decision overturning aMichigan school district's affirmative action layoff plan.  \nThe request for rehearing was calculated to weaken the moderate vote againstthe plan cast by Justice Sandra Day o'Connor,said Jerome Susskind,the schoolboard lawyer in Wygant v.Jackson Board of Education(54 USLW 4479)。\"If Icould intrigue [O'Connor]into a remand on a nonsubstantive basis,I figured itwould be worth a try,\"Susskind said.But the Court rarely rehears a case.  \nUniversity attorneys offer their views on the Wygant case.See page 4.     \nBy ignoring seniority,the Wygant plan maintained the same faculty racial com-position after layoffs as existed before,protecting recently recruited minor-ity teachers(HED,May 20)。O'Connor said the minority hiring was not gearedto remedying past bias,and the layoff plan therefore was invalid,but Jacksonsaid the hiring goals never were debated in court and might be justified.  \nIn action Friday.the Court,5-4,upheld an award of attorneys'fees that waseight times as high as the damages awarded to the plaintiffs who won the case,City of Riverside,Calif.,v。Rivera(54 USLW 3678)(HED,Apri¹1)。  \n\"A rule of proportionality would make it difficult,if not 1mpossible,for in-dividuals with meritorious civil rights claims but relatively small potentialdamages to obtain redress from the courts”because it would be too difficult toattract a good lawyer to take the case,the Court held.\"Excellent\"results,even if they fall short of the results sought and even if the lawyers are freshout of law school,merit full fees at prevailing market rates,said JusticeWi1liam Brennan,writing for the Court.  \nCourts still must see that the fee award covers only time \"reasonably expended\"in a case,though,and defendants are not liable for fees incurred after a pre-trial settlement offer if the final judgment is less than the offer,Brennanadded.  Justice Lewis Powell concurred.\"despite serious doubt as to the fair-ness of the fees awarded,\"hinting that the Court nearly issued the oppositeruling.Rivera concerned police brutality,but the ruling applies to federalrights cases in general,from segregation to free speech to job discrimination.  \nThe dissenters said spending 2,000 hours to win $33,350 is not reasonable be-cause the case was not complex and the fee exceeded what lawyers would have(more)  \n6  \n# COURT WILL NOT RETHINK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE(Cont.)\n\ncharged their clients.The Court's opinion creates\"a relief act for lawyers,\"agreed Justices Rehnqulst,Warren Burger,Sandra Day O'Connor and Byron White.  \nThe Court also ruled on a disability rights case Friday,but the majority con-sidered the issue too narrowly to affect college and university civil rightsenforcement.  In a 6-3 ruling in U.S.Department of Transportation v.ParalyzedVeterans of America(54 USLW 3677),the Court said the Rehabilitation Act,which bars disability-based bias in federally funded programs,does not applyto airlines.But in reasoning that would have affected schools,the minoritysuggested airports be forced to ensure that airlines comply with the act.  \nThe majority ruling rested on the current interpretation of the civil rights1aws set down in 1984 in Grove City College v.Bell(465 U.S.555),which nar-rowed enforcement from the entire institution to the specific program receivingfederal aid.The airline case,however,did not pose a real challenge to GroveCity,attorneys say.-Maggie Hume  \n# BURGER NAMED TO WILLIAM AND MARY CHANCELLORSHIP\n\nThe College of Wi1liam and Mary,the second-oldest university in the countryand alma mater of Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall,today takes on a newfigurehead particularly suited to the institution's historical pride:outgoingChief Justice Warren Burger.  \nResigning from the U.S.Supreme Court this summer to work ","cbCairRpmQs8HOvH","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairRpmQs8HOvH","pdf",1262138,"English","# COURT WILL NOT RETHINK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE, ALLOWS HIGH ATTORNEY FEES\n## Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education and attorney-fee award\n## Disability rights ruling and Rehabilitation Act scope\n# BURGER NAMED TO WILLIAM AND MARY CHANCELLORSHIP\n## Appointment details and bicentennial involvement","[{\"question\":\"Why did the Supreme Court refuse to reconsider the affirmative action case?\",\"answer\":\"The Court declined to rehear its May decision overturning the Michigan school district’s affirmative action layoff plan, despite requests for a remand based on arguments presented for rehearing.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the Court decide about attorney fees in the related case?\",\"answer\":\"The Court upheld attorneys’ fees that were eight times the damages awarded, reasoning that proportionality would make it difficult to secure legal representation for smaller claims and allowing fees at prevailing market rates.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Court limit the Rehabilitation Act disability rights ruling?\",\"answer\":\"In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the Rehabilitation Act does not apply to airlines under the current interpretation of civil rights laws, even though broader reasoning suggested potential implications for schools.\"}]","COURT WILL NOT RETHINK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE - ALLOWS HIGH ATTORNEY FEES | PDF",1789972146,13]