Edwin R. Long and Ralph E. Long v. Jean M. Bonnes

Background

Two appeals from the Fourth Circuit involved whether a private civil-rights plaintiff can be considered a "prevailing party" entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. The underlying dispute focused on a Virginia nurse who sued over a promotion policy; she settled after obtaining a promotion retroactive to March 1977, $992 in backpay, and a reclassification that kept her from relocating. The Supreme Court declined to review the appeals, leaving the Fourth Circuit decisions intact.

Reasoning

Courts of Appeals have used different tests to decide when a litigant "prevails" for fee awards. The Fourth Circuit follows a factual test (the Bonnes test): if the lawsuit produced a practical change or benefit and settlement shows a causal link, the plaintiff may be a prevailing party. The First Circuit (Nadeau test) adds a legal requirement: the benefit must be legally required, not merely voluntarily given by the defendant. The District Court had denied fees, finding the benefits were unrelated or obtainable informally, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding settlement showed causation.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the Fourth Circuit’s broader factual test remains controlling in that circuit. That means plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit may recover fees when settlements produce practical benefits, even if those benefits might have been available without litigation. The split between circuits remains, creating different results for similarly situated plaintiffs depending on where they sue.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist (joined by Justice O’Connor) dissented from the denial of review and urged resolving the circuit conflict, favoring the narrower Nadeau approach that ties fee awards to a legal basis for the benefit.