Jamie Leigh Jones's lawsuit against KBR with its trumped-up sensational allegations cost the company $2 million in attorneys' fees (and almost certainly more in adverse publicity), so the request is not entirely unreasonable if indeed Jones received money for a movie deal based on her lawsuit: it would be inequitable for Jones to profit from a meritless lawsuit, given that Title VII permits prevailing parties to collect fees. But that's not the argument KBR makes in its brief: they're simply claiming that the case was frivolous. As such, the motion is unlikely to succeed given the Fifth Circuit standards for permitting a Title VII defendant to recover fees, where "frivolous" is a very small subset of "meritless," and KBR's expected recovery is probably less than the publicity hit it's taking from left-wing blogs. [WSJ Law Blog (h/t R.U.)]
KBR seeking loser-pays against Jamie Leigh Jones
Related Entries:
- ยง 1920 and e-discovery costs
- Around the web, February 21
- Marie Gryphon cited for work on loser pays
- Fifth and Ninth Circuits crack down on cy pres abuse
- H.R. 1996: Government Litigation Savings Act
- Jamie Leigh Jones post-mortem in the Houston Chronicle
- Around the web, September 30
- Bloomberg win on EEOC work/life balance suit
- "Twombly is the Logical Extension of the Mathews v. Eldridge Test to Discovery"
- Damned if you do files: Briscoe v. New Haven
- Around the web, August 11
- Loser pays in action: punishment for a patent troll
- Around the web, August 1
- Around the web, July 27
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |



