Federal Court Approves $450 Per Hour Rate for Attorney Michael Massey in Employment Retaliation Case

On August 7, 2026, United States District Judge Mark E. Walker of the Northern District of Florida issued an Order on Attorneys' Fees in Walden v. Dixon, Case No. 4:24cv99-MW/MAF, approving an hourly rate of $450 for Massey & Duffy attorney Michael Massey. The defendant, represented by counsel for the Florida Department of Corrections, had argued that Mr. Massey's rate should be set at just $350 per hour. The court disagreed.

The Case

Heather Walden brought claims against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections for retaliation and failure to accommodate a disability under federal employment law. The case was tried before a jury in the Northern District of Florida. After trial, the court found Ms. Walden was the prevailing party and entitled to recover attorneys' fees from the defendant.

How Courts Set Attorneys' Fee Rates

Federal courts in the Eleventh Circuit use what is known as the "lodestar" method to calculate a reasonable fee award. Under this approach, the court determines a reasonable hourly rate for each attorney and multiplies it by the number of hours reasonably spent on the case.

A "reasonable hourly rate" is defined as the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. The court may rely on fee expert declarations, comparable fee awards in other cases, and its own knowledge and experience with local rates.

The Court's Analysis

The defendant argued that Mr. Massey's rate should be capped at $350 per hour. Judge Walker rejected that figure. Drawing on a fee expert's declaration, prior fee awards in the Northern District of Florida, and the court's own extensive experience with reasonable rates in the Tallahassee legal market, the court found $450 per hour to be the appropriate rate for Mr. Massey based on his 27 years of legal experience.

In reaching that conclusion, Judge Walker emphasized that "this case proceeded through trial and post-trial briefings" and that "while it was generally a straightforward case, it was also not simple and required the resolution of more complex and demanding issues."

The court also declined the defendant's request to reduce the overall fee award based on "limited success." The defendant had argued that because not all of the plaintiff's claims survived to verdict, the total fees should be cut by 20 percent. Judge Walker rejected that argument, finding that all of the plaintiff's theories arose from a common core of operative facts, the same employment relationship, the same decision-makers, the same documentary record, and the same witnesses. The court concluded that "the significance of overall results corresponds reasonably to the hours expended."

Total Fee Award

The court awarded a total of $104,386.25 in attorneys' fees for the Walden legal team, with costs to be addressed in a separate order. Mr. Massey handled pretrial motion practice in the case, co-counseling with Marie A. Mattox, P.A. of Tallahassee.

What This Means for Workers Facing Retaliation

Federal fee-shifting statutes exist so that employees who suffer illegal retaliation or discrimination can retain experienced counsel without bearing the full cost of litigation upfront. When a court approves a market-rate fee for plaintiff's counsel, it reinforces the principle that workers can find qualified attorneys willing to take on powerful government and corporate defendants.

If you believe you have experienced retaliation, discrimination, or a failure to accommodate a disability in the workplace, contact Massey & Duffy, PLLC at (352) 505-8900 or visit 352law.com to learn more about your rights.