Remembering Kevin Williams

In March 2022, Kevin and his colleague Andrew Montoya tried the case of Kolbe v. Endocrine Services¹ on behalf of a woman who faced discrimination at a medical facility based on her service dog. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Kolbe and awarded $20,000 in damages. Kevin and Andrew then moved for attorneys’ fees under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Court awarded every penny of their hard-earned fees in its Order Granting Motion for Attorney’s Fees — an order that is fun to read for so many reasons, and which paid tribute to the brilliance and great work of both men:

The Court also disagrees with Defendant that Mr. Williams appears to have unnecessarily duplicated or supervised the work of Mr. Montoya. This case represented Mr. Montoya’s first as lead counsel. Mr. Williams, as the much more experienced attorney, appropriately oversaw his work, and the result was a complete victory for Plaintiffs.²

Darold Killmer submitted an expert declaration in support of the fee petition. After the fee order was issued, he shared that

This Order is amazing and well-earned. But the case and its result were remarkable. I know of very few lawyers with the courage, determination and tenacity to litigate Ms. Kolbe’s case through trial at the considerable risk of losing outright, and in any event with only a remote chance of recovering a fully-compensable attorney fee, as Andrew and Kevin did.  In my affidavit in support of Kevin’s, Andrews and CCDC’s Motion for Fees, I swore (not messing around here) as follows (sorry for the length, but it is all true, impressive, and celebratory):

I know both Mr. Montoya and Mr. Williams and am aware of the considerable success and excellent work they have performed over many years. I am aware of their work in this matter and know of the excellent results obtained, a complete victory on claims for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief;^[1] because this Court found that Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties in this litigation, they are entitled to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and recover their costs and (ECF No. 173, at 8-9). Mr. Montoya, with the continuous and necessary participation and oversight of Mr. Williams, achieved a complete victory in his first trial as lead counsel, a jury trial. Many of the cases brought by these accomplished attorneys seek only injunctive relief and are bench trials. Jury trials are much more difficult to manage. In addition, the legal challenges and issues like proving standing in order to get injunctive relief are very difficult to manage. See, e.g., Am. Humanist Ass’n, Inc. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 859 F.3d 1243, 1250 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 133-34 (2011) (quotations and alterations omitted)(setting forth the essential elements in all standing claims); see also Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977) (setting forth the standards for Associational standing for CCDC). Plaintiffs’ counsel were able to do so in this case combining both the testimony of Wendy Kolbe and CCDC’s Executive Director. I am also familiar with briefing regarding standing issues, how the organization itself operates to ensure clients with the laws it seeks to enforce and the fact that a plaintiff could return to a place of over accommodation for the sole purpose of testing whether the entity is in actual compliance with the law even though that Plaintiff experienced exceptionally unlawful discrimination during a prior visit (ECF No. 137). These are atypical issues and present unique hurdles on the road to success in this type of specialized civil rights claim. It is important to note that the expansion of the concept of “tester standing” in Title III cases was established in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by the CRLP attorneys in this case working closely with the attorneys and co-directors of the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center in Colorado Cross Disability Coal. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 765 F.3d 1205, 1211 (10th Cir. 2014). This Court was satisfied by the evidence presented through these able attorneys that Plaintiffs had met the rigorous constitutional requirements for establishing standing in order to obtain crucial prospective injunctive relief (ECF No. 173, 3). Based upon my observations over the last two decades, these very experienced attorneys in the area of disability rights have been instrumental in establishing the very law they used to obtain the victories achieved in this case. As a result of that work, they were successful at trial and obtaining complete relief struggling with complicated constitutional law and questions pertaining to damages and remedies during this trial.
 
After my review of documents from the case file, there is no doubt that plaintiffs’ counsel obtained excellent results after years of litigation. The result obtained is compelling for the reasons discussed herein, and there are very few lawyers in the Colorado legal community who are experienced, knowledgeable and tenacious enough to have obtained such excellent results for their client. These two attorneys have previously achieved tremendous results on behalf of individuals with disabilities, an extremely marginalized community. The Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) itself fulfills its mission of social justice for people with all disabilities each and every year. It is my opinion that the CCDC and its Civil Rights Legal Program are doing remarkable work in achieving what disability civil rights laws were designed to do.

Darold added:

This was an amazing and inspiring result. I am just saddened that Kevin did not see all of the fruits of his work on this one (though he was obviously well aware of the homerun he and Andrew hit on the trial of the merits). I join with Andrew in lifting my glass in honor and memory.

1. Kolbe v. Endocrine Services, P.C., No. 17-CV-1871-RM-SKC, 2022 WL 970004 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2022). ↩︎
2. Kolbe v. Endocrine Services, P.C., No. 17-CV-01871-RM-SKC, 2024 WL 643039, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 15, 2024).
   ↩︎