In? Blaney? the? Washington? Supreme? Court? ruled that prevailing plaintiffs were entitled to a gross-up to? ?compensate? ?for? ?the? ?tax? ?consequences?? of economic damages and attorneys? fees award. ?Ms. Blaney?? did?? not?? request?? a?? gross-up?? for?? non- economic damages, so the issue was not directly addressed.? Following Blaney, the courts of appeals had four times held that the same rule applies to non-economic damages.?? In Pham, the Supreme Court disagreed 6-3. ?Justice Bridge?s opinion gave little more than ?we think not? as its reason for rejecting the equivalence of economic and non- economic damages for the purpose of a tax gross- up.? ?The Court said that because non-economic damages don?t compensate for financial loss they shouldn?t? be? grossed-up,? a? non-sequitur? at? best. The Court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in reducing the plaintiff?s lodestar attorneys? fees by eliminating time spent on certain tasks. ?The majority largely leaves fee awards un- reviewable on appeal. ?It came closer to adopting federal law prohibiting contingency multipliers in individual cases, but did not go that far.?? It said such multipliers would be justified only ?occasionally.? ?The majority agreed that the trial court had relied on an improper factor in denying a multiplier, the plaintiffs? difficulty in articulating their? ?claims.????? ?The? ?majority? ?remanded? ?for reconsideration the appropriateness of a multiplier.?? Justice Sanders? dissent, joined by Owens?? and?? Chambers,?? feared?? the?? majority opinion would be ?devastating for civil rights plaintiffs?.? ?The dissent claimed that the trial court?s ?specific ?fee ?reductions? to? the? lodestar were contrary to law. ?The dissent agreed Blaney should apply to non-economic damages as well. Pham? v.? City? of? Seattle,? 159? Wn.2d? 527,? 151 P.3d 976 (2007)