Nancy H. Holmes, Complainant, Bill Richardson, Secretary, Department of Energy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 13, 2000
01976454 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 13, 2000)

01976454

03-13-2000

Nancy H. Holmes, Complainant, Bill Richardson, Secretary, Department of Energy, Agency.


Nancy H. Holmes v. Department of Energy

01976454

March 13, 2000

Nancy H. Holmes, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01976454

) Agency No. 95(71) HQ/NN

)

Bill Richardson, )

Secretary, )

Department of Energy, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

On August 27, 1997, Nancy H. Holmes (complainant), by and through

her attorney initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (the Commission) concerning the Department of Energy's (agency)

final decision, dated July 21, 1997, regarding an award of attorney's

fees.<1> The Commission hereby accepts the appeal in accordance with 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37, 659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly denied a portion of

complainant's claim for attorney's fees.

BACKGROUND

Complainant was employed by the agency as a Supervisory Program Analyst,

GS-15, in the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security. She

filed a formal complaint on February 23, 1995, alleging discrimination

on the bases of sex (female) and age (53) when she was not selected

for the position of Director, Office of Resource Management, ES-301.

The agency accepted the complaint for investigation and processing.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency issued a copy of its

investigative report and notified complainant of her right to request

an administrative hearing. Complainant timely requested a hearing

before a Commission Administrative Judge, but prior to the hearing,

on May 29,1997, the complainant and the agency signed a settlement

agreement (SA), resolving the issues in her case. Among other things,

the SA specified that the agency would pay "reasonable attorney's fees

and costs."

Pursuant to that provision in the SA, the complainant's attorney submitted

a request to the agency for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of

$17,277.94, of which $15,679.25 were fees and $1,598.69 were costs.<2>

On July 21, 1997, the agency issued its final decision on counsel's

request, awarding a total of $13,157.19. The agency awarded $11,558.50

in attorney's fees and the full $1,598.69 in costs. Without disputing

counsel's hourly rates, the agency based its award on a reduction in

what it termed the "excessive, repetitive and redundant," and therefore

"unreasonable," fees. It is from this decision that complainant now

appeals.

Additionally, on appeal complainant's attorney requested that he be

awarded the additional fees and costs that were incurred between May 29,

1997, and the date of the appeal for the work done to ensure compliance

with a particular provision in the SA, and for the costs of preparing

the motions for this appeal. The additional fees and costs for ensuring

compliance with the SA and for the motions were $1,207.65. Complainant's

attorney also submitted a request to the agency for a second supplement

of attorney's fees and costs for $793.43, expenses incurred in further

ensuring compliance with the SA through the date of September 29, 1997.

Therefore, complainant's attorney requested on appeal that he be awarded

the $4,120.75 originally denied by the agency and the $1,207.65, as well

as an additional $793.43, for a total request of $6,121.83.

The agency's response to complainant's appeal requested that the

Commission affirm its original award of $13,157.19 based on its assertion

that the fees and costs not paid by the agency were not reasonable and

therefore properly denied. It noted in a response to complainant's

attorney that the request for costs associated with this appeal of

the agency's attorney's fee award was premature until and unless the

complainant prevails. It also informed complainant's attorney that his

requests for additional fees and costs incurred in ensuring compliance

with the SA "will be considered in the normal course of business, and

subjected to the normal analytical process as other such requests."

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

By federal regulation, an agency shall award attorney's fees and costs

for the successful processing of an EEO complaint in the administrative

process. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and

hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)). A prevailing party

for purposes of entitlement to attorney's fees is one who succeeds on

any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit

the party sought in bringing the suit. Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d

275, 278-79 (1st Cir. 1978). The fee awarded is normally determined

by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable

hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); 29 C.F.R. �

1614.501(e). The attorney requesting the fee award has the burden of

proving, by specific evidence, his entitlement to the requested award.

Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 892 (D.C. Cir. 1980).<3>

In the instant appeal, the agency did not dispute counsel's claimed

hourly rates of anywhere between $240.00 to $105.00 for himself and

his firm associates. Only the number of hours reasonably expended is

at issue. The agency reduced the fee award in many instances because the

charges were deemed to be duplicative. An examination of these charges

reveals that the agency primarily disallowed charges where the senior

attorney charged for the time spent conferring with the associate in

the firm who was doing the bulk of the work on the case, as well as

for the associate's time spent conferring with the senior attorney.

For instance, on October 18, 1996, the senior attorney charged $22.50

for .10 hours and the associate charged $10.50 for .10 hours for the

purpose of conferring with each other on the status of complainant's case.

The agency disallowed the charge for the associate but granted the fee

for the senior attorney. In some instances, however, the agency did

not award any fee for the time the two attorneys spent conferring with

each other. The agency also found duplicative the time the associate

spent familiarizing himself with the case file when he replaced another

associate, and disallowed the time both attorneys spent in prehearing

conferences and settlements conferences, awarding only the senior

attorney's fees. We find that it was reasonable for the agency to

disallow the charges of one attorney where both attorneys were charging

for the time spent conferring with each other, and for when both attorneys

attended the prehearing and settlement conferences, and only to award

the senior attorney's time. Hodge v. Department of Transportation,

EEOC Request No. 05920057 (April 23, 1992). We also find that in some

instances the agency improperly disallowed the charges that should have

been awarded for the attorneys conferring with each other, and for the

time the associate took to review the case file when first working on

the case. For instance, on July 30, 1996, the senior attorney charged

$90.00 for .40 hours and the associate did not charge any amount for the

time the two spent conferring about the case, but the agency did not

award any sum. A review of the submitted charges reveals that of the

charges the agency deemed to be duplicative, it incorrectly disallowed

$732.00 in fees. Accordingly, the agency is ordered to award an additional

$732.00 for fees that it deemed duplicative.

In other instances the agency reduced the amount of time charged, labeling

it as "excessive." This description for the reason the charge was reduced

was found in the handwritten notes made by the agency on the billing

records submitted by the attorney to support his fee and cost request.

For example, on August 29, 1996, the associate billed 3.2 hours of his

time at $336.00, which the agency then reduced to 1 hour at $105, labeling

it as "excess." The agency did not provide a more detailed analysis

regarding why it found specific charges to be excessive. We find after

reviewing the billing records of the attorneys that some charges that

the agency disallowed were reasonable amounts of time to spend on the

task specified and should have been paid. For instance, on August 28,

1996, the associate charged $504.00 for 4.8 hours of work spent preparing

for the depositions of three witnesses. The agency reduced the award to

$294.00 for 2.8 hours of work. We find that the full amount should have

been awarded because the time spent on the task was a reasonable amount,

especially given the fact that the less expensive attorney was doing the

bulk of the work instead of the costlier senior attorney. Therefore,

the agency is ordered to award an additional $557.50 for fees that we

find not to be excessive in nature.

In still other instances, the agency reduced the amount awarded and failed

to make any notation on the billing records as to why it was reducing

the amount it planned to award for certain charges. We have reviewed

these charges as well and find that the charges were improperly reduced,

and therefore we award an additional $64.50.

With regard to complainant's requests for the fees and costs incurred in

ensuring compliance with the SA after May 29, 1997, and for preparing the

motions for this appeal, we find, after a review of the fee petitions,

that the requests for $1,207.65 and $793.43, were reasonable and the

full amounts should be awarded to complainant's attorney. Therefore,

if it has not already done so, the agency shall issue a check awarding

the amount of $2,001.08. If the agency has issued a final decision on

these fee requests during the pendency of this appeal, and has awarded

some portion of the amount, it shall calculate the difference and issue

a check in that amount, so that the total awarded equals $2,001.08.

Accordingly, the decision of the agency is MODIFIED and the agency is

ordered to pay the additional sum of $1,354.00 for attorney's fees and

costs, and the amount of $2,001.08 for fees associated with ensuring

compliance with the SA, for a total amount of $3,355.08.

ORDER

The agency shall issue a check to appellant's counsel in the amount of

$3,355.08, (unless modified in accordance with the above for any sums

paid during the pendency of this appeal) within fifteen (15) calendar

days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall submit

a report of compliance, as provided below. The record shall include

documentation to verify that the action has been implemented.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the

complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order,

the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a

civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior

to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a

civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph

below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407

and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the

underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �

2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation

of material fact or law; or

2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices, or operations of the agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED

WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS

OF RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). All requests and arguments must be

submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the

absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed

timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration

of the applicable filing period. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604).

The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the

other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R1199)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. If you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME AS THE DEFENDANT IN

THE COMPLAINT THE PERSON WHO IS THE OFFICIAL AGENCY HEAD OR DEPARTMENT

HEAD, IDENTIFYING THAT PERSON BY HIS OR HER FULL NAME AND OFFICIAL TITLE.

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.

"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the

local office, facility or department in which you work. Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the

action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).

The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of

the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time

in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action

must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above

("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

March 13, 2000

______________ __________________________________

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_______________ __________________________

Date Equal Employment Assistant

1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's

federal sector complaint process went into effect. These

regulations apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any

stage in the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will

apply the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999),

where applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as

amended, may also be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.

2 The attorney's fee petition requested this amount in fees, however,

the final decision of the agency on the fee petition award mistakenly

stated that the attorney was requesting $15,558.50.

3 We interpret the SA as awarding attorney's fees based solely on

complainant's Title VII claim of sex discrimination because attorney's

fees are not available as a remedy under the ADEA at the administrative

stage. See Falks v. Department of Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05960250

(September 5, 1996).