§

) Petition No. 04990001

04990001 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 25, 2000)
) Petition No. 04990001

5 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 22,349 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

  2. Blum v. Stenson

    465 U.S. 886 (1984)   Cited 9,150 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

  3. Copeland v. Marshall

    641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 1,036 times
    Holding that "in Title VII and similar fee-setting cases," a court may grant an "adjustment to reflect the delay in receipt of payment" because such delay "deprives the eventual recipient of the value of the use of the money in the meantime"

  4. Miller v. Bolger

    802 F.2d 660 (3d Cir. 1986)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that a federal employee could recover under FECA for on-the-job injuries as well as under Title VII when the injuries were caused by his co-workers' physical abuse based on discriminatory motives

  5. E.E.O.C. v. Blue and White Service Corp.

    674 F. Supp. 1579 (D. Minn. 1987)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that, under Minnesota law, the discriminatee received $9,000 for total and partial disability, computed as two-thirds of his weekly wage rate, and $8,000 for impairment compensation based on loss of bodily function, and deducting only the former from the back pay award