Stan Laber, Complainant,v.Thomas E. White, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 30, 2003
01a05712 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 30, 2003)

01a05712

01-30-2003

Stan Laber, Complainant, v. Thomas E. White, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Stan Laber v. Department of the Army

01A05712

January 30, 2003

.

Stan Laber,

Complainant,

v.

Thomas E. White,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A05712

Agency No. BXJC9211C2610

Hearing No. 100-94-7118X

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order

concerning his formal complaint of unlawful employment discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),

as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. The sole issue on appeal is whether the

agency properly awarded only a portion of the amount of attorney's

fees requested. In the underlying complaint, complainant alleged that

he was discriminated against on the basis religion (Jewish) and reprisal

(prior EEO activity) when he was not selected for an Industrial Specialist

position in Israel. For the following reasons, the Commission affirms

the agency's final order.

The record reveals that complainant, an Operations Research Analyst

in Illinois at the time the matter arose, filed a formal complaint in

which he alleged that he was discriminated against as referenced above.

After an investigation, an administrative hearing was held before an

EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). At the conclusion of the hearing,

the AJ issued a decision in which a finding of discrimination was

recommended. In its final decision, the agency did not accept the AJ's

recommendation, and therefore issued a finding of no discrimination.

Complainant appealed the agency's finding to this Commission, which agreed

with the AJ's recommendation. Consequently, the agency, inter alia,

was ordered to pay complainant a reasonable amount of attorney's fees.

Complainant's attorney was ordered to submit to the agency a verified

statement of fees. This statement was provided to the agency on November

11, 1999. Specifically, the statement indicated that complainant was

owed an amount of $37,383.00 in attorney's fees and amount of $2,721.77

in costs for a total of $40,104.77.

The agency rejected those amounts, and instead awarded complainant

$14,040.00 in attorney's fees and $1,763.42 in costs for a total of

$15,803.42. Regarding attorney's fees, the agency's rejection of the

amount claimed by complainant was based on the fact that the relevant

hourly rates included billing statements for five attorneys who billed

at hourly rates of $305.00, $250.00, $160.00, and $115.00 (2), but did

not contain any description of the experience of the various attorneys or

any verification of the rates charged by similar attorneys in the local

community. Since more than 215 of the nearly 250 hours were billed at

the $115.00 rate, that is the rate the agency presumed was reasonable.

The agency also took issue with the number of hours complainant's

attorneys claimed to have spent on complainant's case. The statement

of fees indicates that five attorneys spent a total of 250.30 hours

on the case at issue. The agency noted that 26.50 of those hours were

billed before the agency was notified that complainant was represented

by legal counsel. The agency further noted that once those 26.50 hours

were disregarded, 223.80 hours remained. Finally, the agency noted that

of those 223.80 hours, complainant's attorneys claim to have spent 123

hours drafting and submitting an appeal brief. In so doing, the agency

pointed out that the issue involved in this case was narrowly tailored

to a non-selection, and was not novel or difficult. In response to the

number of hours complainant's attorneys claimed to have spent on legal

research, the agency pointed out that complainant did not attain the

services of an attorney until his appeal to the Commission, and therefore

his attorney's had copies of the AJ's decision, which contained the

relevant laws, policies, and regulations. Also, the agency noted that

many of the itemized fees contained vague and redundant charges like

�consulting with other attorneys,� �assigning work to law clerk and

paralegal,� and �writing a Congressional inquiry.� Rather than look

at each itemization, the agency, using Commission precedent set out in

Abbate v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01971418 (March 24,

2000), declined to do a line-by-line analysis of complainant's request,

but instead chose to do an across the board reduction as provided for

in Finch v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05880051

(July 15, 1988), which resulted in a fifty percent reduction of the

number of hours expended from 223.80 to 112.

The agency then turned its attention to the paralegal costs included

in the attorneys' statement of fees. Firstly, the agency noted that

the paralegal allegedly expended 31.80 hours on complainant's case at a

rate of $100.00 per hour. Secondly, the agency noted that 19.40 hours

were billed for abstracting the hearing transcript, which was deemed

to be unnecessary because the attorneys claimed to have spent 20 hours

reviewing the transcript after the abstract was completed. Finally,

the agency subtracted the hours spent on the abstract from 31.80,

and concluded that the total number of hours expended by the paralegal

was 12.40. Moreover, the agency concluded that the reasonable hourly

rate in the community for a paralegal was $75.00 per hour. The findings

resulted in an award of $930.00 for paralegal expenses. The reduction

in hours plus the reduction in reasonable rates for the attorneys and

the paralegal resulted in an award of $14,040.00 in attorney's fees.

Finally, the agency examined the amount of costs, i.e., $2,721.77,

requested by complainant's counsel. Of the amount of costs requested,

$1,916.71 was attributed to computerized legal research. The agency

noted that because the case at issue contained a narrowly tailored

issue, which was not novel or complex, the amount of legal research

was not justified. In making this determination, the agency added that

complainant's attorneys were armed with a favorable AJ decision and a

decision from the agency, both of which contained relevant case law.

Based on this argument, the agency reduced the amount of requested

costs by fifty percent, and awarded complainant $1,763.42 instead.

After combining this figure with the amount of attorney's fee awarded,

the agency concluded that complainant was only entitled to an award

of $15,803.42.

After a careful review of the record in its entirety, including statements

submitted on appeal, the Commission finds that the agency's decision

properly referenced the relevant facts and analyzed the appropriate

regulations, policies, and laws. Accordingly, it is our decision to

affirm the final agency decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). 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 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 (S0900)

You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States

District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you

receive this decision. 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. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, 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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

January 30, 2003

__________________

Date