Several of the district court cases cited by Mr. Timmons simply rely on Pecker and its progeny or other cases which do not support the contention that Mr. Timmons is entitled to the relief he seeks. Cases in this category include: Hashimoto v. Dalton; 870 F.Supp. 1544, 1557 (D.Haw. 1994) (relying on Pecker, Morris, and Haskins); Huey v. Bowen, 705 F.Supp. 1414, 1418-1419 (W.D.Mo. 1989) (relying on Pecker); and Evans v. Secretary of Energy, 1990 WL 51921, at *2 (D.D.C. 1990) (relying substantially on Pecker, Haskins, and Moore). The one case supporting Mr. Timmons' position that does not rely on Pecker or other enforcement action cases is Williams v. Herman, 129 F.Supp.2d 1281 (E.D.Cal. 2001).
The Agency argued that the district court could not award Huey relief beyond what the EEOC had ordered without retrying the issue of liability de novo. It conceded, however, that the court is bound by the EEOC's order with respect to its enforcement. On February 8, 1989, the district court granted Huey summary judgment on the issue of liability, rejecting the Agency's argument that it was entitled to de novo review before the court could grant additional relief. After further proceedings, the court rejected Huey's claims for relief beyond that awarded by the EEOC. It did, however, grant Huey attorney's fees for work up to the grant of partial summary judgment on February 8, 1989. 705 F. Supp. 1414. Huey now appeals the district court's denial of interest on the back pay award, accountant's expenses, and attorney's fees incurred after February 8, 1989. The Agency claims that the district court proceedings are not final, and thus this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Plaintiff cites a number of cases from other circuits to support her proposition. See Pecker v. Heckler, 801 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1986); Haskins v. U.S. Department of Army, 808 F.2d 1192 (6th Cir. 1987); Moore v. Devine, 780 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1986); Morris v. Rice, 985 F.2d 143 (4th Cir. 1993); Hashimoto v. Dalton, 870 F. Supp. 1544 (Haw. 1994); Huey v. Bowen, 705 F. Supp. 1414 (W.D.Mo. 1989); but see, Cocciardi v. Russo, 721 F. Supp. 735 (E.D.Pa. 1989); Simpkins v. Runyon, 5 F. Supp.2d 1347 (N.D.Ga. 1998); Boarman v. Sullivan, 769 F. Supp. 904 (Md. 1991). The cases plaintiff adduces have one commonality, none of them examine the plain language of the regulations to which this court is bound to give deference.