Case No. 85-ERA-7

In the Matter of

JEFFREY JOHNSON
    Claimant

    v.

TRANSCO PRODUCTS, INC.
    Employer

    In my original decision and order issued herein on March 5, 1985 I noted that counsel for Complainant had not yet indicated what fee he would request for his services nor what expenses Complainant had incurred in pursuit of his claim. I therefore requested that a request for an attorney's fee and reimbursement of specified expenses be submitted to this office within 20 days of the original Recommended Decision and Order. I also gave the Employer 10 working days from receipt of the application in which to object thereto. On November 18 Complainant's Counsel requested an attorney's fee of $5,593.75 and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $409.28.

    On March 20, 1985, the Employer mailed objections to the counsel fee and expenses alleging the following: (1) lack of jurisdiction byt he administrative law judge to address the matter; (2) failure of Claimant to make a request; (3) the size of certain expenses;' (4) size of the hourly rate; and (5) the time charges for various items.

    It is not clear from either the statute or 29 C.F.R. 24.6(c) whether attorneys' fees and costs are to be awarded contemporaneously with the Secretary's Final Order or whether they are to be subject to a supplemental proceeding after the Final Order has been issued. I shall forward my Recommended Supplemental Decision and Order to the Secretary for his consideration and action at such time as he deems appropriate. As Claimant an November 18, 1985 did requests reimbursement for costs including an attorney's fee there has been compliance with both the statute and the regulations.

    In the interests of administrative convenience and economy the hearing was set in Peoria, Illinois, 98.5 rather than 75 miles from, Claimant's place of residence. Claimant, for whose benefit the 75 mile limit is included in 29 C.F.R. 24.5, did not object to the venue and neither did the Employer before the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge regrets that the hearing took place during one of the worst blizzards of the year but disclaims all responsibility in the matter. Accordingly I find no merit in the Employer's objections based on the costs incurred because of the additional mileage.

    The Employer objects to Claimant and his counsel lodging in one of the most "deluxe hotels" in the Peoria area. Not only does the the Employer fail to state what the cost of lodging in Peoria at a more modest hotel would have been, but I was informed by the parties prior to the hearing that all counsel and their clients were staying at the Pere Marquette, which is located in the immediate vicinity of the place of the hearing. Under these circumstances objections to the lodging costs of Claimant and his counsel are entirly unfounded.

    Claimant's counsel requested the award of a counsel fee of $5,593.75 for 44.75 hours of work at $125 an hour. The Employer objects both to the billing rate and to various items billed. As the case presented difficult issues in a relatively new field of law I find the total fee requested appropriate and shall therefore

not discuss the details of its calculations.

    It is therefore recommended that the following paragraph be added to my Recommended Decision and Order of March 5, 1985:

    The Employer, Transco Products Inc. shall pay Steven N. Fritzshall the sum of $5,593.75 for legal services rendered to Complainant in this proceeding and reimbursement for expenses incurred in the amount of $409.28.

       ANASTASIA T. DUNAU
       Administrative Law Judge

Dated: MAR 29 1985
Washington, D.C.

ATD:pas