DATE.  SEPT. 16, 1994

CASE NO. 87-ERA-21

BARBARA POGUE,

    Complainant,

    v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY MARE ISLAND NAVAL
SHIPYARD,

                            Respondent.


                            N0TICE/ORDER

     By the Secretary's Final Decision and Order on Remand he
remanded this matter to the ALJ to give Complainant's former
attorneys an opportunity to supplement their request for attorney
fees.  Final D&O, pgs. 26-27.  D&O pg. 4, lines 2-6 set forth the
parameters of this remand instruction.

     The opportunity referred to is, by this Notice and Order
afforded to Complainant's former attorneys, for work performed
after 3/24/88.  Most of this work was performed before the
Secretary (and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).  Thus the Secretary
would appear to be the agency representative who is in the best
position to evaluate the petitioned fee.  It is anticipated that on
the close of the parties' presentation in accord with the
Secretary's remand order, and absent any agreement settling this
attorney fee question, the submissions will go forward to the
Secretary for appropriate action, with any ALJ recommendations on
the limited services performed before her post 3/24/88.  It is
assumed the presentation in accord with the Secretary's remand
order will be documentary.

    Thus on the Complainant's former attorneys' submissions and
actions in accord with this Notice/Order and the Secretary's remand
order, within thirty days, Respondent has thirty days after proof
of service on them to file any objections to, responses or comments
thereon.  Should Complainant's former attorneys desire responsive
opportunity to any submissions filed in accord with this 
[PAGE 2]
Notice/Order, they have twenty days thereafter, and after proof of
service, to do so.  Similarly so Respondent, to any response,
should they so desire.

    The Respondent is the party liable on any attorney fees
requested by Complainant's former attorneys for post 3/24/88 legal
services.  Complainant is however afforded responsive opportunity,
within the time parameters set out above.  Any such submissions by
Complainant will be considered to the extent relevant on the issue
of legal fees for her former counsels' for services performed after
3/24/88.  All submissions to the ALJ by any party must
contain a Proof of service certification, a certification that the
submission her was served on Complainant's former attorneys,
Respondents two counsels, in Washington, D.C. and Vallejo, their
Vallejo client, and Complainant.  See Service Sheet listing
attached to Secretary's Final D&O on Remand.


                                  ELLIN M. O'SHEA
                                  Administrative Law Judge

EOS:brt