1 The statutes covered by the regulation are the Safe Water Drinking Act ("SDWA"), 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i); the Water Pollution Control Act ("WPCA"), 33 U.S.C. 1367; the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), 15 U.S.C. 2622; the Solid Waste Disposal Act ("SWDA"), 42 U.S.C. 6971; the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. 7622; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 ("ERA"), 42 U.S.C. 5851; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. 9610. 29 C.F.R. §24.1(a).
2 Withdrawal of the Complainants' former co-counsel, Attorney Jacqueline O. Kittrell, was approved by order issued on June 13, 2000. Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 36. A third attorney, Lori A. Tetrault, Esq., who had previously entered an appearance as co-counsel with Attorneys Slavin and Kittrell, never formally requested to withdraw but has not participated in the proceeding. Subsequent to his termination as the Complainants' counsel, the Petitioner's request to be retained on the service list in this matter was granted by the Court. Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 31.
3 Specifically, I recommended that the Respondent be ordered to pay $25,000.00 in compensatory damages to Complainant Commie Byrum, $50,353.77 to Complainant Kenneth Warden and $2,500.00 to Complainant Virginia Johnson. RDO at 61.
4 The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act, in pertinent part provides that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs . . . ." 42 U.S.C. §1988(b)
5 Unlike the situation presented herein, the complainant in Brown apparently felt sufficient sympathy for his former attorney to belatedly execute a consent to the fee application which prompted the Court to "reluctantly and with the admonition that applications for fees under Section 1988 must be made in the name of the party" consider the merits of the fee application. 722 F.2d at 1011. On the merits, the Court concluded that the release executed by the complainant barred any subsequent claim for attorney's fees. Id. at 1011-1012.
6 The Court in Jonas acknowledged that other courts had awarded fees to individual attorneys rather than to the prevailing parties. 758 F.2d at 570 n. 7, citing Shadis v. Beal, 692 F.2d 924 (3rd Cir.1982) and Dennis v. Chang, 611 F.2d 1302, 1309 (9th Cir.1980). However, in neither of these cases was standing raised as an issue, and, more importantly, there was no evidence that the prevailing parties opposed the applications for attorney's fees filed independently by counsel.