No Recovery Under EAJA for Employee’s Costs Working on an Appeal
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.28.20
In GSI & Whitesell-Green JV (Jan. 30, 2020), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied a contractor’s request for Equal Access to Justice Act fees that reflected its employees’ costs of supporting the entitlement appeal. The Board rejected the contractor’s argument that its employees’ costs were similar to attorney’s fees finding support in Fanning Phillips, Molnar v. West, 160 F.3d 717 (Fed. Cir. 1998), which held that EAJA did not cover costs related to a contractor employees’ “personal absence from a business” or “other expenses” or “time spent [as] an ‘expert witness.’”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 05.28.26
Texas Targets Big Tech With Wave of Suits and Investigations, Part of Nationwide Trend
Client Alert | 7 min read | 05.27.26
Colorado Hits Reset on AI Regulation: SB 26-189 Repeals and Reenacts the Colorado AI Act
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.27.26
Don’t Get Left in the Doghouse: The Federal Circuit’s Global K9 Case and the Duty to Intervene
