With respect to costs, although the only recoverable costs cited
in the regulations are for reporting fees, expert witnesses, and
copying, the Commission has held that recoverable costs may include
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the normal course of
representation. See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 11-4 (November 9, 1999). Recoverable
expenditures include costs associated with clerical work, postage, and
telephone calls, as well as travel expenses, including air fare, hotel
accommodations, meals, and car rental. To be reimbursed for incurred
costs, the fee applicant must submit adequate documentation in support
of the expenses incurred, e.g., copies of telephone bills or receipts.
The agency denied complainant’s request for costs in the amount of
the $19,225, finding that her attorney failed to present adequate
documentation in support of the expenses incurred. Complainant’s attorney
asserts that the costs, such as postage, shipping, internal photocopies,
on-line subscriptions legal research, and long distance phone calls
and faxes, are internal costs and invoices are thus unavailable.
He further explains that he maintained a record of costs by means of
client billing meters and timers, which are read monthly and billed to
the client’s account.
The Commission recognizes that receipts for costs, such as postage,
shipping, internal photocopies, and on-line subscriptions legal research,
may not always be available where a law firm utilizes billing meters and
timers. In such a case, however, a verified statement of costs should
include: a list of services rendered itemized by date, detailed summary
of the task, rate, and, where practicable, the name of the individual
performing the task. See EEO MD-110, at 11-9. Furthermore, with respect
to long distance phone calls and faxes, we find that, since such charges
are memorialized in a monthly telephone bill, a complainant’s attorney
should be prepared to produce said bill when seeking reimbursement for
such costs.
In the present case, invoices were sent to the agency on a regular basis
with the breakdown of costs by category alone. This breakdown, however,
failed to provide any itemization of costs by date or rate, and while
the invoice included categories, no summary regarding the substance of
the task, e.g., 2 copies of January 2003 invoice (6 pages each), was
included. Moreover, the invoices submitted contained differing totals
for costs claimed. For example, on July 16, 2003, complainant’s attorney
submitted a bill listing, among other things, $1,706 in “photocopy” costs
for March 2003. However, on August 21, 2003, he submitted a second bill
for March 2003 costs, which itemized $1,165.85 for “copies.” Due to the
failure of complainant’s attorney to create a verified statement of costs
in compliance with EEO MD-110, as well as the billing discrepancies in
claims for costs as described in the example above, the Commission finds
that the agency properly denied the $19,225 claimed in costs.
