111 A.3d 9
D.C.2015Background
- Petitioner Kelvin Johnson appeals a CRB decision that vacated part of a DOES ALJ Compensation Order.
- DOES ALJ originally awarded Johnson costs (1,462.00) and attorney’s fees to the prevailing claimant.
- CRB held CMPA does not authorize an award of costs; only attorney’s fees are contemplated.
- Issue presented: whether CMPA authorizes costs in addition to attorney’s fees for a prevailing claimant.
- Court reviews de novo statutory construction, recognizing the District as final authority on statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CMPA authorize costs alongside attorney’s fees? | Johnson: CMPA permits costs as part of fees. | Johnson: CMPA language excludes only costs? Wait: analysis. | No; CMPA authorizes only attorney’s fees, not costs. |
| Is the agency’s interpretation of CMPA reasonable given Chevron deference? | Johnson: agency interpretation should be liberal to include costs. | DOES: CMPA and regulations do not authorize costs; reasonable under Chevron. | Agency interpretation reasonably excludes costs under CMPA. |
| Do CMPA regulations and related statutes corroborate the absence of cost shifting? | Johnson points to other statutes/regulations allowing costs. | Regulations here expressly provide only fees for representation; others do not apply to CMPA. | Regulations support excluding costs; CMPA remains limited to attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parrish v. District of Columbia, 718 A.2d 133 (D.C. 1989) (plain meaning governs unless ambiguity present)
- Varela v. Hi-Lo Powered Stirrups, Inc., 424 A.2d 61 (D.C. 1980) (plain-language interpretation preferred)
- Fluellyn v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 54 A.3d 1156 (D.C. 2012) (deference to agency interpretation in ambiguous statutes)
- Nunnally v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep’t, 80 A.3d 1004 (D.C. 2013) (Chevron deference and agency interpretation credibility)
- Howard Univ. Hosp. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 960 A.2d 603 (D.C. 2008) (defers to CRB interpretations of ambiguous CMPA provisions)