*1 dis- date, we affirm an accrual complaint. plaintiff’s missal Affirmed. PHETOSOMPHONE,

Nenh Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. GROUP, INC. d/b/a REED ALLISON Plating, Noel Smith Techni-Craft Defendants, Appellees. Marsella, Carol Plaintiff, Appellant, SHOWALTER, Gary GROUP, INC. d/b/a REED ALLISON Plating, Noel Smith Techni-Craft Defendants, Appellees. Marsella, Carol 92-1117, 92-1118. Nos. Appeals, States Court United First Circuit. 11, 1992. Sept. Heard 20, 1993. Jan. Decided *2 Deveney with whom Michael R.

Susan brief, plaintiffs, ap- on Hagopian was pellants. Padre, appellee A. Del Noel

Elizabeth' Smith. Shayle

Steven A. Robinson with whom brief, appellee Allison Robinson was Group, Reed Inc. d/b/a Techni-Craft Plat- ing. TORRUELLA, Judge,

Before Circuit ALDRICH, Judge, Circuit Senior BOUDIN, Judge. Circuit

BOUDIN, Judge. Circuit Gary and Nenh Phetosom- Showalter court, ap- plaintiffs in the district phone, attorneys’ award of peal from that court’s following their successful Title VII fees suit. Because we conclude that discre- court did not abuse considerable determining award, affirm. we

I. suits, brought separate later

Plaintiffs trial, against Allison Reed consolidated for Reed”), (“Allison Smith Group, Noel Inc. Marsella, plaintiffs alleging that and Carol harassment of sexual victims plain- complaints, In their workplace. declaratory re- sought equitable and tiffs Title VII of pay lief under and back 1964, 42 2000e Rights Act of U.S.C. Civil damages compensatory seq., as well as et law for the under Rhode tort Island of emotional distress. infliction intentional against claim Smith Plaintiffs’ tort Title jury, Marsella tried to Reed and Smith against Allison VII court.1 simultaneously to the tried in favor of jury returned a verdict The the’ state-law claim. defendants on ruled, harassment claim of sexual established a against Allison Reed and under Title VII statutory "employer" Title sella was not a directed a verdict for Allison 1. The district court proper defendant VII was therefore not count at the close of Reed on the state-law respect that count. also ruled that Mar- case. The court discretion, may allow court, in its Alli- defendant ordered Smith. Commis- than party, prevailing procedure establish Reed son States, a reasonable the United harassment, enjoined sion or of sexual fees) as *3 expert (including fee attorney’s harassment sexual allowing future fromit costs_” 2000e- 42 U.S.C. § work.2 to of the part he return should of Showalter fees under of had Phetosomphone Accordingly, an award 5(k). found The court an under primarily a result discharged as is reviewed constructively statute been standard, out the trial had and been and of discretion abuse sexual harassment of particularly weeks, it and awarded discretion eight range of for court’s work of plus prejudg- Metropolitan $1,737.60 of pay States United back broad. him procedural 12, (1st Cir. and 14 factual Comm’n, The F.2d 847 interest. ment Dist. and on more parties case this 1988). of advised background We have in detail forth are set merits “the battle rulings [over on the occasion than one Inc., Group, Reed deter- likely to be v. Allison attorneys’ Showalter fee awards] (D.R.I.1991). Foley v. 1205 F.Supp. E.g., court.” trial 767 in the mined (1st Cir. 19 Lowell, 948 City merits, dis- on of decision After its applicant bears Moreover, fee “the 1991). an to submit plaintiffs invited court trict to establishing entitlement of the burden fees attorneys’ and costs for application documenting the and an award 2000e-5(k). The 42 U.S.C. pursuant hourly Hens rates.” and expended hours application that “[t]he stated court 103 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. ley v. by a de- supported must fees counsel (1983). 1933, 1941, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. of accounting contemporaneous tailed, case.” on this attorneys by the spent time explained Supreme Court Plaintiffs’ at 1215. F.Supp. point for starting useful most that “[t]he attorneys’ seeking application submitted a reasonable of determining the amount $83,177. dis- The totalling and costs fees expend- reasonably of hours number is the applica- hearing on the held a court trict by a reason- multiplied litigation on the ed addi- to submit tion, and directed 433, 103 S.Ct. rate,” hourly able of their support documentation tional adjustments could 1939, adding that claim. “other consider- to reflect made then be only Id. ultimately allowed results obtained. including the court The ations” in costs. In this at 1940. $240 $12,762 fees and explaining compensable opinion 13-page determined court issued court limiting the such sharply hours it discounted reasons its hours as follows: detail only needed time hours allowed exclude as to time to both as trial award claim; state attached presence The court hourly claimed. of rate because it specific which mat- appendix spent on 16-page hours opinion a it disallowed only time relate could expenditure by their nature itemized each ters that sought, and claim; disallowed and it compensation was state-law to the which generally allowed had been so which documented identified This connection stricken. their or not determine been reduced could had court which Having derived VII claim.3 Title followed. to the appeal hours, the court allowable total number II. fee, hourly re- by an multiplied them then hourly rate requested any ducing provides “[i]n VII Title hour. per to $90 subchapter $150 this or proceeding action in nominal Showalter court awarded trial, work was out of Showalter 2. At time damages. receiving worker’s injury was due to back not left Showalter compensation. Because improbable as disallowed also 3. The harassment employment because his by an of 12 in excess for hours claims held injury, account rather on separate any day. There is no attorney one pay. to back not entitled that Showalter challenge this determination. for intentional infliction claim on the state-law challenge broadest Plaintiffs’ example, the de- distress: of emotional separating concept of appeal is to the regarding the emo- velopment of evidence state-law devoted time by Showal- allegedly suffered tional harm that, recognize appear Plaintiffs claims. (because compensa- Phetosomphone ter and spent on separately, considered available un- damages were not then tory attor not warrant would claims state-law VII), relating to the and efforts der Title being fees, outside those claims ney’s preparation jury selection jury, such boot. unsuccessful to Title VII and ambit of (because only the state-law of instructions argue, because Plaintiffs jury). On the same to the tried arose and state-law Title VII *4 the court was we believe that principle, facts, virtually all of set of of the same out or or discount hours to eliminate entitled for this case prepare to efforts counsel’s expenses that it found would the the state-law and to both related trial the incurred but for unsuccess- have been circumstances, these claims. In claim. ful See state-law rejected contend, courts have the 1941; 436-37, Wagenmann, at 103 S.Ct. in the spent the hours attempts to attribute expenses). (segregable 829 at 225 F.2d or the claim ease to one of the preparation the district Plaintiffs next criticize litiga viewed the other, and instead have concept, arguing application setting an in as a whole general terms but with (often fairly fee award. time dis- examples) that some some the Hensley quite true that It is have been or disallowed should counted attempts to that Court cautioned Supreme say example, plaintiffs that permitted. For may un claims hours between allocate proceed- state administrative spent on involves related action where an warranted Title filing to a predicate a ings, which are a common core applied to legal theories allowed, and claim, have VII should been 434-35, 461 U.S. at facts. for con- permitted little time was that too may find that court Thus a district Admittedly, in exclud- sulting clients. with are so interre state claims federal and the hours, the limiting these ing or preparation of lated, spent in the time line. The disallo- very hard court took at overlapping, that an so claims those they wances, not irrational: were to time attributable tempt separate decision district court’s from the stemmed See, e.g., futile. would be or the other one instances, counsel similar that these Dirs., Bd School v. Milwaukee Munson na- inadequate explanation provided Cir.1992); 266, (7th Wagen 272 F.2d 969 compensation for which services ture of the (1st Adams, mann relationship to the claimed, or of their was Cir.1987). not follow that But it does Thus, claims, where or both. Title VII eliminating prevented court is as “li- entries such contained time records claims counsel,” to state-law attributable opposing “letters brary” and here, reasonably con where, court time, noting that the excluded the court overlap complete not a there guessing that about their cludes court “left the entries Indeed, in Hens separation proper. purposes.” itself, and unsuc where the successful ley the district some basis There was related, closely Su were cessful specificity. The upon court’s insistence dis generally that said preme Court “[t]he intimately familiar with court, which specific attempt identify may court trict case, plaintiffs’ state-law found eliminated, may or it that should be role in very played substantial claim to account simply reduce award prosecution of preparation and 436-37, 103 U.S. at success.” 461 limited rejected expressly The court this action. S.Ct. plaintiff’s representation exclusively to the relating were, dis- as the efforts this instance there comprised less than five found, claim performed state-law discrete tasks trict her total percent of work only to that related by plaintiffs’ counsel plaintiffs’ counsel district court noted readily apparent to the it “[sjince [was] only three law for practicing plaintiffs’ efforts had been that most of Court per obtaining large $90 years, and it stated toward directed law_” range at- normal Com- the court’s under state hour was damage award course, experience. were not torneys this level of damages, of pensatory high the time of this end VII at under Title court awarded counsel available Rights supervisory Act of role in Civil reflect her Compare range to trial. 102-166, 105 Stat. us provided with No. Plaintiffs have litigation. Pub.L. (1991). judg- overturning the court’s 1072-73 no basis ment. skepticism was also The district court’s that counsel finding grounded Only aspect of one time rec- contemporaneous failed to submit At gives pause. us court’s determination omission This showing hours worked. ords the court said opinion, the outset of its afforded after the persisted even Title by plaintiff on the the relief obtained remedy prob- opportunity compar “relatively limited VII the bar expressly advised have lem.4 We litigation as a scope of the ison to the contempora- *5 of detailed “the absence that Specifically, the court observed whole.” records, extraordinary except in time neous sought complaint had plaintiff’s each that circumstances, for a substantial will call damages on compensatory in million $1 or, egregious in any in award reduction claim, state-law whereas their unsuccessful Den, cases, Inc. disallowance.” Grendel’s only in ultimately received plaintiffs $1 Cir.1984); (1st Larkin, (in appellant damages the case of nominal accord, at Hensley, 461 U.S. (in Showalter) $1,737 pay in the and back (“Where of the documentation at 1939 Thus, the court Phetosomphone). case of may court inadequate, district is hours noted, monetary that relief combined “[t]he In this accordingly.”). the award

reduce ultimately received was less plaintiffs case, trial coun- court did not disallow they of what percent of one than one-tenth records, lack of such claim for sel’s sought.” originally encourage the court to resolve lack did that against reimbursement.5 doubts proportionate plaintiffs’ that We think their claim vis-a-vis that the success on Title VII reject the claim

We also the state-law claim prevail in reduc failure to on its discretion district court abused court Since the district elimi- hourly irrelevant. ing $90. counsel’s rate compensation court, any fixing in nated from the a award We held that district have the‘prosecution of the award, spent on by the for hours fee is not a reasonable bound claim, illogical re- it would be by the coun state-law hourly requested rate victor’s to reflect the lack sel; rather, duce further the may establish a rate award the court true of that claim. It is on coun of success based it considers reasonable cases, stated of the courts have prevailing and a number experience skill and sel’s plaintiff’s is a that “the extent of a success Metropolitan District rates. market See determining proper 19; Comm’n, Wojtkowski v. crucial factor 847 F.2d at Cir.1984). attorney’s of 127, 131(1st amount of an award Cade, 725 F.2d clearly finding poraneously. is not computer-generated This factual a first submitted Counsel accept and we are bound to containing erroneous it. that counsel the dates list case, description of a brief on worked performed of and the number tasks contemporaneous records lead 5. The lack of did accounting in- expended. disallowance, court found this specific but not to one of requested adequate to submit con- and by lead counsel. Plaintiffs included claimed response, temporaneous records. pre- bill of a their submission affidavit and for the entries attorney, only descrip- individual time sheets submitted decessor which listed chronological court found that list. The on the of services a total amount due. Nei- by expended time sheets were written in total nor on individu- all of these ther the time no whatev- pen, and it concluded al items was We see error hand in the same included. same disallowing prepared an undocumented contem- er in such claim. the sheets had not been item- providing a worksheet 440, 103 addition fees....” provides built-in costs, the form also ize Foley, 948 F.2d 1943; see also S.Ct. language tracking the declaration must these statements think But we statute. degree referring to the be understood claims unsuccessful where success

overall neglected In this num in the calculation are included any supply or to costs form a bill of file compensation for which ber of hours claimed the costs verification allowed. in the case” “necessarily incurred were Nevertheless, do not believe we compensation for which services that the outcomes comparison court’s necessarily “actually and sought were plaintiffs in by achieved Rather, submit the affidavit performed.” proceed- further requires state-law only that costs plaintiffs stated by ted expressed ings. The district liti preparation “in expended were opin- introductory section in an view case,” which, as the of this gation any manifest itself ion; did the belief inclu noted, and more is a broader award, and reduction particular disal The court therefore sive standard. were award in the reductions specific $240, rep which than costs other lowed all disallowance legitimate upon the based cases; in the two filing fees resented role, it any played If the comment hours. which, in the costs only these the court’s predicate to general was as view, safely be assumed could or discount to disallow decision permissible “necessarily in to have been their face suc- to the related to be not shown curred.” cessful claim. have permissibly could The district court *6 such expenses, other that certain concluded III. individ- depositions the cost of as the that the court Finally, plaintiffs interpret- contend an the cost of and ual defendants for costs disallowing request by "nec- Phetosomphone, erred plaintiff er for argu- This fees. filing face, than believe we do not but essary” on long. detain us not At the obliged ment need to do so. court was the that judge warned hearing, prevailing the of to The award costs initial costs sub- the that counsel plaintiffs’ award, of a creature is the fee party, like and of proper bill costs not a mission was 54(d) that states Fed.R.Civ.P. statute. filing, the for additional time afforded of as a matter allowed shall be “costs already de- the affidavit response was the party unless prevailing course to adequate technically Preparing scribed. 6 directs_” Allowable Court otherwise respon- costs was application 1920; 28 and 28 are listed U.S.C. § costs not a court’s; it was and sibility, not party “the provides that 1924 U.S.C. § given responsibility, or onerous difficult or disbursement any item of cost claiming available costs” form the “bill affidavit, by made an thereto shall attach clerk. attorney or duly authorized his himself or attorneys’ fee provided has facts, Congress that knowledge of the having agent important It is cases. in Title VII awards necessari- has been is correct and such item in the stat- reflected policy public that the the services in the case and ly incurred proof requirements by not be undone ute charged were fees have been for which grudg- byor stringent too overly A are necessarily performed.” actually the At reasonable. is of what 133) ing a test (AO made avail- form of costs” “bill are time, peculiarly awards such fee court; in same by the party prevailing able to the 126, Express, 143 F.R.D. Myrick v. TNT Overland suggests costs appellants' Although brief accord, 1992); v. Ten Goostree (N.D.Ohio 128 directly imposed section 2000e- may Cir.1986), 854, (6th cert. nessee, 864 796 2000e-5(k) 5(k), does alter "[s]ection 1374, denied, L.Ed.2d 94 480 U.S. by awards costs which the court standard 54(d)." (1987). 689 attorneys’ pursuant Rule fees are not 10 of defendant deposition taking of the discretion of expertise

within the harasser, Smith, principal judge. allocate cannot that counsel ground proper to strike difficult It is often extraordinary burden. subtract, imposes an matters, fee-setting balance note compensate suc- adequately the need might be say, this myAs brothers bur- the need against cessful sugges- adopt the occasion to appropriate fairly, but defendants unsuccessful den Eckerhart, U.S. 461 Hensley v. tion in which, as The district no more. court— 1933, 1941, 40 76 L.Ed.2d 436-37, 103 S.Ct. frequently lived with has in this said, “The (1983), the Court where long period lawyers litigation identify specific attempt may likely more to be time, and which eliminated, may or it should be marketplace familiar with —has to account simply reduce the award vantage. coign of best That, brings success.” limited Comm’n, F.2d at Dist. Metropolitan difficulty, the district my real me to un- provided an judge the trial 20. Here case where was a finding that for the reduc- explanation usually detailed in com- “truly limited obtained was relief by plain- sought costs fees and as a litigation scope parison' to are untaint- conclusions tiffs. The court’s 440, 103 whole,” citing the realm within by legal error fall ed .terms, “won on S.Ct. at 1943. the dis- Accordingly, of reasonableness. plaintiff.” claim for each one minor judgment is trict court’s affirmed. Judge, ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Rivera, 477 U.S. In Riverside dissenting. 2694-2695, 574-576, 106 S.Ct. said, (1986), the Court of the court’s L.Ed.2d much quite agree I attorney fees deter- Certainly an opinion. litigants, a civil private tort most Unlike lawsuit, second not be a mination should impor- to vindicate rights plaintiff seeks number of finding of the and a court’s rights that and constitutional tant civil and of reasonably spent, monetary solely in be valued cannot terms_ hand on first part hourly based rates *7 ability, should not counsel’s appraisal of not re- do damages awards Because Nor reason. except special reviewable by public benefit advanced fully the flect plaintiffs’ unex- sympathize I with can not Congress did litigation, rights civil formal disregard of persistent plained and cases, un- rights fees in civil intend for troubled, I much rules. am methodology cases, depend on private law most like approach to by relief.... monetary obtaining substantial case, primary issue devot- have would not claim that ed to the state rea- recognized that Thus, Congress not been that issue includ- spent been are attorney’s fees sonable not cases were The and state ed. federal not be upon and need conditioned related, even totally separate, but were money dam- an award of proportionate concedes, wit- with, identical as defendant ages. fed- only nesses. difference possi- the maximum had achieved Plaintiffs time, not include did recovery, at that eral claims, includ- recovery federal on the ble there damages. Even here compensatory employer to against defendant ing order in that connection special awas with re- procedures improve its internal show, for the even federal obliged dwell- itsBy spect to sexual harassment. own, conceded count, partic- sought dollars length on state ing involuntary. unenjoyable ipation, was and, them mathemati- though not applying circumstance, disregard of total In this “minor” concluding cally, such items confer- charged for that the district think I cannot clients; with contacts ences with Act, Rights the Civil for, depreciated greatly defendants, preparation discretion, Boston, Masteralexis, MA, on T. I would James seriously impairing its Broth, Officers, of Police for Intern. brief reconsideration. favor curiae.

amicus Gale, Gen., Atty. Rosemary S. Asst. Gen., Harshbarger, Atty, Bos- whom Scott brief, ton, MA, appellees. COFFIN, SELYA, Judge, Before Circuit STAHL, Judge, Circuit Circuit Senior Judge. etc., al., WEAVER, Ralph et S. Plaintiffs, Appellants, SELYA, Judge. Circuit In the district court refused this HENDERSON, etc., et

Charles injunction suspending preliminary issue al., Defendants, Appellees. Depart- Police the Massachusetts State No. 92-1821. plain- policy. “no mustache” ment’s tiffs, partial to their police veteran officers Appeals, Court United States mustaches, prosecute appeal. existing First Circuit. discre- Finding legal error or abuse of no Dec. Heard tion, of interim relief. affirm the denial we Decided Jan.

I. BACKGROUND merge decided to Massachusetts (the police forces Division four state Police, Metropolitan District Com- State Police, Police, Capitol mission Regis- of Law Enforcement Division Vehicles) single entity into a try of Motor Police). An (the See Department of State Police Forces Certain Act to Consolidate Commonwealth, Mass.Acts c. enabling legislation was at 985. When law, defendant-appellee Charles signed into ranking officer of Henderson was *8 legisla- of State Police. Since Division Henderson, by stipulated that Colonel rank, as the “ex- would serve virtue of his head” and administrative ecutive force, possessed he composite id. necessary rules and “make all power to of, and disci- governance regulations” within, department. Id. pline the new addition, directed him to the law program to familiar- a transition establish component units with ize officers practices and rules and department’s new id. a unified mission. See to inculcate newly statuto- Boston, MA, to his conferred Pursuant McCarthy, Kathleen M. promul- authority, Henderson ry Colonel appellants. plaintiffs,