ORDER
Plaintiff, Marilyn Wilcox, brought this sexual harassment and sexual discrimination suit against Defendant, Stratton Lumber Co., Inc. (“Stratton”). On November 29, 1995, a jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff on her hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims, and for Defendant on Plaintiffs failure to promote claim. The jury awarded $115,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff now seeks back pay, front pay and attorney’s fees. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). Plaintiff also seeks civil penal damages under the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). See 5 M.R.SA § 4613(2)(B)(7).
I. Allocation of Compensatory and Punitive Damages
The Parties agree that Defendant employed between 14 and 101 employees during the relevant time period, and, therefore, that the statute limits the total compensatory and punitive damages recovery to $50,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(A);
Hogan v. Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Co.,
In
Hogan v. Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Go.,
the jury returned a verdict of $200,000 in compensatory and $200,000 in punitive damages, under a relevant cap of $200,000 total damages.
While this Court lacks the discretion § 2106 provides to appellate courts, the
Hogan
Court’s reasoning guides the allocation of damages under the $50,000 cap in this case. By filling out the cap with compensatory damages and vacating any punitive award, the First Circuit avoided dealing with substantive issues surrounding the award of рunitive damages.
Hogan,
II. Equitable Relief
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1) provides for equitable relief for victims of discrimination, *842 including “reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay ... or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate,” upon a finding that the defendant unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff. In light of the evidence presented at trial and the jury verdict, the Court readily concludes that Defendant engaged in unlawful discrimination against Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of back and front pay. Plaintiff also seeks civil penal damages under the MHRA. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 4613.
A Back Pay
Title VII permits an award of back pay for the period beginning two years before the date of the filing of Plaintiffs complaint up to the date of judgment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1);
Scarfo v. Cabletron Systems, Inc.,
1. Mitigation
According to Title VII, “[i]nterim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1). In other words, a Title VII plaintiff must mitigate her back pay damages.
Id.
The employer, however, bears thе burden of proof on the issue of mitigation.
Booker v. Taylor Milk Company, Inc.,
At trial Plaintiff testified that after leaving Stratton she “went everywhere” in search of employment. (Tr., Vol. II at 245.) Plaintiff testified that she applied for positions as a heavy equipment operator, waitress, and that she applied at hardware stores, convenience stores, gas stations and retail lumber yards for clerk positions. Plaintiff testified that she had no success until the winter of 1993-94, when she secured employment in the nursery at Saddleback Mountain. Plaintiff further testified that in 1994 she performed nursery work, waitressing and cleaning, and in fact, took “about every job I could find.” (Tr., Vol. II at 301.) Plaintiff testified that in 1995 she held cleaning jobs, waitressing jobs, and a cashier/bakery position at an I.G.A. grocery. Plaintiff worked “most days” from 8:00 A.M. until 11:00 P.M. (Tr., Vol. II at 304.) In other words, Plaintiff promptly began an employment search, and in fact, was not unemployed for a significant period of time. Plaintiff also did not limit her employment search to comparably paying positions, but accepted positions at significantly lower wages.
The evidence clearly reflects Plaintiffs effort to find similar and lower paying employment for the remainder of 1993, and her acceptance of lower paying employment beginning in 1994.
See Denton v. Boilermakers Local,
In mid-March, 1994, Defendant made Plaintiff an unconditional offer of reinstatement. Defendant contends that such offers toll the accrual of back pay liability, and asserts that Plaintiff should receive no back pay from the date of the unconditional offer forward. The Court disagrees.
*843
In
Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
the United States Supreme Court indicated that absent special circumstances, an employer’s unconditional offer of reinstatement tolls the accrual of back pay liability.
Plaintiff testified that at the time of Defendant’s offer of reinstatement, she had doubts that the work environment at Stratton had changed, and that she would not have felt comfortable working at Stratton. Defendant failed to impeach this evidence. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff feared continued harassment, and therefore, reasonably declined Defendant’s offer of reinstatement.
See Naylor,
2. Unemployment Benefits
Plaintiff received unemployment benefits of $4,416 in 1993, and $4,281 in 1994. Defendant contends that the Court must reduce any back pay award by the amount of unemployment benefits Plaintiff received.
Traditionally, the collateral source rule prevents a court from reducing damages awards by benefits received by the plaintiff collateral to the defendant.
Lussier v. Runyon,
The Court concludes that it has discretion tо deduct unemployment benefits, and exercises that discretion in this case. The Court recognizes that in addition to making the aggrieved party whole, back pay awards serve to deter future discrimination.
Gaworski,
*844 3. Total Back Pay Award
Defеndant does not dispute Plaintiffs calculation of the back pay award, including raises Defendant offered in 1994 and 1995, which Plaintiff has appropriately reduced by the amount of income she earned in other employment in those years. Accordingly, the Court makes the following back pay award: $13,200 (1993) + $21,025 (1994) + $15,682 (1995), for a subtotal of $49,907. From this, the Court subtracts $4,416 Plaintiff received in unemployment compensation in 1993 and $4,281 Plaintiff received in unemployment compensation in 1994. The Court awards Plaintiff total back pay in the amount of $41,210.
B. Front Pay
When reinstatement is infeasible or impossible, district courts have discretion to award successful Title VII plaintiffs front pay from the date of judgment forward.
Scarfo,
Plaintiff testified that she would have continued working at Stratton until the year 2006, at which point she would have worked 25 years, and she and her husband would have paid their mortgage. Thus, Plaintiff requests a front pay award of approximately $178,000, based on her projected earnings over the next ten years. The Court is persuaded, however, that the record does not support any front pay award, let alone such a generous amount over such a lеngthy period.
See Eldred v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware,
Plaintiff testified that she had very limited prospects of finding similar paying full time employment. Defendant objected to the speculative nature of Plaintiffs testimony. The Court noted that Plaintiffs testimony was based purely on her own personal experience, and that it was not supported by expert testimony. (Tr., Vol. II at 305.) Indeed, Plaintiff offered no expert testimony or evidence on the economy of the Rangeley-Stratton region, or employment availability.
See Scarfo,
In addition, the circumstances of this case weigh against an award of front pay.
See Lussier,
In sum, Plaintiff has not minimally met her burden of proof on front pay.
See Hansel,
C. 401(k) Benefits
Finally, Plaintiff seeks lost 401(k) contributions as part of her back and front pay awards. The First Circuit has left to district court discretion the determination of whether making the plaintiff whole requires an award of lost fringe benefits.
Earnhardt v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Plaintiff bases her calculation of lost 401(k) benefits on her contribution to the plan in 1992. Plaintiff asserts that it is reasonable to assume that her contribution would have continued at the 1992 levels. The Court disagrees. As Defendant points out, Plaintiff contributed voluntarily. While Plaintiff may have desired to continue contributing had she continued her employment аt Stratton, any number of contingencies may have prevented her from continuing to do so. The speculative nature Plaintiffs request significantly increases the risk that an award for lost 401(k) benefits will serve as a windfall to Plaintiff rather than to make her whole.
Plaintiff argues that a past pattern of employer contributions can support a forecast of an employer’s continued contributions.
See Gaworski,
D. Civil . Penal Damages under the MHRA
Upon finding that a defendant violated the MHRA, a court may award a plaintiff any equitable relief it deems appropriate, including up to $10,000 in civil penal damages. 5 M.R.S.A. § 4613(2)(B)(7). Based on the evidence adduced during trial, the Court concludes that Defendant’s conduct violated the MHRA. The Court also has concluded, however, that the back pay award, in conjunction with damages awarded by the jury suffice to make Plaintiff whole and to deter Defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future. The Court concludes that an award of $1,000 in civil penal damages acknowledges Defendant’s violation of the MHRA, and will deter Defendant from further violations. The Court makes this award in the context of the other equitable relief provided to Plaintiff through Title VII, and concludes that any more would result in excessive relief to Plaintiff.
E. Equitable Relief Summary
In sum, the Court orders back pay in the amount of $41,210 and civil penal damages pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 4613(2)(B)(7) in the amount of $1,000. The Court orders Defendant to remit to Plaintiff total equitable relief in the amount of $42,210.
III. Attorney’s Fees
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) provides that the court, in its discretion, may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, including expert witness fees. The determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee award, if any, resides within the broad discretion of the district court.
Scarfo,
A. Excessive Time
Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for a total of 1,568 hours. Based on the billing records filed in support of Plaintiffs attorney’s fees request, it appears that both Curtis and Rebecca Webber worked almost exclusively on this case for its duration. The total amount of time Plaintiffs counsel devoted to this case appears exorbitant for a case of this nature, and a close examination of the billing records underscores this conclusion. In arriving at what the Court determines is a reasonable number of hours, the Court emphasizes that it does not question that the Webbers generally spent the time their billing records reflect. They spent an inordinate amount of time, however, going down blind alleys, raising inappropriate legal issues during discovery and over reacting to non-issues generated by Defendant. In so doing, Plaintiffs counsel spent far more time on peripheral and irrelevant issues than the Court in good conscience can assess as attorney’s fees against Defendant.
Initial examination of the billing records reveals two very strong indicators of excessive or unreasonable billing. First, at least two days reflect a nearly impossible number of hours billed. On April 23, 1995, Curtis Webber billed nearly 19 hours preparing for a deposition, and on October 20, 1995, he billed 24 hours on various tasks. Second, the records are liberally peppered with entries for “legal research” and “review file.” In many cases, the billing record lumps “review file” or “legal research” among several tasks in a large block of time, making it virtually impossible for the Court to determine how much time the attorney sрent reviewing the file, or for what reason. These vague entries defy Court evaluation.
See Weinberger,
Closer examination of the billing records reveals that either Curtis or Rebecca Webber inevitably spent significantly more time on individual tasks than merited. The Court will provide a few specific examples out of many to illustrate the point. Between January 5 and 6, 1994, Curtis Webber billed over twenty one hours in preparation for a fact finding conference. On February 2, 1995, Rebecca Webber billed over three and a half hours, primarily to devise a discovery plan. On May 19, 1995, Rebecca billed nearly seven hours drafting a memorandum on the discrete issue of the relеase of Plaintiff’s marriage counseling records to Defendant. Over the next few days, one or the other attorney devoted several more hours to the memorandum. Between August 8 and 14, 1995, both attorneys spent approximately 35 hours preparing their response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Between August 26 and 27, 1995, Curtis Webber billed between 10 and 17 hours for work on his pretrial memorandum. On August 31, 1995, Rebecca Webber billed over seven hours researching Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and drafting an in limine motion. These are just examples of what the Court views generally as an excessive amount of time spent on discrete tasks in this case.
The records also reflect duplicative efforts on the part of Curtis and Rebeсca Webber, which resulted in duplicative billing. Generally, an excessive amount of time has been billed for co-counsel conferences.
See Weinberger,
*847
The biffing records also reflect far too much time spent in preparation for depositions.
See Weinberger,
From the records the Court also concludes that the Webbers spent an inordinate amount of time in needless consultation with or preparation of their expert, Dr. Wax-man. Either Curtis оr Rebecca Webber spoke or wrote to Dr. Waxman on virtually a daily basis (Dr. Waxman’s name appears in every entry on Page 13 of the biffing records, for example). In light of Dr. Waxman’s testimony at trial and limited impact on the case, the Court is not satisfied that such time in all instances was appropriate and should be billed to Defendant.
The biffing records also reflect an alarmingly high number of hours spent in non-productive conferences or disputes with opposing counsel on collateral or tangential issues. On April 19, 1995, for example, Curtis Webber billed nearly six hours preparing his opposition to a Motion to Quash a Subpoena. Part of the nearly five hours Rebecca Webber billed to the case on July 19,1995 involvеd a telephone conference with opposing counsel regarding whether or not the word “yesterday” was inserted into a letter. The Court in this case was inundated with Motions in Limine, most of which reflected the animosity between counsel rather than serious legal issues or relevance. Many of the Webbers’ biffing entries account for scheduling problems or disputes, or telephone conferences with the Magistrate on issues the Parties should have been able to resolve amicably on their own. The number of discovery related docket entries in this case outstrips any seen by this Court in recent memory. The incivility was caused as much if not more by Defendant’s counsel, but the Court is not willing to use attorney’s fees as punishment for frivolous squabbling.
The Webbers also seek reimbursement for all of the time they spent at trial. The Court, however, is not satisfied that trial required the presence of both attorneys at all times, and the biffing records support this concern. On November 8,1995, for example, both attorneys billed over thirty hours in the aggregate for the first day of trial, at which Curtis Webber made his opening statement. From that point forward, both attorneys billed full days of trial time even though they may not have examined any witnesses or in any other way participated in the proceedings. The Court does not mean to question the Webbers’ trial strategy, which apparently required the constant presence of two attorneys at trial. The Court does not find, however, that the presence of both was necessary, and to that extent, that Defendant should bear the full cost of this strategy.
The Webbers also seek to bill an excessive amount of paralegal time for unnecessary effort.
See Weinberger,
In short, vague descriptions or excessive time permeate nearly every billing entry. In examining an attorney’s fee request the Court must determine whether counsel exercised sound billing judgment.
Inmates of Maine State Prison v. Zitnay,
B. Unsuccessful Claims
The jury’s verdict establishes that Plaintiff prevailed on her Title VII and MHRA claims. In addition to those claims, however, Plaintiff brought common law assault and battery and negligence claims, and named Guy Brochu as a second defendant. By the end of trial, the Court had dismissed both of Plaintiffs common law claims, and Guy Broehu as a defendant. Defendant seeks a reduction in the fee award based on Plaintiffs unsuccessful claims. Plaintiff contends that although she was unsuccessful on some claims, those allegations were related to the claims upon which Plaintiff prevailed, and thus, do not merit a reduction in her fee award.
Upon determining that a party has prevailed on a claim that provides for fee shifting, a court must then determine whether the claims on which the party lost were unrelated to the successful claims, or whether they derived from a common core of facts or related legal theories.
Lipsett,
The Court dismissed Plaintiffs common law assault and battery and negligence claims. The Court determined that Maine’s statute of limitations time-barred Plaintiffs assault and battery claim. That claim, therefore, required an analysis of the statute of limitations, a legal issue entirely distinct from the statutory discrimination claims. The Court dismissed the negligence claim primarily on the grounds that the immunity provisions of the Maine Workers Compensation Act bar tort suits against employers. Throughout the course of the case, the negligence claim depended on and ultimately was defeated on the basis of state tort principles, including whether a tort duty supported the claim, and whether workers compensation immunity barred the claim. 4 In a broad sense, both of the common law claims derived from the same core of facts as the discrimination claims, inasmuch as the entire suit derived from a series of events that occurred over an eleven year period. The common law claims, however, did not involve legal theories so related as to be inextricable from the statutory discrimination claims.
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff did ultimately succeed at trial, and that the statutory discrimination claims constituted the primary thrust of her suit. Moreover,
*849
the billing records generally do not allow for identification and subtraction of hours spеnt solely on the lost claims. Accordingly, the Court will further reduce the number of hours of Curtis and Rebecca Webber to recognize Plaintiffs ultimate success at trial, but also to account for time spent on claims that did not similarly prevail.
See Phetosomphone,
C. Lodestar Calculation
Curtis Webber seeks reimbursement for approximately 830 hours (including the additional request submitted at oral argument), Rebecca Webber for approximately 698 hours (including the additional request submitted at oral argument), John Linnell, Esq. for approximately 10 hours, Deborah Tardif for approximately 34 hours and Michelle Small, Esq. for approximately 5 hours. As indicated, the Court has found that Curtis and Rebecca Webber, as well as Deborah Tardif billed an excessive amount of time. The Court must base the Lodestar calculation on a reasonable number of hours expended.
Lipsett,
D. Expert Witness Fees
Prevailing parties in Title VII actions may also recover reasonable expert fees. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for her expert, Dr. Harvey Waxman, in the amount of $20,-204.92. Reimbursement for expert fees is a relatively recent addition to § 2000е-5(k), and as such very little authority guides the Court in arriving at an expert fee award.
See, e.g., Kerr-Selgas v. American Airlines, Inc.,
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s bill of costs, which includes payments to Dr. Wax-man, lacks anything approaching the specificity and detail that would allow the Court to engage in serious review. On five separate occasions, Plaintiffs counsel paid Dr. Wax-man between $1800 and $4500 either for “services rendered,” for “professional services,” for “services,” or for no stated reason at all. On December 5,1995, Plaintiffs counsel paid Dr. Waxman $5,341 for a variety of tаsks, one of which includes a trip to Bangor at which he could not testify due to counsel’s poor witness management. The First Circuit requires counsel seeking attorney’s fees to submit a full and specific accounting of the tasks performed, the dates of performance and the number of hours spent on each task.
Weinberger v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.,
In addition, the Court is not persuaded that Dr. Waxman had the kind of impact on the case necessary to support such a high fee. Indeed, at voir dire, the Court indicated that the decision to allow him to testify as an expert was a close one. The Court concludes that Dr. Waxman ultimately had a minor impact on the case.
Finally, Plaintiffs excessive use of Dr. Waxman points to the lapse of billing judgment for which the Court has significantly reduced Plaintiffs attorney’s fee request. The statute, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a and 2000e-5(k), limited Defendant’s exposure in this case to $50,000 plus any equitable relief the *850 Court might grant. Plaintiff seeks well over $200,000 in total fees and costs, $20,000 of which are attributable to Dr. Waxman. The Court concludes that incurring expert fees in the amount of $20,000 for Dr. Waxman in the context of this case simply was unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that $6,000 represents a generous fee for Dr. Waxman’s participation in the case. The inadequate detail of the billing records makes any evaluation of Dr. Waxman’s hours impossible. $6,000, however, at his reasonable rate of $175 per hour, would compensate him for approximately 34 hours. The Court is satisfied that Dr. Waxman could reasonably prepare, travel and testify in 34 hours.
E. Costs
Costs will be assessed in the usual manner by the Clerk of the Court.
F. Out of Pocket Expenses
Plaintiff seeks out-of-pocket costs in the amount of $24,031.42. Although the First Circuit has not yet directly faced this issue, the majority of authority supports the proposition that a reasonable attorney’s fee under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) includes out-of-pocket expenses of the type an attorney would normally pass on to a client.
See Mennor v. Fort Hood National Bank,
Plaintiff has not submitted an appropriate statement of out-of-pocket expenses. Instead, Plaintiff has provided the Court with one comprehensive statement that includes expenditures attributable to other categories, such as costs and expert witnesses. Moreover, Plaintiff’s memorandum requests out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $24,-031.42, but the supporting documentation does not guide the Court as to hоw Plaintiff arrives at that figure. It is not incumbent upon the Court to comb through the jumble of expenses Plaintiff has submitted with her request, and from the supporting documentation the Court can neither confirm the accuracy of Plaintiffs $24,031.42 request, nor make a reasonable determination of what actual out-of-pocket expenses Plaintiff has incurred.
Accordingly, the Court reduces Plaintiffs request for out-of-pocket expenses to the amount of $5,000. The Court determines that $5,000 adequately reimburses Plaintiffs counsel for their travel, food and lodging expenses, and other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred over the course of this case.
Conclusion
The Court orders Defendant to make the following payments to Plaintiff:
(1) Nominal Damages: $1
(2) Punitive Damages: $49,999
(3) BackPay: $41,210
(4) MHRA Civil Penal Damages: $1,000
(5) Attorney’s Fees: $93,450
(6) Expert Witness Fees: $6,000
(7) Out of Pocket Expenses: $5,000
The Court orders Defendant to remit .to Plaintiff a total award of $196,660.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 provides that:
[t]he Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.
. For similar reasons the Court declines to award Plaintiff prejudgment interest on her back pay award. Awards of prejudgment interest are left to the discretion of the district court.
Scarfo,
*844
. The Court disagrees with Defendant's characterization of Attorney Rebecca Webber's $110 per hour billing rate as excessive. Plaintiff's counsel submitted their own affidavits, as well as an affidavit from another attorney familiar with billing rates for this type of case in this area in support of their requested billing rates. Defendant's unsupported assertions to the contrary are not persuasive.
The Court is also satisfied that the rates of John Linnell, Michelle Small and Deborah Tardif are reasonable.
. The Court did consider whether the statutory discrimination claims subsumed the negligence claim. The bulk of legal analysis on the negligence claim, however, revolved around the theory of negligence.