[WL-law]

(b) Attorney's fees In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title,, [1] the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.

That provision of the law is INTENDED to benefit a plaintiff winning its case against the govt on a Civil Rights enforcement action. BTW, that's often a primary reason why public interest firms take on marginal, e.g., prisoner's rights suits, and the like -- there are often no $$ damages owed to the prisoner, but the law firm representing the prisoner gets a nice check when they prevail.

Here the non-governmental party was the defendant, not the plaintiff, and the request for legal fees doesn't fit the intent of the provision, although its plain language allows the request. I think there is a less-than-zero change of the teamsters getting those fees -- it would be against common sense and public policy to award legal fees unless the action was deemed frivolous.

[PatrickHenry]

I think there is a less-than-zero change of the teamsters getting those fees -- it would be against common sense and public policy to award legal fees unless the action was deemed frivolous.

Against common sense? Yes. But the statute says what it says. So don't be surprised if the judge awards fees.