Rosa Torres v. Alice Sachs, Raymond S. Velez v. Patrick Cunningham, Juana Lopez v. David Dinkins, 538 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Rosa Torres v. Alice Sachs, Raymond S. Velez v. Patrick Cunningham, Juana Lopez v. David Dinkins, 538 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
141 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 40 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Antini v. Antini, 2019 OK 20
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#7 42 U.S.C. § 19737 cited 1× in this case · 44 total citations of statute #6 42 U.S.C. § 19731 cited 1× in this case · 117 total citations of statute
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 13 Award for civil rights attorneys' fees and expenses32 citing cases“agreed with the courts which have held that the 'allowable fees and expenses may not be reduced because the prevailing party's attorney was employed ... by a civil rights organization ... or because the attorney does not exact a fee.”2 citing courts quote it · 30 listed here
  • Williams v. North Carolina Dep't of Corr., 462 S.E.2d 545 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).published
    Ed. 2d 723, 738 (1980); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2nd Cir. 1976).
  • Kelber v. Forest Elec. Corp., 799 F. Supp. 326 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).published
    (Voting Rights Act "concededly applicable to cases pending at the time of its enactment,” citing Bradley)
  • Spoto v. McCarroll, 593 A.2d 375 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991).published
    In Torres v. Sachs, 538 F. 2d 10, 13 (2d Cir.1976), fees were awarded to a legal services agency representing plaintiffs who successfully challenged city election procedures on constitutional grounds under the Voting Rights Act.
  • Lee v. Green, 574 A.2d 857 (Del. 1990).published
    Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir.1976); Brandenburger v. Thompson, 494 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1974).
  • DiGennaro v. Bowen, 666 F. Supp. 426 (E.D.N.Y. 1987).published
    (We agree ... that allowable *431 fees and expenses may not be reduced because [the prevailing party’s] attorney was employed ... by a civil rights organization ... or because the attorney does not exact a fee.)
  • Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546 (10th Cir. 1983).published
    See, e.g., Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 899-900 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 616 F.2d 598, 601-03 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839 , 101 S.Ct. 115 , 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980); Reynolds v. Coomey, 567 F.2d 1166,…
  • Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546 (10th Cir. 1983).published
    See, e.g., Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 , 899 — 900 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 616 F.2d 598, 601-03 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839 , 101 S.Ct. 115 , 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980); Reynolds v. Coomey, 567 F.2d 116…
  • New York State Ass'n for Retarded Child. v. Hugh L. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136 (2d Cir. 1983).published 2 cites
    Courts seem to have become bemused by the apparent simplicity of "hourly billing rates" and apply these mechanically, without knowing just what they reflect 2 or to what use they are put. 3 65 I recognize, however, that our decisions in To…
  • Alexander v. Hill, 553 F. Supp. 1263 (W.D.N.C. 1983).published
    Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 898-900 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 616 F.2d 598, 601-02 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839 , 101 S.Ct. 115 , 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir.1976)…
  • New York State Ass'n for Retarded Child. v. Carey, 544 F. Supp. 330 (E.D.N.Y. 1982).published
    Beazer, 558 *337 F.2d at 100; Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1976); Mid-Hudson Legal Services v. G & U Inc., 465 F.Supp. 261 (S.D.N.Y.1978).
Show 20 more citing cases
  • Goodman v. Heublein, Inc., 682 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1982).published
    In deciding whether Sikorsky & Mott have standing, we note that awards of attorney’s fees have played an important role in “encourag[ing] people to seek judicial redress of unlawful discrimination.” Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir…
  • 43 Fair empl.prac.cas. 247 v. Heublein, Inc., 682 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1982).published
    Houghton v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 413 F.Supp. 1230 (E.D.Mo.1976), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 553 F.2d 561 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 966 , 98 S.Ct. 506 , 54 L.Ed.2d 451 (1977), on remand, 474 F.Supp. 193 (E.D.Mo.1979),…
  • Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 533 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. Pa. 1982).published
    Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231, 1245 (3d Cir. 1977), citing Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1976), Brandenburger v. Thompson, 494 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1974), Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 426 F.2d 534, 538-39 (5th…
  • Gibbs v. Hous. Auth. of New Haven (In Re Gibbs), 12 B.R. 737 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1981).published
    Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1976); followed, New York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, 70-71, n.9 , 100 S.Ct. 2024, 2034, n.9 , 64 L.Ed.2d 723, 738, n.9 (1980).
  • Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 656 F.2d 848 (D.C. Cir. 1981).published 2 cites
    See Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 616 F.2d 598, 602 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839 , 101 S.Ct. 115 , 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1976); Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231, 1245 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. den…
  • Schwabenbauer v. Bd. of Educ., 515 F. Supp. 33 (W.D.N.Y. 1981).published
    New York Gaslight Club v. Carey, supra, 100 S.Ct. at 2027 n.1, 2034 & n.9, Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2nd Cir. 1976).
  • Dolores J. Copeland v. F. Ray Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980).published 6 cites
    Oldham v. Ehrlich, at 168-169 (8th Cir. March 12, 1980); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, at 599-603 (1st Cir. 1980); Dennis v. Chang, 611 F.2d 1302, 1309 (9th Cir. 1980); Carey v. New York Gaslight Club, Inc., 598 F.2d 1253 , 1255 n. 1 (2d Cir. 197…
  • New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980).published 2 cites
    See, e. g., Reynolds v. Coomey, 567 F. 2d 1166 (CA1 1978); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F. 2d 10, 13 (CA2 1976).
  • Nicholas Palmigiano v. J. Joseph Garrahy, Leonard Jefferson v. Bradford E. Southworth, 616 F.2d 598 (1st Cir. 1980).published
    (award for services of Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund upheld)
  • Becker v. Blum, 487 F. Supp. 873 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).published
    Reasonable Rates for Legal Services Attorneys The defendants have suggested that legal services attorneys should be paid, not at an hourly rate comparable to that of private attorneys, but at a rate which would reflect the legal services a…
  • Mid-Hudson Legal Servs. v. G & U, INC., 465 F. Supp. 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).published
    Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1976); Beazer v. New York City Transit Authority, 558 F.2d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 1977), petition for cert. granted, 438 U.S. 904 , 98 S.Ct. 3121 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1978).
  • Mid-Hudson Legal Servs., Inc. v. G & U, Inc., 578 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1978).published
    We therefore reverse and remand to that court for the purpose of determining the appropriate counsel fee to be awarded after an evidentiary hearing in accordance with our decision in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 468-74…
  • Stephenson v. Simon, 448 F. Supp. 708 (D.D.C. 1978).published
    The prevailing view was articulated by the Second Circuit in Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13-14 (1976): We agree with the courts which have held that the “allowable fees and expenses may not be reduced because [the prevailing party’s] att…
  • Richardson v. Civil Serv. Com'n of State of NY, 449 F. Supp. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).published
    The same argument was advanced and completely dismissed by this circuit in Torres v. Sachs, supra. The Torres holding is absolutely dispositive of defendants’ argument here, even though that argument be artfully phrased in terms of “windfa…
  • Mid-Hudson Legal Servs., Inc. v. G & U Inc., 443 F. Supp. 893 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).published
    For example, the Second Circuit in Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1976) observed: “, . . [F]ees are now authorized in an employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; but not in the same suit broug…
  • Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231 (3d Cir. 1977).published 6 cites
    Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1976); Brandenburger v. Thompson, 494 F.2d 885 , 889 (9th Cir. 1974); Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 426 F.2d 534, 538-39 (5th Cir. 1970).
  • Kulkarni v. Nyquist, 446 F. Supp. 1274 (N.D.N.Y. 1977).published 2 cites
    This Court finds additional support for the above conclusion in a recent decision of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12-13 (2d Cir. 1976), in which the principles of Bradley were extended to the 1975 ame…
  • Pitts v. Holt, 710 N.E.2d 155 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1999).published 2 cites
    See Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir., 1976); Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231, 1245 (3d Cir., 1977).
  • Ross v. Saltmarsh, 521 F. Supp. 753 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).published
    See Torres v. Sach, 538 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1976); Beazer v. New York City Transit Authority, 558 F.2d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 1977), rev’d on other grounds, 440 U.S. 568 , 99 S.Ct. 1335 , 59 L.Ed.2d 587 (1979); see also Carey v. New York Gaslig…
  • Mary & Crystal v. Gerard Ramsden, 635 F.2d 590 (7th Cir. 1980).published
At page 12 Encouraging civil rights enforcement through attorney's fees17 citing casesfederal statute provided for fees in voting rights case; no congressional limitation on amount payable to publicly funded organizations1 citing court put it this way
  • Antini v. Antini, 2019 OK 20.published 2 cites
    The court further noted that the purpose of the award of attorney fees (in that case) was to "sanction [the] defendants" and that compelling them to pay plaintiff's fees "serve[s] that purpose," and further cited many cases upholding fees…
  • Martinez v. Roscoe, 100 F.3d 121 (10th Cir. 1996).published
    (federal statute provided for fees in voting rights case; no congressional limitation on amount payable to publicly funded organizations)
  • Benavides v. Benavides, 526 A.2d 536 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).published
    (attorney’s fees under Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 19731 [e])
  • Nat'l Lawyers Guild v. Attorney Gen., 94 F.R.D. 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).published
    See, e.g., Miller v. Apartments & Homes of New Jersey, Inc., 646 F.2d 101 (3d Cir. 1981); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12-13 (2d Cir. 1976), or should receive a reduced amount, Miller, supra; EEOC v. Sage Realty, 521 F.Supp. 263 , 507 F.S…
  • Common Cause v. Stirling, 119 Cal. App. 3d 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).published 2 cites
    (For example, Torres v. Sachs (2d Cir. 1976) 538 F.2d 10, 12-13, fn. 2 [Voting Rights Act]; Northcross v. Memphis Board of Ed u cation (1973) 412 U.S. 427, 428 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 48, 50-51 , 93 S.Ct. 2201, 2202 ] [Emergency School Aid Act]; Save…
  • Farris v. Cox, 508 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Cal. 1981).published
    Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12 (2d Cir. 1976); Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 473 F.Supp. 1017, 1028 (E.D.Penn.1979); Meyer, The Social Utility of Class Actions, 42 Brooklyn L.Rev. 189, 202 (1975). 2 .
  • Cohen v. West Haven Bd. of Police Commissioners, 638 F.2d 496 (2d Cir. 1980).published
    In addition, we have held that, in setting a fee, the court may take into account the relative wealth of the parties, Faraci v. Hickey-Freeman Co., 607 F.2d 1025 (2d Cir. 1979), although it is improper to reduce an award of fees on the bas…
  • 24 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1133 v. West Haven Bd. of Police Commissioners, 638 F.2d 496 (2d Cir. 1980).published
    Under these procedures, a different rate of compensation may well be set for different types of litigation tasks, and an attorney whose rates are higher than those prevailing in the community may well receive less than his own usual charge…
  • Sharrock v. Harris, 489 F. Supp. 913 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).published
    Beazer v. New York City Transit Authority, 558 F.2d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 1977), rev’d on other grounds, 440 U.S. 568 , 99 S.Ct. 1355 , 59 L.Ed.2d 587 (1979); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12 (2d Cir. 1976); Becker v. Blum, supra, 487 F.Supp. a…
  • Darmetko v. Boston Hous. Auth., 393 N.E.2d 395 (Mass. 1979).published
    See, e.g., Perez v. Rodriguez Bou, 575 F.2d 21, 24 (1st Cir. 1978); Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231, 1244 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 913 (1978); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12-13 (2d Cir. 1976); Gregory v. Sauser, 574 P.2d…
Show 7 more citing cases
  • Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council of Los Angeles, 593 P.2d 200 (Cal. 1979).published 2 cites
    (See, e.g., Gore v. Turner (5th Cir. 1977) 563 F.2d 159 , 163 [applying 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ]; Alphin v. Henson (4th Cir. 1977) 552 F.2d 1033, 1034 [ 15 U.S.C. § 26 ]; Torres v. Sachs (2d Cir. 1976) 538 F.2d 10, 12-13 [ 42 U.S.C. § 19737 (e)]…
  • Population Servs. Int'l v. Carey, 476 F. Supp. 4 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).published
    See Beazer v. New York City Transit Authority, 558 F.2d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 1977) cert. granted, 440 U.S. 568 , 99 S.Ct. 1355 , 59 L.Ed.2d 587 (1978); Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12-13 (2d Cir. 1976).
  • Kulkarni v. Nyquist, 446 F. Supp. 1274 (N.D.N.Y. 1977).published 2 cites
    This Court finds additional support for the above conclusion in a recent decision of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12-13 (2d Cir. 1976), in which the principles of Bradley were extended to the 1975 ame…
  • Firebird Soc'y v. Members of the Bd. of Fire Commissioners, 433 F. Supp. 752 (D. Conn. 1976).published
    Parker v. Matthews, 411 F.Supp. 1059 (D.Col.1976); cf. Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12-13 (2 Cir.), (1976).
  • Gunther v. Iowa State Men's Reformatory, 466 F. Supp. 367 (N.D. Iowa 1979).published 2 cites
    See, Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 12-13 (2d Cir. 1976); Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass’n Inc., 517 F.2d 1141, 1148 (4th Cir. 1975); Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 426 F.2d 534 , 538-539 n.14 (5th Cir. 1970).
  • Calkins v. Blum, 511 F. Supp. 1073 (N.D.N.Y. 1981).published
  • Markel v. Blum, 509 F. Supp. 942 (N.D.N.Y. 1981).published
At page 11 Awarding attorneys' fees under voting rights legislation3 citing casesvoting rights case; publicly financed legal services attorney entitled to full going rate1 citing court put it this way
  • McMurry v. Phelps, 533 F. Supp. 742 (W.D. La. 1982).published
    (voting rights case; publicly financed legal services attorney entitled to full going rate)
  • Gagne v. Maher, 455 F. Supp. 1344 (D. Conn. 1978).published
    Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10, 11-12 (2d Cir. 1976).
  • Saldivar v. Rodela, 894 F. Supp. 2d 916 (W.D. Tex. 2012).published
    (fee award under Voting Rights Act)
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rosa TORRES Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Alice SACHS Et Al., Defendants-Appellants; Raymond S. VELEZ Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Patrick CUNNINGHAM Et Al., Defendants-Appellants; Juana LOPEZ Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David DINKINS Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
1033, 1034, Dockets 76-7002, 76-7072.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 25, 1976.
Published opinion
538 F.2d 10
1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8323
Francis Caputo, New York City (W. Bernard Richlánd, Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, New York City, L. Kevin Sheridan, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants., Herbert Teitelbaum, New York City (Oscar Garcia-Rivera, M. D. Taracido, Kenneth Kimerling, Richard J. Hiller, Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffsappellees.
Smith, Mansfield, Van Graafeiland.
Cited by 105 opinions  |  Published
J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge:

The municipal defendants appeal from an award by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles E. Stewart, Jr., Judge, of $23,252 in attorneys’ fees to successful plaintiffs in two voting rights class actions seeking bilingual school board and general election officials and materials. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

Appellants on this appeal attack neither the underlying voting rights judgment nor the entitlement of the successful plaintiffs to attorneys’ fees. They question rather the measure of allowable fees. Essentially they contend that because publicly financed legal services organizations supply counsel, and tax supported governmental bodies bear the burden of appellants’ costs, some measure of fees should be used less than the going rates for similar services received by privately employed counsel for work of comparable importance, extent and complexity.

There is support for such a discounting of the value of similar services, see Souza v. [*12] Travisono, 512 F.2d 1137 (1st Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 423 U.S. 809, 96 S.Ct. 19, 46 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975); Gilpin v. Kansas State High School Activities Ass’n, 377 F.Supp. 1233, 1253 (D.Kan.1974). The unanticipated burden on public treasuries on the one hand and the duty of the bar to provide services pro bono publico on the other are among the reasons given for reductions.

We disagree on two grounds. First, the statute and its legislative history make it quite plain that the Congress rejected any such limitation. Second, we consider that such voting rights enforcement by litigation, in common with other similar essential minority civil rights enforcement, is to be encouraged by reasonable fee awards rather than discouraged by requiring successful plaintiffs to bear litigation costs.

The Congress provided for attorneys’ fees in § 402 of the 1975 extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, P.L. 94-73, 42 U.S.C. § 19737 (e). [1] The legislative history of this section leaves no question as to congressional intent in its enactment. The language of the Senate bill was substituted for the language of the House bill and adopted by the House. The Senate Report is persuasive. [2] The fees are to be measured by the same standards as in other complex federal litigation and are intended to be[*13] collectible from offending municipal officials and bodies. The Act is concededly applicable to cases pending at the time of its enactment under the principles of Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974).

Litigation to secure the law’s protection has frequently dépended on the exertions of organizations dedicated to the enforcement of the Civil Rights Acts. See Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass’n, 517 F.2d 1141 (4th Cir. 1975). We agree with the courts which have held that the “allowable fees and expenses may not be reduced because [the prevailing party’s] attorney was employed . . . by a civil rights organization ... or because the attorney does not exact a fee.” Fairley v. Patterson, 493 F.2d 598, 606 (5th Cir. 1974); Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass’n, supra. Non-profit public interest law firms have been recognized as properly entitled to attorneys’ fees, Jordan v. Fusari, 496 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir. 1974); Brandenburger v. Thompson, 494 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1974), and the receipt of such fees promotes their continued existence and service to the public in this field.

Application of the provision to furnish full recompense for the value of services in successful litigation helps assure the continued availability of the services to those most in need of assistance in translating the promise of the Act into actually functioning voting rights, often grudgingly yielded to minorities by those reluctant to give up or dilute political power or to impose on the majority necessary expenses of implementation.

Attorneys’ fees are not awarded necessarily to punish for bad faith, but to recompense those who by helping to protect basic rights are thought to have served the public interest. A principal purpose of the legislation is to encourage people to seek judicial redress of unlawful discrimination.

In short, imposition of full attorneys’ fees is a useful and needed tool of the court to[*14] fully protect plaintiffs’ rights as American citizens and voters, and we agree with the court’s use of it in this case.

We find no merit in appellants’ other claims.

Affirmed.

1

. 42 U.S.C. § 19731(e) provides:

In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, 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.
2

. See, e. g., the following excerpts:

Section 402 allows a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in suits to enforce the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, and statutes enacted under those amendments. This section is similar to provisions in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and to Section 403 of this act (the coverage of which is described below). Such a provision is appropriate in voting rights cases because there, as in employment and public accommodations cases, and other civil rights cases, Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to enforce the fundamental rights involved. Fee awards are a necessary means of enabling private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights.
It is intended that the standards for awarding fees under sections 402 and 403 be generally the same as under the fee provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A party seeking to enforce the rights protected by the Constitutional clause or statute under which fees are authorized by these sections, if successful, “should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). . . .
In several hearings held over a period of years, the Committee has found that fee awards are essential if the Constitutional requirements and Federal statutes to which sections 402 and 403 apply are to be fully enforced. We find that the effects of such fee awards are ancilliary (sic) and incident to securing compliance with these laws, and that fee awards are an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain such compliance. Fee awards are therefore provided in cases covered by sections 402 and 403 in accordance with Congress’ powers under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5. As with cases brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1617, the Emergency School Aid Act of 1972, defendants in these cases are frequently state or local bodies or state or local officials. In such cases it is intended that the attorneys’ fees, like other items of costs, will be collected either from the official directly, from funds of his agency or under his control, or from the State or local government (whether or not the agency or government is a named party).
It is intended that the amount of fees awarded under sections 402 and 403 be governed by the same standards which prevail in other types of equally complex Federal litigation, and not be reduced because the rights involved may be nonpecuniary in nature. Stanford Daily v. Zurcher, 64 F.R.D. 680 (N.D.Cal.1974); Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 8 E.P.D. ¶ 9444 (C.D.Cal.1974); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg [sic] Board of Education, 66 F.R.D. 483 (W.D.N.C., order entered Feb. 24, 1975).
Section 403 allows a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in suits to enforce the civil rights acts which Congress has passed since 1866. This section follows the language of section 402 of this Act, and of Titles II and VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. All of these acts depend heavily upon private enforcement, and fee awards are an essential remedy if private citizens are to have a meaningful opportunity to vindicate these important Congressional policies.
[*13] Courts have been instructed, since the passage of our first civil rights laws, to use the broadest and most effective remedies available to achieve the goals of these laws, and these remedies have included awards of attorneys’ fees as costs. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 directed courts to use whatever combination of federal, state, and common law is most suitable to enforce civil rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In 1870 Congress passed three separate provisions mandating counsel fee awards to victims of certain election law violations. Enforcement Act of 1870, 16 Stat. 140. One year after enacting that law, Congress directed that remedies provided in such laws should be available in all cases involving official violations of civil rights. Sec. 1, Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (predecessor of 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
In several recent civil rights laws, Congress has 'included the effective remedy of attorneys [sic] fees. Fee-shifting provisions have been successful in enabling vigorous enforcement of these laws. Before May 12, 1975, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society [421 U.S. 240], 95 S.Ct. 1612 [44 L.Ed.2d 141] (1975), many lower Federal courts followed these Congressional policies and exercised their traditional equity powers to award attorneys’ fees under earlier civil rights laws as well.
These pre-Alyeska decisions remedied a gap in the specific statutory provisions and restored an important historic remedy for civil rights violations. However, in Alyeska, the Supreme Court held that the federal courts did not have the power to grant fees to “private attorneys general,” or private enforcers of civil rights laws, except under statutes whose language specifically authorizes such fee awards.
The Alyeska decision created an unexpected and anomalous gap in our civil rights laws whereby awards of fees are barred in the most fundamental civil rights cases. For instance, fees are now authorized in an employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but not in the same suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which protects similar rights but involves fewer technical prerequisites to the filing of an action. Fees are allowed in a suit under Title II of the 1964 Act challenging discrimination in a private restaurant, but not in suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 redressing violations of the Federal Constitution or laws by officials who are sworn to uphold the laws.
Section 403, like section 402, provides the specific statutory authorization required by the court in Alyeska. .

U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News (1975) at pp. 807-809 (footnotes omitted).