U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 179— JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN ACTIONS BY PRESIDENTIAL OFFICES

28 U.S.C. § 3905

Attorney’s fees and interest

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Attorney’s Fees.—If a covered employee, with respect to any claim under chapter 5 of title 3, or a qualified person with a disability, with respect to any claim under section 421 of title 3, is a prevailing party in any proceeding under section 1296 or section 1346(g), the court may award attorney’s fees, expert fees, and any other costs as would be appropriate if awarded under section 706(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.(b)Interest.—In any proceeding under section 1296 or section 1346(g), the same interest to compensate for delay in payment shall be made available as would be appropriate if awarded under section 717(d) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.(c)Punitive Damages.—Except as otherwise provided in chapter 5 of title 3, no punitive damages may be awarded with respect to any claim under chapter 5 of title 3.(Added Pub. L. 104–331, § 3(c), Oct. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 4070.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Sections 706 and 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), are classified to sections 2000e–5 and 2000e–16, respectively, of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1997, see section 3(d) of Pub. L. 104–331, set out as a note under section 1296 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2011–2017 · leading case: Marx v. General Revenue Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marx v. General Revenue Corp. (2011) ca10 · cites it 2× “§ 505 ("the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs"); Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3905 (a) (to "a prevailing party .”
Fallen v. GREP Southwest, LLC (2017) nmd “§ 505 ; 28 U.S.C. § 3905 (a). See generally Marek v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.