that these tasks were necessary and that the time and staffing allocated are reasonable.
Tennes prevailed on the critical issues raised in this case. His unsuccessful claims for front pay and injunctive relief cannot be viewed as discrete and separate claims, but rather involve "a common core of facts. . . based on related legal theories." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983). Accordingly, Tennes is entitled to a fully compensatory fee award in the amount of $ 98,857.50 ($ 99,307.50 less $ 450 for three hours spent by Mr. Steinbach in preparing the unsuccessful front pay portion of the motion to amend judgment).
Tennes is also entitled to costs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, as well as out-of-pocket expenses for which attorneys normally bill their clients separately. Henry v. Webermeier, 738 F.2d 188, 192 (7th Cir. 1984); Bennett v. Central Tel. Co. of Illinois, 619 F. Supp. 640, 655 (N.D. Ill. 1985). Tennes has submitted a bill of costs, as well as additional out-of-pocket expenses with his petition for attorneys' fees. The Commonwealth objects to the bill of costs, but has not interposed any objections to supplemental out-of-pocket expenses totalling $ 1,296.66 for travel to take a deposition, long distance telephone calls, photocopying and post-trial computerized legal research. The court finds these undisputed costs reasonable and necessary.
The disputed items in the bill of costs include $ 154.00 for special process service, $ 302.50 for a deposition transcript of the testimony of Barbara Wilke, photocopying expenses of $ 2,014.37 and $ 292.55 for pretrial computerized legal research. Tennes acknowledges that $ 97.20 of his photocopying expenses are not allowable, as this cost was incurred in copying cases for counsel's own convenience. The remaining disputed costs are recoverable. The Commonwealth incorrectly asks the court to apply the standards applicable generally to civil cases under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Awards of attorneys' fees and costs under fee shifting civil rights statutes, such as the ADEA, include out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred by an attorney and normally passed on to a fee-paying client. Henry, 738 F.2d at 192; Reichman, 818 F.2d at 283; Dominic, 652 F. Supp. at 822; Bennett, 619 F. Supp. at 655.
Tennes has fully documented and justified his bill of costs as reasonable and necessary. Accordingly, he will be awarded costs in the amount of $ 7,882.82 ($ 6,683.36, less $ 97.20, plus the undisputed additional $ 1,296.66 from Tennes' memorandum in support of his petition for attorneys' fees and costs, Steinbach aff., Exhibit B, PART I).
The Commonwealth's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial are denied. Tennes' motion to amend judgment is granted. Tennes is awarded $ 124,497.76 in back pay and an additional $ 124,497.76 in liquidated damages, with statutory interest from January 25, 1990. Tennes' requests for front pay, reinstatement, and injunctive relief are denied.
Tennes' petition for attorneys' fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part. Tennes is awarded $ 98,857.50 in attorneys' fees and $ 7,882.82 in costs.
May 31, 1990