Opinion ID: 2626833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Suppliers should be awarded attorney fees

Text: ¶ 73 In enacting EAJA, the legislature explicitly stated its desire to provide remedy to small businesses, like the Suppliers, who must defend against unreasonable agency action. Laws of 1995, ch. 403, § 901. Under EAJA, a qualified party who prevails in an administrative action is entitled to attorney fees unless the agency's action is found to be substantially justified or it is determined that circumstances make an award unjust. RCW 4.84.350(1). An agency's position may be deemed substantially justified only if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact. Constr. Indus. Training Council v. Washington State Apprenticeship & Training Council, 96 Wash.App. 59, 68, 977 P.2d 655 (1999). It is undisputed that the Suppliers are qualified, prevailing parties under RCW 4.84.350. Majority at 904. ¶ 74 Like the Court of Appeals, the majority declines to award the Suppliers fees because the Department's reliance on Superior II was `substantially justified.' Majority at 904. I disagree with the majority's ultimate conclusion not to award fees, as well as its rationale. ¶ 75 Contrary to the assertions of the majority and Court of Appeals, the Department was not substantially justified in its pursuit of this case. The Department has a duty to promptly and thoroughly investigate both the law and the facts surrounding a complaint before pursuing an alleged violation of the prevailing wage act. See RCW 39.12.065(1). Here, the Department waited until long after the project was complete to issue a notice of violation that, ultimately, had insufficient support in the record. See Silverstreak, 125 Wash.App. at 214, 104 P.3d 699 (concluding that record provides no evidence of additional task beyond mere delivery of the fill). In prosecuting its claim against the Suppliers, the Department applied an erroneous interpretation of WAC 296-127-018, going far beyond the plain language of that regulation. The Department also misconstrued applicable legal precedent and contradicted its own prior policy statement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Department's position had a reasonable basis in law [or] fact. Constr. Indus. Training Council, 96 Wash.App. at 68, 977 P.2d 655. Accordingly, and in conformance with the language and underlying purpose of EAJA to reimburse those forced to litigate against a powerful government, the Suppliers should be awarded attorney fees under RCW 4.84.350. Because the majority holds otherwise, I concur only in its disposition of this case. WE CONCUR: Justice RICHARD B. SANDERS.