Equal Access to Justice Act: Use at Selected Labor and Employment Agencies

Executive Summary

The GAO-reviewed event summarizes EAJA awards reported by federal agencies for fiscal years 2019–2025 and highlights implications for Legal Services, Labor and Employment Law, and Administrative Law market segments. Federal agencies reported paying over $116 million for about 15,000 EAJA awards, on average per year for fiscal years 2019–2025. For the three agencies reviewed, DOL reported 11 awards totaling about $547,601, NLRB reported 11 awards totaling about $436,913, and EEOC reported no awards for that period. Stakeholders cited both benefits (access to counsel for clients who otherwise could not afford litigation) and challenges (difficulty meeting EAJA eligibility requirements, especially establishing “prevailing party” as narrowed by case law).

Contractors in the named segments should pay attention because EAJA-related activity affects demand for litigation and advisory services, creates a stream of fee-recovery work, and influences how agencies and their opposing parties manage dispute risk. Firms and service providers associated with NAICS 541110, 541199, and 561110 (as listed in Tags) may see demand to help clients navigate EAJA eligibility, fee petitioning, and the evolving jurisprudence on prevailing-party standards. Given the GAO characterization (Severity: CRITICAL) and the data reviewed for fiscal years 2019–2025, firms should review readiness to support both agency-side mitigation and private-party fee-recovery efforts.

Impact Matrix

Legal Services

• Risk Level: Critical
• Opportunity: Increased demand for representation and fee-recovery services connected to EAJA awards; advisory work on EAJA eligibility and prevailing-party arguments. Specific opportunities: NAICS 541110, 541199, 561110.
• Timeline: Fiscal years 2019–2025 (data reviewed)
• Action Required:
• Ensure litigation teams are current on EAJA eligibility criteria and prevailing-party jurisprudence.
• Build or refine fee-recovery workflows and template petitions.
• Track ACUS agency EAJA reports and agency-specific patterns (e.g., agency award counts/amounts).
• Competitive Edge: Develop focused EAJA practice expertise (procedural know-how, precedential arguments about prevailing-party status) and offer bundled litigation-plus-fee-recovery services to clients.

Labor and Employment Law

• Risk Level: High
• Opportunity: Advisory and litigation work when EAJA claims arise from employment- and labor-related administrative or civil cases; counsel clients on cost/benefit of pursuing claims where EAJA fee recovery is possible. Specific opportunities: NAICS 541110, 541199, 561110.
• Timeline: Fiscal years 2019–2025 (data reviewed)
• Action Required:
• Train labor/employment practitioners to identify EAJA-eligible matters early in case intake.
• Document prevailing-party indicators and collect evidence to support fee petitions.
• Coordinate with administrative-law specialists when cases involve federal agencies.
• Competitive Edge: Offer cross-practice teams combining labor/employment expertise with specialized EAJA petition capabilities to increase successful fee recovery rates.

Administrative Law

• Risk Level: High
• Opportunity: Representation for parties in administrative adjudications and appeals where EAJA fees may be sought; agency-side advisory work to reduce exposure to awards. Specific opportunities: NAICS 541110, 541199, 561110.
• Timeline: Fiscal years 2019–2025 (data reviewed)
• Action Required:
• Monitor administrative case outcomes that could trigger EAJA awards and advise clients on the implications.
• Assist agencies and regulated parties in early dispute-resolution strategies to mitigate award exposure.
• Stay current on court decisions affecting the definition of “prevailing party.”
• Competitive Edge: Position as a specialist in administrative-defense strategies that limit EAJA exposure and as a plaintiff-side practice adept at meeting tightened prevailing-party standards.

Cross-Segment Implications

• Demand drivers and risk mitigation cross between segments: legal services firms that specialize in administrative law and labor/employment can capture integrated work (litigation + fee petitions), while agencies and contractors providing advisory services can be engaged to reduce award exposure.
• NAICS-listed service providers (541110, 541199, 561110) can pursue both plaintiff-side and agency-side engagements, creating internal tensions around business development (representing private clients seeking fees vs. advising agencies to avoid fees).
• Evolving case law narrowing “prevailing party” affects all three segments similarly: it raises the bar for fee recovery, shifting demand toward higher-expertise counsel and more-preventive administrative strategies.