under Title VII, states, in relevant part, “Each United States district court ... shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). The issue before this Court is whether Ballard’s claims solely for attorney’s fees and costs are “actions brought under this subchapter,” or, posed differently, whether Ballard can recover costs arising out of administrative and state proceedings. The Second Circuit has not specifically addressed this question. In fact, it explicitly declined to do so. See Nestor, 466 F.3d at 70, n. 4 (2d Cir.2006) (“We need not and do not decide whether a fees only suit may be brought under Title VII.”) (emphasis added). This question has split other Circuit Courts. Compare Jones v. Am. State Bank, 857 F.2d 494 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>), Patzer v. Bd. of Regents, 763 F.2d 851, 858
holding that a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for attorneys fees paid for representation in state administrative proceedings which were necessarily intertwined with plaintiffs federal title vii claim and noting that clearly  an attorney is heeded to assist the plaintiff during the state proceedings holding that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees for time spent litigating the fees issue on appeal under title viis attorneys fee provision holding that title vii plaintiff may bring suit to recover attorneys fees after successfully litigating before a state administrative body holding that an attorney may recover fees for time spent litigating the award of a 11 usc   1988 fee holding that arbitration agreement that did not provide for award of attorney fees to successful title vii claimant was unenforceable because the right to attorneys fees  is central to the ability of persons to seek redress from violations of title vii