In Robert v. Stanford University, 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 178 the California Court of Appeal affirmed the award of $100,000.00 in attorney fees to an employer after the trial court granted the employer’s motion for nonsuit on a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code § 12900 et seq.) cause of action despite the fact the trial court did not provide written findings in support of the award as required by Gov. Code § 12965, subd. (b).
Plaintiff is an American Indian who was employed by Stanford from 1997 to 2008. Stanford terminated his employment in 2008 due to his harassment of a female Stanford employee. Although he had been given several warnings prior to his termination, he continued to harass her which led to a restraining order against him. Plaintiff brought a FEHA cause of action against Stanford alleging that his termination was based on his race. He maintained that Stanford’s reliance on his harassment was merely a pretext for racial discrimination.
At trial, Plaintiff never identified any evidence, other than his own testimony, that might support his FEHA cause of action. The trial court granted Stanford’s motion for nonsuit and awarded Stanford attorney fees. Robert opposed the motion for attorney fees on the grounds he was “destitute” and that his FEHA cause of action had not been frivolous, groundless, unreasonable, or vexatious. In support of its attorney fees award, the trial court stated, “I am finding that the FEHA claim was without merit and was frivolous and vexatious. It was a legal theory in search of facts. There were none that were presented.”
Gov. Code § 12965(b) provides for an award of attorney fees in a FEHA action if plaintiff’s lawsuit is deemed unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious. “A trial court awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under § 12965, subd. (b), also must make express written findings demonstrating that it has applied the proper standards.”
The Court of Appeal affirmed the award of attorney’s fees because the error was harmless (Cal.Const., art. VI, § 13; Code of Civ. Proc., § 475). The record affirmatively indicated that the trial court applied the correct standards and properly considered the employee’s financial condition. The complete absence of evidence to support the FEHA action reflected its meritless nature, and the timing of its initiation showed that it was intended to harass.
This document is intended to provide you with information about employment law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.