(2015) 61 Cal.4th 97
Supreme Court of California · Decided May 4, 2015
01. Facts
Loring Winn Williams sued the Chino Valley Independent Fire District for employment discrimination in violation of the FEHA (61 Cal.4th at p. 99). The trial court granted summary judgment for the District and, in a separate order, awarded the District its court costs (id. at p. 99). Williams appealed the costs order, contending that — absent a finding that his action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless — the District should not have been awarded its costs (id. at p. 99).
02. Procedural posture
The Supreme Court agreed with Williams, holding that the asymmetric standard governing FEHA fee awards also governs costs, and reversed (61 Cal.4th at p. 99).
03. Issue
Whether a prevailing defendant in a FEHA action may recover ordinary litigation costs as a matter of course, or only upon a showing that the plaintiff’s action was objectively frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
Holding
Government Code section 12965(b) governs both fee and cost awards in FEHA actions and makes them discretionary under the asymmetric Christiansburg standard: a prevailing plaintiff ordinarily recovers fees and costs, but a prevailing defendant may recover them only if the action was objectively frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless — not automatically under the general cost statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032).
05. Reasoning
The court reasoned that section 12965(b) is an express exception to the general cost-recovery statute, and that applying the federal Christiansburg standard to both fees and costs serves the FEHA’s purpose of encouraging meritorious civil-rights suits without deterring plaintiffs by the threat of routine cost awards. Allowing prevailing defendants automatic costs would chill FEHA litigation, contrary to the statute’s design.
Practice Pointer
Williams is a crucial protection for FEHA plaintiffs: losing a FEHA case does not expose the plaintiff to the defendant’s costs unless the action was frivolous. Plaintiff’s counsel should invoke Williams to resist routine cost bills after an adverse judgment, and should understand the asymmetric standard applies to expert fees and ordinary costs alike under section 12965.
06. Open questions
Williams settled the standard for cost and fee awards under the FEHA, but what makes an action “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” remains fact-specific, and the interaction with section 998 settlement offers continued to be litigated after the decision.
Cite this entry
Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97.
“Plaintiff Loring Winn Williams sued defendant Chino Valley Independent Fire District … for employment discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.” — 61 Cal.4th at p. 99
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].