Civil Rights, Costs: Court Costs Are Not Automatic Against Losing FEHA Plaintiff, With Costs Only Justified Where Commencement/Prosecution Of Lawsuit Was Without Objective Basis/Frivolous/Unreasonable

 

California Supreme Court Treats Attorney’s Fees And Costs Alike With Regard To Losing FEHA Plaintiffs.

    Our California Supreme Court, in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., Case No. S213100 (Cal. Supreme Ct. May 4, 2015) (published), has decided that losing plaintiffs in FEHA cases should be treated alike with respect to a trial judge’s assessment of both attorney’s fees and costs:  court costs are not automatic in favor of the winning FEHA defendant and court costs should only be awarded if the losing plaintiff brought/continued litigation without an objective basis for believing the case had potential merit.

    On the automatic court costs issue, the state supreme court decided Government Code section 12965(b) constituted an exception to the routine Code of Civil Procedure 1032(b) statute, disapproving broad dictum in Davis v. KGO-TV, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 436, 444 n. 3 (1998) to the contrary and disapproving three intermediary appellate decisions to the contrary.

    With respect to the second discretionary standard issue, the unanimous court determined that court cost recoveries, like fee recoveries, were governed by the Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 484 U.S. 412 (1978) standard only allowing for fee recovery if the FEHA case was frivolous, unreasonable, meritless or vexatious.  In so doing, it relied heavily on 1978 legislative history that changed the wording in the Government Code section based on Christiansburg.