Lopez v. Routt
B269345
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Elisa Lopez sued the City of Beverly Hills and her supervisor, Gregory Routt, under FEHA for race and national-origin harassment; the jury found for Routt and the City on the harassment claim.
- Routt, the prevailing defendant, moved under Gov. Code § 12965(b) for prevailing-party attorney fees (sought 50% of city-incurred fees ≈ $374,760.75); the City had defended Routt.
- The trial court denied fees, applying the Christiansburg frivolousness standard (a prevailing defendant may recover fees only if the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation).
- Routt appealed, arguing individual defendants should not be subject to the Christiansburg standard that applies to employer defendants and that prevailing individual defendants should be treated like prevailing plaintiffs for fee awards.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the Christiansburg rule applies to prevailing individual FEHA defendants as well as employer defendants, based on Williams, legislative history, and FEHA’s policy goals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prevailing individual FEHA defendant must show the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous to recover fees under §12965(b) | Lopez argued Christiansburg applies to defendants generally and fees to prevailing defendants require frivolousness | Routt argued individual defendants should be treated like prevailing plaintiffs and not be subject to the Christiansburg frivolousness standard | The court held Christiansburg applies to all prevailing FEHA defendants (including individuals); fees to defendants require a finding the claim was frivolous/unfounded |
| Whether FEHA legislative history supports asymmetrical fee treatment | Lopez argued legislative history and FEHA purpose support protecting plaintiffs and limiting fee awards to defendants | Routt argued Legislature intended fee discretion broadly and individual defendants should not be limited | Court found legislative history (including timing of Christiansburg) supports asymmetrical standard favoring plaintiffs and limiting fee awards to defendants |
| Whether imposition of frivolousness standard undermines individual liability and enforcement against harassing employees | Lopez argued FEHA amendments impose individual liability for harassment and legislature intended to encourage suits against individuals | Routt argued suits against individuals are redundant because employer vicarious liability suffices, so asymmetry is unwarranted | Court held Legislature consciously created individual liability for harassment and did not intend to relax fee limits for individual defendants |
| Whether individual defendants lack other means to recoup defense costs | Lopez noted public policy and FEHA goals; Routt claimed burden on individual defendants | Court observed indemnification/defense rules (public entity duty; Labor Code §2802 for private employers) mitigate defendant burden and support applying Christiansburg |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (Title VII defendants recover fees only if plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation)
- Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 61 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 2015) (California Supreme Court holds FEHA fee provision is bounded by Christiansburg; defendants entitled to fees only on frivolousness showing)
- Cummings v. Benco Bldg. Servs., 11 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (adopted Christiansburg standard for FEHA defendant fee awards)
- Flannery v. Prentice, 26 Cal.4th 572 (Cal. 2001) (FEHA’s fee provision advances public enforcement; private plaintiffs necessary to vindicate public policy)
- Carrisales v. Dep’t of Corrections, 21 Cal.4th 1132 (Cal. 1999) (interpreting scope of individual liability under FEHA; prompted legislative amendment to impose individual harassment liability)