Matthew Provensal v. Michael Gaspard
524 F. App'x 974
5th Cir.2013Background
- Provensal, a former massage therapist for H20 Hair, filed an EEOC complaint and then a district court complaint alleging sex and religion discrimination and various state-law claims.
- He claimed Gaspard demanded personal massages, exposed himself, and promised him a promotion and extra pay for giving more massages.
- The district court dismissed all claims, some under Rule 12(b)(6) and others on summary judgment, and later awarded costs and attorney’s fees to H20 Hair and Gaspard.
- Provensal admitted no evidence of promotions, demotions, or wage changes, and testified that harassment beyond occasional customer actions was limited, including a thigh massage context.
- The court conducted a careful, itemized analysis of reasonable fees, reducing the requested amounts; Provensal appeals only the costs/fees award, which the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether costs and fees to the defendants were proper. | Provensal argues the claims were not frivolous. | H20 Hair and Gaspard contend the claims were frivolous and warranted fee shifting. | Yes; award affirmed for frivolous claims. |
| Whether Provensal’s claims were properly deemed frivolous. | Claims had merit or were not clearly frivolous. | Claims were groundless, lacking basis in fact or law. | Yes; district court properly deemed frivolous. |
| Whether Gaspard can be an individual Title VII defendant. | Gaspard is an individual supervisor and should be liable. | Gaspard was not an employer; not liable in individual capacity. | Yes; Title VII claims against Gaspard were frivolous. |
| Whether the IIED claim was time-barred and frivolous. | IIED was timely or not clearly time-barred. | IIED time-barred; frivolous. | Yes; IIED claim was frivolous due to time-bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (prevailing-defendant fee shifting; standard for frivolousness and bad faith)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (U.S. 2011) (partial awards and discretion in fee decisions)
- Pope v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 937 F.2d 258 (5th Cir. 1991) (time-barred suits can be frivolous)
- Doe v. Silsbee Indep. Sch. Dist., 440 F. App’x 421 (5th Cir. 2011) (frivolousness judged case-by-case; guideposts apply)
- United States v. Mississippi, 921 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1991) (merits-based frivolousness standard)