Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc. et al, No. 2:2008cv00050 - Document 140 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 129 dfts' Motion for Attorney Fees, signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., on 2/16/2010. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc. et al Doc. 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 ----oo0oo---- 13 CHRISTINE EARL, NO. CIV. S-08-0050 FCD KJM 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER VNU USA, INC., NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH, INC., 17 18 19 20 Defendants. _____________________________/ ----oo0oo---This matter is before the court on defendants Nielsen Media 21 Research, Inc.’s and the Nielsen Company (U.S.), Inc.’s 22 (collectively “defendants”), motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant 23 to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 24 California Government Code § 12965(b). 25 (“plaintiff” or “Earl”) opposes the motion, arguing that fees are 26 not appropriate because her claims were not frivolous, Plaintiff Christine Earl 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com For the reasons set forth below,1 1 unreasonable, or groundless. 2 defendants’ motion for fees is DENIED. 3 On October 11, 2007, plaintiff Earl filed a complaint in the 4 Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County 5 of Solano, alleging claims for (1) Age Discrimination in 6 Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) 7 Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; and (3) 8 wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 9 8, 2008, defendant removed the case to this court on the basis of 10 11 On January diversity jurisdiction.2 After numerous discovery motions, defendants filed motions 12 for summary judgment. 13 Company (U.S.) Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, but opposed 14 the motion by defendant Nielsen Media Research, Inc.. 15 the submissions of the parties and the arguments made at hearing, 16 the court concluded that although plaintiff had set forth a prima 17 facie case of age discrimination in violation of FEHA, she failed 18 to submit either specific or substantial evidence that 19 defendant’s reasons for termination were pretextual. (Mem. & 20 Order [Docket #120], filed Sept. 29, 2009, at 9-20.) The court 21 also concluded that plaintiff had failed to present any evidence 22 demonstrating discriminatory intent based upon a disability. 23 (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff did not oppose defendant Nielsen Based upon Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for wrongful 24 25 26 27 28 1 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(g). 2 The factual background is set forth fully in the court’s Memorandum and Order [Docket #120], filed September 29, 2009. 2 1 termination in violation of public policy, which was based upon 2 the asserted FEHA violations, similarly failed. 3 court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 4 Therefore, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that 5 attorneys’ fees may be awarded to a prevailing party in 6 accordance with applicable statutes. 7 § 12965(b) provides that a court, in its discretion, may award 8 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party on a 9 FEHA claim. California Government Code “The language, purpose and intent of California and 10 federal antidiscrimination acts are virtually identical,” and 11 therefore, California courts have adopted the principles and 12 methods developed by federal courts in employment discrimination 13 claims under Title VII to state law claims brought under FEHA. 14 Cummings v. Benco Bldg. Servs., 11 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 1386 (2d 15 Dist. 1992). 16 The Supreme Court has held that “a district court may in its 17 discretion award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant in [an 18 employment discrimination] case upon a finding that the 19 plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without 20 foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.” 21 Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). 22 However, in making this determination, the Court has instructed 23 that a “district court should resist the understandable 24 temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, 25 because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must 26 have been unreasonable or without foundation.” 27 Indeed, “[e]ven when the law or facts appear questionable or 28 ///// 3 Id. at 421-22. 1 unfavorable at the outset, a party may have an entirely 2 reasonable ground for bringing suit.” 3 Id. at 422. California courts have expressly adopted the standards set 4 forth by the Supreme Court in Christiansburg to determine whether 5 a prevailing defendant employer is entitled to attorneys’ fees 6 under FEHA. 7 John Muir Medical Ctr., 97 Cal. App. 4th 814, 830-31 (1st Dist. 8 2002); Rosenman v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, 9 Weil, & Shapiro, 91 Cal. App. 4th 859, 865-66 (2d Dist. 2001). Cummings, 11 Cal. App. 4th at 1387-88; see Jersey v. 10 In Cummings, the court denied the defendants’ motion for 11 attorneys fees despite granting summary judgement in their favor. 12 11 Cal. App. 4th at 1383. 13 summary judgment, the plaintiff had offered “some evidence of age 14 discrimination,” including her employer’s: (1) comments about her 15 age; (2) opinion that she was physically unable to perform her 16 tasks; and (3) deposition testimony that no other similarly 17 situated employee was as old as plaintiff. 18 Ultimately, the court concluded that this evidence “was not 19 substantial enough to create a triable issue of fact” under the 20 McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis. 21 court held that because the plaintiff’s conduct was not 22 “egregious,” the plaintiff’s case was not “patently baseless,” 23 and “reasonable minds [could] differ as to the strength of the 24 case,” attorneys fees were not warranted under FEHA. 25 1389. 26 In opposition to the motion for Id. at 1388-89. Id. However, the Id. at Indeed, California courts rarely grant fees, except in the 27 most extreme cases. 28 relatively small number of California cases have awarded attorney Rosenman, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 872 (“A 4 1 fees to the prevailing defendant under the Christianburg 2 standard.”). 3 was clearly foreclosed or factually groundless. 4 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 75 Cal. App. 4th 762 (1991) 5 (awarding defendants attorney fees where plaintiff brought an 6 unlawful discrimination claim six months after signing a release 7 which explicitly released defendants of all liability for such 8 causes of action); Saret-Cook v. Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & 9 Jennet, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1211 (1999) (granting attorneys’ fees Fees have been awarded where the plaintiff’s claim Linsley v. 10 where plaintiff’s entire FEHA pregnancy discrimination claim was 11 based on plaintiff’s outright and admitted lies). 12 been awarded where the plaintiff continued to pursue “litigation 13 after discovery affirmatively disclosed the factual basis for the 14 alleged discrimination was patently nonexistent.” 15 Cal. App. 4th at 1390 (citing E.E.O.C. v. Jordan Graphics, Inc., 16 769 F. Supp. 1357 (W.D.N.C. 1991)). 17 conclusive, a plaintiff’s ability to establish a prima facie case 18 militates strongly in favor of not granting attorneys fees. 19 Gonzales v. Metpath, Inc. 214 Cal.App.3d 422 (1989) (granting 20 attorneys’ fees where plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie 21 case and finding plaintiff lacked any legitimate justification 22 for bringing her action forward); Guthrey v. State of California, 23 63 Cal.App.4th 1108 (1998) (granting attorneys’ fees where the 24 court held “there is absolutely no evidence on the record which 25 supports a finding that [plaintiff] has established a prima facie 26 case for any of his claims”). 27 28 Fees have also Cummings, 11 Further, while not Cf. In this case, defendants have failed to demonstrate that plaintiff’s claim meets the Christianburg standard for attorneys 5 1 fees. 2 prima facie case of age discrimination. 3 proffered evidence that (1) she was competently performing in her 4 position, (2) she was replaced by a substantially younger 5 employee, (3) she was treated differently than other employees, 6 and (4) defendants failed to engage in a complete progressive 7 discipline policy. 8 statistical evidence supporting her contention that defendant had 9 a pattern or practice of discriminating on the basis of age. Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish a Specifically, plaintiff Further, plaintiff offered expert analysis of Id. 10 Ultimately, this evidence was insufficient to create a triable 11 issue of fact as to pretext because (1) plaintiff was replaced by 12 an employee within the protected class, (2) she was unable to 13 point to similarly situated employees that she was treated 14 different from, and (3) plaintiff’s statistical expert did not 15 utilize the relevant proxy pool for comparison. 16 Cummings, plaintiff’s claim was supported by “some evidence of 17 age discrimination.” 18 defendants fail to point to any conduct by plaintiff that rises 19 to that required by courts to grant fees. 20 11 Cal. App. 4th at 1389. However, as in Moreover, Defendants contend that plaintiff and her counsel knew or 21 should have known that her claims were “baseless” by the 22 conclusion of plaintiff’s deposition. 23 defendants’ assertions, the court did not conclude that 24 plaintiff’s claims were without legal or factual foundation. 25 Rather, the court concluded that plaintiff had failed to present 26 specific and substantial evidence of pretext sufficient to attack 27 the legitimacy of defendants’ proffered non-discriminatory 28 justifications for termination. 6 However, contrary to 1 Defendants have wholly failed to demonstrate that 2 plaintiff’s claim was completely meritless, unreasonable, or 3 frivolous. 4 DENIED. 5 6 Accordingly, defendants motion for attorneys fees is IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 16, 2010 7 8 9 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
