Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00760/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00760-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dwayne E. McIntosh, a single man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa Community College District, 

et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0760-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. ## 76, 85. Plaintiff

has responded and Defendants have replied. Dkt. ## 88, 89. The Court will deny the motion.

Defendants seek to recover attorneys’ fees from Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(k) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendants agree that both statutes are governed by the same

standard. Dkt. #85 at 8-9 (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980)). The Ninth Circuit

has held that fees may be awarded to a defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) only in

“exceptional cases.” Mitchell v. Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools,

805 F.2d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 1986). Fees are appropriate only when a plaintiff’s case has “‘no

legal or factual basis.’” Id. at 847 (quoting Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S.

412, 420 (1978)) (emphasis in original). A district court has discretion to award attorneys’

fees where the plaintiff’s action was “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even

though not brought in subjective bad faith.” Christiansburg Garment Co., 434 U.S. at 421.

Case 2:07-cv-00760-DGC Document 90 Filed 09/03/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Defendants also assert that Plaintiff’s attorney should be held jointly responsible for

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Dkt. #85 at 9. The Court need not

address this issue as Defendants’ motion is being denied. 

- 2 -

“[A] district court must resist the ‘understandable temptation to engage in post hoc

reasoning’ once a plaintiff has unsuccessfully pursued a claim.” Id. (quoting Christianburg

Garment Co., 434 U.S. at 421-22).

Defendants seek $111,284.16 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. #85 at 2. In the

alternative, Defendants seek $26,573.28 incurred after the Court entered its initial order

denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s

retaliation claims were frivolous because they were dismissed for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies and failure to plead facts in support of his claims. Id. at 3, 6.

Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s race discrimination claims were frivolous because

Plaintiff rejected Defendants’ settlement offer of $6,000 and the claims eventually were

dismissed on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id. at 8. 

This is not an exceptional case. The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s claims were

frivolous, meritless, or vexatious. See Christiansburg Garment Co., 434 U.S. at 421. Nor

does the Court find that Plaintiff’s claims had no legal or factual basis. See Mitchell, 805

F.2d at 848. Plaintiff established a prima facie case of race discrimination. In addition,

routinely awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant would defeat the goal of zealous

enforcement of Title VII, discourage suits in all but the clearest cases, and inhibit advocacy

on undecided issues.” Kutska v. Cal. State College, 564 F.2d 108, 110 (3d Cir. 1977).1

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. #76) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-00760-DGC Document 90 Filed 09/03/09 Page 2 of 2