Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02315/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02315-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:626 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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 

Stacia C. Hill, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV13-2315 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant City of Phoenix prevailed at trial on Plaintiff Stacia Hill’s claims under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The City now seeks an award of 

$368,167.56 in attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and non-taxable costs against 

Plaintiff. Doc. 177. The City’s motion is fully briefed, and no party has requested oral 

argument. Because the City cannot clear the high threshold for an award of fees and nontaxable costs under the relevant statute, the Court will deny the motion. 

 The City makes its request under 42 U.S.C. § 12205, which provides that a court 

“may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation 

expenses, and costs[.]” As the City notes in its motion, fees and costs may be awarded to 

a defendant under this statute only if the court finds that the plaintiff’s action was 

“frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 

434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that “civil defendants can be 

awarded fees under this statute only in exceptional circumstances.” Kohler v. Flava 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-DGC Document 182 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

Enterprises, Inc., 779 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 2015). 

 Plaintiff sought to recover $3 million in damages based on the City’s alleged 

failure to accommodate her disabilities. Plaintiff claimed that she informed her 

supervisor of her disabilities and timely requested reasonable accommodations, and that 

the City failed to engage in an interactive process to find appropriate accommodations. 

The City presented evidence that it was not aware of Plaintiff’s ankle problems at the 

time Plaintiff alleged, that Plaintiff did not request accommodations at the time she 

alleged, and that her managers undertook significant efforts to communicate with her and 

provide reasonable accommodations. Following a five-day trial, the jury deliberated less 

than one hour before returning a defense verdict. Clearly, the jury did not accept 

Plaintiff’s testimony about her communications with the City. 

 The City argues that it is entitled to fees and costs because the jury did not believe 

Plaintiff’s testimony: “The City agrees that this case turned on the credibility of the 

witnesses – or, rather, one witness – Plaintiff. Because the jury concluded she lacked 

credibility, the case lacked merit.” Doc. 181 at 2-3. The Court cannot agree that 

Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation merely because the 

jury did not believe her testimony. If that were the law, awards of fees and costs to ADA 

defendants would not be limited to exceptional circumstances as the Ninth Circuit has 

instructed, but would be available in every case that turned on witness credibility. 

 The Supreme Court has provided this helpful guidance: 

[I]t is important that a district court resist the understandable temptation to 

engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not 

ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without 

foundation. This kind of hindsight logic could discourage all but the most 

airtight claims, for seldom can a prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate 

success. No matter how honest one’s belief that he has been the victim of 

discrimination, no matter how meritorious one’s claim may appear at the 

outset, the course of litigation is rarely predictable. 

Christianburg Garment, 434 U.S. at 421-22. 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-DGC Document 182 Filed 09/06/16 Page 2 of 3
‐ 3 ‐ 

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 

 Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment and the 

City’s Rule 50 motion. At trial, the City did not dispute that Plaintiff had serious 

disabilities – a severe ankle problem and shift work sleep disorder. The trial turned on 

the credibility of Plaintiff and the City’s witnesses. The Court cannot conclude that 

Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation simply because the 

jury found the City’s evidence more credible, even if the jury reached its verdict quickly. 

 The City notes that a question asked by the jury during deliberations could be read 

as suggesting that the jury wanted to award damages to the City. See Doc. 167. But even 

if this is true, the fact that the jury viewed the evidence as strongly favoring the City does 

not mean that the City can recover fees and costs under the statute. The Ninth Circuit has 

instructed that a defense victory does not justify an award under 42 U.S.C. § 12205, 

“even in cases which are resolved at summary judgment because no ‘reasonable jury 

could return a verdict in [the plaintiff’s] favor.’” Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of 

California, LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1267 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Thomas v. Douglas, 877 

F.2d 1428, 1434 & n. 8 (9th Cir.1989)). If a plaintiff’s failure to present enough evidence 

to survive summary judgment does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying 

fees, a defense verdict at trial – even a resounding one – does not satisfy that requirement 

either. 

IT IS ORDERED that the City’s motion for attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, 

and non-taxable costs (Doc. 177) is denied. 

 Dated this 6th day of September, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-DGC Document 182 Filed 09/06/16 Page 3 of 3