# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 31 59

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Com m is si on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

CRST Van Exp ed it ed , Inc

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 11 , 20 14 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 22 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , SMITH an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

The Equ al Em

pl oym en t Opp or tu ni ty Co m m is si on (EEOC) ap pe al s th e di st ric t

co ur t's award of $4 ,69 4,4 42 .14 in at to rn ey s' fees
, ex pe ns es , an d cos ts to CRST Van Exp ed it ed
, In c. (CRS T) fo ll owi ng th e pa rti es ' $5 0,0 00 se tt le m en t of th e o nl y

rem ai ni ng cl ai m , ou t of 15 4 in di vi du al cl ai m s, ag ai ns t CRST. Fo r th e reas on sdi sc us se d in

fr a , we rev ers e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s
op in io n.

I. Bac kg ro un d
A mo r e ex te ns iv e fact ua l ba ck gr ou nd of th is cas e is av ai la bl e in ou r p r i o r

o pi ni on

. Se e EEOC v. CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 67 9 F.3 d 65 7 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 2 ) ( " C RS T IV ")

. W e wil l pr ov id e on ly an ab br ev ia te d pr oc ed ur al hi st or y to pr o v i d e

co nt ex t fo r th e p res en t d is pu te

.

A. Und er ly in g Act io n "Th e

. . . EEOC

. . . fil ed su it in it s own na m e ag ai ns t CRST

. . . , al le gi ng th at CRST su bjec te d Mo ni ka St ark e 'an d a p p ro xi m at el y 27 0 si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e

em pl oyees' to a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t, in vi ol at io n of Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 1 9 6 4 ( ' Ti tl e VII'), 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e et se q ." Id

. at 66 4. Sp eci fic al ly, "[t ]he
EEOC al le ge d th at CRST was res po ns ib le fo r se ve re an d pe rv as ive se xu al ha ras sm en t in it s New-Dr iv er Trai ni ng Pro gr am ('Trai ni ng Pro gr am ')." Id . at 6 65

.

The reaf te r, th e di st ric t "co ur t gr an te d J a ne t Bo ot , Barb ara Gran t, Ci nd y Mo ffet t, R e mcey Je un en ne Peep le s, St ark e an d Late ts ha Tho m as 's req ue st to in te rv en e." EEOC v. CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , No. 07 –C V–9 5– LRR, 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at *4 n.5 (N.D. Iowa Au g. 1 , 20 13 ) (" CRS T III ").

Fo r ap pr ox im at el y two y ears aft er th e fil in g of th e su it
, t h e EEOC fai le d to id en ti fy th e wom en co m pr is in g th e pu ta ti ve cl as s; as a res u l t , th e di st ric t co ur t

or de red th e EEOC "t o (1 ) im m ed ia t e l y a mend it s li st of 27 0 wom en as so on as it le arn ed of a ny wom en who se cl ai m s it no lo ng er wi sh ed to pu rs ue an d (2 ) m ak e al l

wom en on who se be ha lf it so ug ht rel ie f av ai la bl e to CRST fo r de po si ti on ." CRS T IV
, 67 9 F.3 d at 67 0 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The pe na lt y fo r fai li ng to pr es en t a pa rti cu la r

wom an fo r de po si ti on be fo re th e co nc lu si on of di sc ov ery "wo ul d res ul t in a 'di sc ov ery sa nc ti on ' fo rb id di ng th at wom an f r o m t e st ifyin g at tri al an d ba rri ng th e

-2

-EEOC fro m se ek in g rel ie f on he r be ha lf in th e cas e." Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "Al th ou gh

th e EEOC co m

pl ie d wit h th e co ur t's di rect iv e an d fil ed up da te d an d co rrec te d li st s of al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d in di vi du al s, it fai le d to m ak e al l o f t h e i de nt ifi ed in di vi du al s

av ai la bl e fo r de po si ti on be fo re [th e de ad li ne ]. " CRS T III , 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at *3. The di st ric t co ur t th en en fo rced it s pr io r or de r an d "b arre d th e EEOC fro m pu rs ui ng rel ie f fo r an y in di vi du al no t m ad e av ai l a b l e fo r de po si ti on be fo re th e de ad li ne ." Id

. The reaf te r, "t he EEOC fil ed an Upd at ed Lis t of Cl as s Mem be rs , whi ch li st ed 1 5 5 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d in di vi du al s fo r who m th e EEOC was st il l pu rs ui ng rel ie f an d 99 in di vi du al s who th e EEOC al le ge d were se xu al ly ha ras se d bu t for who m th e EEOC

was no t p ur su in g re li ef b as ed on th e co ur t's

. . . [o ]rder." Id . (fo ot no te om it te d)

.

In a se rie s of or de rs , th e di st ric t c o u r t r u le d on CRST's va rio us m ot io ns fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t. Fi rs t, CRST m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e EEOC's

pu rp or te d pa tt ern -o r-p r a c t i c e cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th e m ot io n "o dd " be cau se no "p at te rn [-]or[- ]pract ic e cl ai m " ap pe ared in th e EEOC's co m pl ai nt

. "'[T]he
EEOC di d no t al le ge th at CRST was eng ag ed in 'a patt ern or pr act ic e of il le ga l sex

ba se d di sc riminat io n or ot he rwis e pl ead a vi ol at io n of Sect io n 7 0 7 o f Ti tl e VII, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-6

. ' " C

RS T IV
, 67 9 F.3 d at 67 6 n.1 3 (q uo ti ng EEOC v. CRS T Van Exp ed it ed
, In c

. (" CRS T II "), No. 07 –C V–9 5– LRR, 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2, at *7 n.1 4 (N.D. Iowa Au g. 1 3, 2 00 9) ).

The di st ric t co ur t ha d " as su med [th at ] th e EEOC ha d th e rig ht to

m ai nt ai n a pa tt ern -o r-p ract ic e cl ai m in th is cas e bu t di sm is se d it wit h pr e jud ic e. The co ur t he ld as a m at te r of la w t ha t th ere was in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce fro m whi ch a reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th a t i t was CRST's 'st an da rd op erat in g p ro ced ur e' to to le rat e se xu al ha ras sm en t." 1

In it s Apr il 30
, 20 09 or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed
, "In ot he r wor ds
, th e co ur t 1

as su m es wit ho ut de ci di ng th at th is is a se x u a l ha ras sm en t pa tt ern [-]or[- ]pract ic e
cas e."

-3

-Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (em ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti ng CRS T II
, 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2, at *7 n.1 4) ; se e a ls o C

RST I II , 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at *3 ("S pe ci fic al ly, th e co ur t he ld th at , to th e ex te nt th e EEOC as se rte d a pa tt ern [-]or[- ]pract ic e cl ai m , su ch cl ai m was di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e an d, con se qu en tl y , CRST was liab le on ly to th e ex te nt th e EEOC co ul d pr ov e in di vi du al cl ai m s of se xu al ha ras sm en t." ). In CRS T IV
, "[w]e, li ke th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt, 'ex pr es s[ ed ] no vi ew as to whe th er th e EEOC's in ve st ig at io n, de te rm in at io n an d co nc il ia ti on of St ark e ' s C h arg e wou ld be su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a
pa tt er n [- ] or -p ra ct ic e la ws u i t

. ' " 67 9 F.3 d at 67 6 n.1 3 (q uo ti ng CRS T II
, 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2, at *1 6 n .21 ).

S e c o n d, CRST m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on th e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns an d ot he r gr ou nd s; th e di st ric t co ur t "fo un d th at th e ap pl ic ab le st at ut e of li m it at i o n s b a r r e d th e EEOC fro m se ek in g rel ie f on be ha lf of 9 in di vi du al s an d ba rred
, i n p art , th e EEOC fro m se ek in g rel ie f on be ha lf of an ot he r 3 in di vi du al s."
CRS T III , 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at *3 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Thi rd
, "t he di st ric t co ur t gr an te d CRST su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t th ree

wom en , in cl ud in g St ark e, reas o n i n g th at th e wom en were jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed fro m
pr os ecu ti ng th ei r cl ai m s." CRS T IV
, 67 9 F.3 d at 67 0 (fo ot no te om it te d) (ci ti ng EEOC
v. CRS T Van Expe di te d, In c. (" CRS T I "), 6 14 F. Sup p. 2 d 9 68 (N.D. Iowa 2 00 9) ).

Fo ur t h
, C R S T m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t cert ai n in te rv en ers ' cl ai m s, an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d in pa rt an d de ni ed in pa rt th e m ot io n. CRS T III
, 20 13 W L 39 83 37 8, at *4

. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at Bo ot 's cl ai m s were fri vo lo us or , in th e al te rn at iv e, th at sh e di d no t ge ne rat e a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact reg ard in g CRST's kn owl ed ge of th e pu rp or te d ha ras sm en t an d CRST's a l le ge d fai lu re to ta ke

pr op er rem ed ia l a c t i o n

. Id

. Add it io na ll y , th e co ur t di sm is se d Peep le s's cl ai m s an d
N i c o l e Ci nq ue m an o's cl ai m s, co nc lu di ng th at CRST la ck ed act ua l or co ns tru ct iv e kn owl ed ge of th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t. Id

. "Th e co ur t fu rth er he ld th at th e EEOC was

-4

-ba rred fro m se ek in g rel ie f at tri al to th e sa m e ex te nt th es e Pl ai nt iff s- In te rv en ers were ba rred ." Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Fi fth
, CRST m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on th e cl as s m em be rs ' fai lu re
to rep or t th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t or CRST's pr om pt an d effe ct iv e res po ns e to th e
rep or te d ha ras sm en t. Id

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n in pa rt an d de ni ed it in

pa rt, fin di ng "t ha t th e EEOC was ba rred fro m se ek in g rel ie f on be ha l f o f [ ( 1 ) ] 11 in di vi du al s be cau se CRST di d no t k n ow or ha ve reas on to kn ow th at th ey were

se xu al ly ha ras se d an d [(2 )] 4 in di vi du al s be cau se CRST ad eq ua te ly ad dr e s s e d th e

se xu al ha ras sm en t." Id

.

Si xt h, CRST m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t cl as s m em be rs who di d no t

ex pe rie nc e se ve re or pe rv as iv e se xu al ha ras sm en t, and th e co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n in pa rt an d de ni ed it in pa rt, co nc lu di ng "t ha t th e EE O C h ad fai le d to ge ne rat e a
ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er 11 in di vi du al s ha d ex pe rie nc ed se ve re or
pe rv as iv e se xu al ha ras sm en t an d, co ns eq ue nt ly, he ld th at th e EEOC was ba rred fro m

se ek in g re li ef o n t he ir b eh al f." Id

.

Sev en th
, CRST m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud g men t ag ai ns t cl as s m em be rs who se cl ai m s pu rp or te dl y fai le d on two or m or e gr ou nd s, and th e co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n in pa rt an d de ni ed it in p a r t. Id . Th e co ur t pr oh ib it ed th e EEOC f ro m se ek in g rel ie f

on b e h a l f o f 46 wom en

. Id

. The EEOC co nc ed ed th at "4 in di vi du al s di d no t su ffer

act io na bl e se xu al ha ras sm en t," an d t he co ur t

fo un d th at a reas on ab le jury co ul d no t fin d 42 in di vi du al s su ffer ed fro m act io na bl e se xu al ha ras sm en t be cau se th ey di d no t su ffer se ve re or pe rv as iv e se xu al ha ras sm en t an d/ or th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow th at CRST kn ew or sh o u l d h a ve kn own th at th e in di vi du al s
su ffer ed sex ua l h aras sm en t yet fai le d t o t ak e p ro pe r rem ed ia l ac ti on

.

Id

.

-5

-"Fi na ll y , . . . th e di st ric t co ur t ba rred th e EEOC fro m se ek in g r e l i e f fo r th e

rem ai ni ng 67 wom en af t e r c o n c lu di ng th at th e EEOC ha d fai le d to co nd uc t a

reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n an d bo na f i de co nc il ia ti on of th es e cl ai m s— st at ut or y

co nd it io ns pre ced en t t o in st it ut in g su it ." CRS T IV , 67 9 F .3d at 6 71 (ci ti ng CRS T II
, 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2)

. The di stri ct co urt di sm is se d th e EEOC's co m pl ai nt be cau se it ha d "d is po se d o f al l t he all eg ed ly agg rie ve d wo m en in th e EEOC's p ut at iv e 'cl as s.'" Id

.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e act io n, CRST fil ed a bi ll of co st s pu rs ua nt
to Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 54 (d ) an d 28 U.S.C

. § 19 20 an d m ov ed fo r
at to rn ey s' fees pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (k ). The di st ric t "co ur t award ed CRST $9 2,8 42 .21 in co st s, $4 ,00 4,3 71 .65 in at to rn ey s' fees [,] an d $4 63 ,07 1.2 5 in ou t-o fp o ck et ex pe ns es , f

or a to ta l of $4 ,56 0,2 85 .11 ." CRS T III , 2 01 3 W L 3 98 44 7 8
, a t * 5 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

B. App ea l "[T]he EEOC ap pe al [ed ] th e d i s t r i c t co ur t's di sm is sa l of it s cl ai m s as to 10 7

wom en ." CRS T IV

, 67 9 F.3 d at 67 0. On ap pe al
, th e EEOC arg ue d th at th e di st ric t

co ur t ( 1 ) e r r o n e ou sl y ba rred it "fr om pu rs ui ng cl ai m s as to 67 wom en ba se d on it s fai lu re to reas on ab ly in ve st ig at e or go od -fai th co nc il ia te ," id

. at 67 1; (2 ) erro ne ou sl y
gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t on St ark e's
, Payne's
, an d Tim m o n s ' s in di vi du al cl ai m s,

as well as on th e EEOC's cl ai m s on th ei r be ha lf, ba se d on jud ic ia l es to pp el
, id

. at 67 7; (3 ) erro ne ou sl y gr an t e d s um m ary jud gm en t on th e m eri ts of se ve ral of it s ho st il e

wor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t CRST, id

. at 68 2– 86 ; an d (4 ) ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in award in g C RST at to rn ey s' fe es an d e xp en se s, id . at 6 94

.

Afte r an al y zi ng each of t he EEOC's co nt en ti on s,

we affi rm [ed ] in pa rt, rev ers e[d ] in pa rt, an d rem an d[ ed ] fo r f u r t h e r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n. Sp eci fic al ly, we rev ers e[d ] th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he EEOC's cl ai m s as to

-6

-Mo ni ka Sta rk e be cau se th e EEOC, su in g as a pl ai nt iff in it s o wn n am e
un de r § 70 6, m ay no t be jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed be c a u s e o f St ark e's in de pe nd en t co nd uc t. A d d i t io na ll y , we rev ers e[d ] th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e EEOC's c l a i ms o n be ha lf of Til li e Jo ne s be cau se th e EE O C

. . . pr od uc ed su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to crea te a ge nu in e fact is su e as to th e se ve rit y or pe rv as iv en es s of ha ras sm en t th at sh e al le ge dl y su f

f e r e d

. Fi na ll y , we va cat e[d ], wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, th e di st ric t co ur t's award of at to rn ey s' fees to CRST b e c a u se , in li gh t of th es e afo rem en ti on ed ru li ng s, CRST [wa]s no lo ng er a "p rev ai li ng " de fen da nt un de r 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e– 5( k)

. W e affi rm [ed ] th e rem ai nd er of th e di st ri c t c o ur t's or de rs an d rem an d[ ed ] fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs
co ns is te nt wit h t h[ e] op in io n.

CRS T IV , 67 9 F .3d at 6 95 (fo ot no te om it te d)

.

C. Reman d
On rem an d, th e EEOC wit hd rew its cl ai m on be ha lf o f Jo ne s, ex pl ai ni ng th at "t he law o f th e cas e, sp eci fic al ly thi s C ou rt' s o rd er of Aug us t 13 , 2 00 9 . . . , bar s i ts cl ai m on be ha lf of Til li e Jo ne s." The refe ren ced or de r was th e o n e i n whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t ba rred th e EEOC fro m se ek in g rel ie f on be ha lf of so m e cl ai m an ts fo r th e EEOC's fai lu re to fu lfi ll th e st at ut or y co nd it io ns pr eced en t to in st it ut in g su it , i

. e., a

reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n a nd bo na fi de co nc il ia ti on

.

Su bs eq ue nt ly, CRST and th e EEOC se tt le d th e cas e an d joi nt ly m ov ed fo r an

or de r of di sm is sa l. The Set tl em en t Agr eem en t th at th e pa rti es en te red pro vi de d th at CRST wo ul d p ay

$5 0,0 00 in set tl em en t o f th e EEOC's cl ai m on be ha lf o f St ark e. It fu rth er p ro vi de d:

4. Thi s Agr eem en t do es no t pr ecl ud e CRST fro m pu rs ui ng at to rn ey [s '] fees an d co st s pu rs ua nt to th e Ord er of th e Ei gh th Ci rcu it da te d M ay

8, 2 01 2.

-7

-5. Fu rth e r , th is Agr eem en t do es no t pr ecl ud e ei th er [th e] EEOC

or CRST fro m m ak in g an y arg um en ts rel at in g to CRST's pu rs ui t of at to rn ey [s '] fees an d co st s, in cl ud in g arg um en ts rel at in g to whe th er [th e] EEOC or CR ST is th e p rev ai li ng pa rty.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n to di sm is s, an d CRST th en fil ed a bi ll of

co st s an d m ov ed fo r an award of at to rn ey s' fees

. The EEOC res is te d th e bi ll of co st s

an d m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s' fees

. Fi rs t, it arg ue d th at it s "ca se was co m pr is ed of a si ng le cl ai m an d th at it won th at cl ai m ." CRS T III
, 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at * 9

. Th e d i s t r ic t

co ur t fo un d t hi s ar gu m en t m eri tl es s, co nc lu di ng th at "o n t he face of th e Co m pl ai nt , it is cl ear th at th e EEOC so ug ht rel ie f on be ha lf of at le as t two in di vi du al s an d, th us , th ere were at le as t two cl ai ms ," i.e., St ark e's cl ai m an d at le as t on e cl as s m em be r's cl ai m

. Id

. Ult im at el y , th e co ur t fou nd "t ha t th e EEOC as se rte d m ul ti pl e an d di st in ct cl ai m s ag ai n s t C R S T" an d th at CRST on ly lo st on on e of th os e cl ai m s— St ark e's cl ai m

. Id

. at *1 0. App lying Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t, th e co ur t reas on ed th at "CR ST

ne ed no t pr ev ai l on ev ery cl ai m to be en ti tl ed to an award o f a t t o r n e ys ' fees ";

t h e r e f or e, it "co ns id er[e d] wh et he r th ere was a jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n on th e m e r i t s in fav or of CRST on each cl ai m ot he r th an th e cl ai m on be ha lf of St ark e." Id

. (ci ti ng Fox v. Vice , 13 1 S . Ct. 2 20 5 (2 01 1) ).

Seco nd
, th e EEOC arg ue d th at CRST was no t a pr ev ai li ng de fen da nt be cau se

" ' a l a rg e po rti on of th e cl ai m was no t de te rm in ed on th e m eri ts .'" Id

. (ci ta ti o n

om it te d) . Th e EEOC c on ced ed "t ha t 'CRS T d efea te d th e cl ai m on th e m eri ts f o r 83

wom en fo r who m it was g ran te d su m m ary jud gm en t.'" Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Bu t it
"ar gu e[d ] th at 'CRS T wo n on reas on s ot he r th an th e m eri ts as t o [9 8] of t he wom en who were ne ve r de po se d, a n d a s t o 6 7 wom en fo r who m

. . . [th e] EEOC fai le d to

m eet th e st at ut or y pr ereq u i s it es fo r su it .'" Id

. (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on

om it te d) . The co ur t re

jecte d t he EEOC's arg um en t.

-8

-As an in it ia l m at te r, it fo un d th at C R S T w as th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty as to th e

EEOC's pa tt ern -o r-p ract ic e cl ai m de sp it e th e EEOC's arg um en t th at it ne ve r as se rte d

a pa tte rn -or-p ract ic e cl ai m in it s co m pl ai nt

. The co ur t reas on ed "t ha t CRST jus ti fia bly fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m

m ary ju d g ment on th e pa tt ern -o r-p ract ic e cl ai m gi ve n th e

co nf us io n th e EEOC crea te d as to whe th er it was pu rs ui ng su ch a cl ai m " an d th at th e

co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly g ran te d CRST's m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm e n t o n t he m eri ts of th at cla im

. Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

The co ur t th en ob se rv ed th at aft er th e di sm is sa l of th e pu rp o r t e d p a tt ern -o rpr act ic e cl ai m , "t he re were 15 4 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d in di vi du al s rem ai ni ng an d, th us , CRST was req ui red to de fen d ag ai ns t 15 4 se xu al ha ras sm en t cl ai m s." Id

. (fo ot no te

om it te d)

. The co ur t reject ed th e EEOC's co nt en ti on th at "t he co ur t's di sm is sa l of cl ai m s du e to th e EEOC's fai lu re to sa ti sf y th e Tit le VII ad m in is tra ti ve pr ereq ui si te s is no t a jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n on th e m eri ts ." Id

. The co ur t fo un d th at th e EEOC's ob li ga ti on to pu rs ue ad m in is tra ti ve res ol ut io n is "an in gr ed ie nt of th e EEOC's cl ai m "

as op p o s e d to a "jur is di ct io na l pr ereq ui si te "; th eref or e, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at it s "d is m is sa l of clai m s du e to th e EEOC's fa il ur e to sat is fy it s p re-s ui t o bl ig at io ns is a di sm is sa l o n t he m eri ts of t he EEOC's cl ai m s." Id

.

The co ur t al so fo un d th at CRST wa s a pr ev ai li ng pa rty as to Jo ne s's cl ai m be cau se , al th ou gh th e EEOC vo lu nt ari ly di sm is se d t he cl ai m on rem an d, "h ad th e EEOC no t wit hd rawn it s cl ai m on be ha lf of Jo ne s, th e co ur t wou ld ha ve di sm is se d it

pu rs ua nt to it s Au gu st 13 , 20 09 Orde r." Id . at * 11

.

Hav in g de te rm in ed th at "CR ST is th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty on th e EEOC's pa tt ern

or -p ract ic e cl ai m an d 15 3 of th e EEO C ' s i nd iv id ua l cl ai m s," th e co ur t th en "co ns id er[e d] whe th er th os e cl ai m s on whi ch CRST pr ev ai le d are f r i v ol ou s,

un reas on ab le or g ro un dl es s." Id

.

-9

-The di st ric t co ur t di d no t in di vi du al ly an al y ze whe th er each of th e 15 3 cl ai m s

an d pu rp or te d pa tt ern -o r-p ract ic e cl ai m were fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss

. In st ead , in su m

m ary fas hi on , it fou nd th at all th e cl ai m s s at is fie d t hi s s ta nd ard

.

As to at to rn ey s' fees
, ex pe ns es , an d co st s, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at CRST was

en ti tl ed to $3 ,72 4,0 65 .63 in att or ne y s' fe es in cu rred pre -ap pe al

. Id . at * 18

.

The co ur t al so award ed C R ST "t he reas on ab le am ou nt of at to rn ey s' fees in cu rred du rin g th e ap pe al pr oc eed in gs " in th e am ou nt of $4 65 ,23 0.4 7. Id

. at *1 8– 19

. The co ur t ju st ifi ed it s awa rd as f ol lo ws:

Sp eci fic al ly, th e c o u r t h as al read y fo un d th at CRST is th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty an d th at th e Ch ri st ia ns bu rg st an da rd is sa ti s fie d as to al l of th e 2 cl ai m s th at th e EEOC ap pe al ed
, ot he r th an th e cl ai m on be ha lf of St ark e. Mo reo ve r, th e co ur t fin ds th at CRST pr ov id ed su ffi ci en t do cu m en ta ti on

an d, as di sc us se d ab ov e, th e co ur t fin ds th at $4 6 5
, 23 0.4 7 refl ect s th e to ta l ap pe ll at e fe e s t h a t C RST wou ld no t ha ve in cu rred bu t fo r th e EEOC's u nr eas on ab le or g ro un dl es s cl ai m s.

Id . at * 19

.

Thu s, th e di st ric t c o u rt award ed $4 ,18 9,2 96 .10 in at to rn ey s' fees

. Id

. at *2 1. And
, th e co ur t award ed $4 13 ,38 7.5 8 in ou t-o f-p oc ke t ex pe ns es to CRST. Id

. Fi na ll y , th e co ur t al so award ed CRST $ 91 ,75 8.4 6 i n c os ts

. Id

.

In to ta l, th e co ur t fo un d th at CRST was en ti tl ed to $4 ,69 4,4 42 .14 fo r at to rn ey s' fees , exp en se s, an d c os ts

. Id

.

Ch ri st an sb ur

g Ga rme nt

Co . v. EEOC , 43 4 U.S. 4 12 (19 78 ). 2

-1 0-II. Dis cu ss io n

On ap pe al
, th e EEOC arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t er red in award in g $4 ,69 4,4 42 .14 fo r at to rn ey s' fees
, ex pe ns es , an d co st s to CRST. Fi rs t, th e EEOC
arg ue s th at th e di s t r i c t c ou rt erre d in fin di ng th at CRST was th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty be cau se it "er ro ne ou sl y vi ewed [th e] EEOC's cas e as 15 4 se pa rat e cl ai m s an d th ou gh t CRST de se rv ed fees fo r it s su cces s on 15 3 of th em ." The EEOC m ai nt ai ns th at it "h ad

on ly on e cl ai m

—t ha t CRST vi ol at ed Tit le VII by fai li ng to pr ev en t an d rem ed y se xu al ha ra ssm en t of it s fem al e tra in ees an d dr iv ers —an d EEOC's se tt le m en t ob ta ini ng re lie f fo r on e cl ai m an t was su ffi ci en t to ren de r [th e] EEOC th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty." Seco nd
, th e EEOC arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y co nc lu de d th at it s di sm is sa l of th e "EEOC's cl ai m ba se d on de fic ie nc ie s in it s pr es ui t pr oc es si ng co ns ti tu te d a ru li ng on th e m eri ts of [th e] EEOC's cl ai m ." Acco rd in g to th e EEOC, a di sm is sa l b a s e d on fai lu re to sa ti sf

y pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s do es no t eq ua te to a m eri ts -b as ed de ci si on

ne ces sa ry fo r th e co ur t to fin d CRST to be a pr ev ai li ng pa rty. Thi rd
, th e EEOC as se rts th at ev en if th is co ur t ag rees wit h th e di st ric t co ur t t ha t CR ST is a pr ev ai li ng pa rty, "t he di st ric t co ur t erre d in award in g fees to CRST be cau se [th e] EEO C ' s c l a i m a nd

co nd uc t of th is li ti ga ti on were no t fri vo lo us , g ro u nd le ss , o r un reas on ab le ." Fi na ll y , th e EEOC co nt en ds th at th e di s t r i c t c o u rt erre d in award in g CRST ap pe ll at e fees be cau se th e "EEOC's de ci si on to ap pe al th e in it ia l di sm i s sa l of it s cas e was

reas on ab le
, gr ou nd ed in so un d leg al pr eced en t, an d su pp or te d by a reas on ab le ho pe of rev ers al on ap pe al ." We con si de r eac h o f th es e arg um en ts in tu rn

.

W he th er a pa rty is a "p rev ai li ng pa rty" is a qu es ti on of la w th at we rev ie w de

no vo

. Doc

Mag ic

, In c. v. Mor tg ag e P'sh ip of Am., L.L.C.
, 72 9 F.3 d 80 8, 81 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). "We rev ie w fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n th e di st ric t co ur t's act ua l award of fees

an d c os ts ." Id

.

"I t i s t h e g e ne ral ru le in th e Uni te d St at es th at in th e ab se nc e of le gi sl at io n
pr ov id in g ot he rwis e, li ti ga nt s m us t pa y t he ir own at to rn ey 's fees ." Ch ri st ia ns bu rg , 43 4 U.S. at 41 5 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. " B u t C o n g res s ha s au th or iz ed co ur ts to de vi at e

-1 1-fro m th is ba ck gr ou nd ru le in cert ai n types of cas es by sh ift in g fees fro m on e pa rty to

an ot he r." Fox
, 13 1 S. Ct

. at 22 13 (ci ti ng Bur li ng to n v. Dag ue , 50 5 U.S. 55 7, 56 2 (1 99 2) (li st in g fed eral fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io ns )). Lik e 42 U.S.C. § 19 88
, 4 2 U

. S .C. § 2 00 0e -5 (k ) is on e o f th os e "fe e-s hi fti ng " p ro vi si on s. Bur li ng to n , 50 5 U.S. at 5 62

. "Th e st an da rd s fo r as se ss in g cl ai m s fo r at to rn ey 's fees pu rs ua nt to se ct io n 19 88 an d

un de r th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64 , 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e– 5( k) , a re id en ti cal ." Bar ne s Fou nd

. v. To wn sh ip of

Lo wer Mer io n , 24 2 F.3 d 15 1, 15 8 n.6 (3 d Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. As a res ul t, "ca se s us ed to in te rp ret on e st at ut e m ay be us ed to in te rp ret th e
ot he r." Id . (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

Ju st as § 19 88 "al lo ws th e a w ard of 'a reas on ab le at to rn ey 's fee' to 'th e
pr ev ai li ng pa rty,'" Fox
, 13 1 S. Ct

. at 22 13
, so to o do es § 20 00 e-5 (k ). 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 2 0 0 0 e-5 (k ) ("I n an y act io n or pr oc eed in g un de r th is su bc ha pt er th e co ur t, in it s di sc ret io n, m ay al lo w th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty, ot he r th an th e Co m m is si on or th e Uni te d
St at es , a reas on ab le at to rn ey 's fee (in cl ud in g ex pe rt fees ) as pa rt of th e co st s, an d th e Co m m is si on an d th e Uni te d St at es sh a l l be li ab le fo r co st s th e sa m e as a pr iv at e
pe rs on ."). Sect io n 20 00 e-5 (k ) " a u t h or iz [es ] th e award of at to rn ey 's fees to ei th er pl ai nt iff s or de fe nd an ts , an d ent ru st [s ] th e effe ct ua ti on of th e st at ut or y po li cy to th e di sc ret io n of the di st ric t co ur ts ." Ch ri st ia ns bu rg , 43 4 U.S. at 41 6 (em ph as is ad de d) (fo ot no te om it te d)

.

W it h t h i s l e g a l fram ewo rk in m in d, we no w ad dr es s each of th e EEOC's
arg um en ts in fav or of r ev ers al

.

1. Si ng le v. Mul ti

pl e Cl ai ms Fi rs t, th e EEOC arg ue s th at CRST can no t be a pr ev ai li ng pa rty be cau se th e EEOC br ou gh t on ly on e "cl ai m " ag ai ns t CRST— th at CRST vi ol a t e d Ti t le VII by fai li ng to pr e v e n t an rem ed y se xu al ha ras sm en t of it s fem al e tra in ees an d

-1 2-dr iv ers —an d CR ST di d no t pr ev ai l on th is cl ai m , as ev id en ced by th e EEOC

ob ta in in g a $5 0,0 00 set tl em en t o n S ta rk e's be ha lf. 3

Our ta sk is to de te rm in e (1 ) ho w m an y cl ai m s th e EEOC a l l e g e d in it s

co m pl ai nt an d (2 ) wha t t y

pe s o f cl ai m s i t al le ge d.

"Se ct io n 70 6 o f Tit le VII au th or iz es th e EEOC t o br in g cl ai m s in vo lv in g th e rig ht s of agg rie ve d in di vi du al s cha ll en gi ng an un la wfu l em pl oym en t prac ti ce on an in di vi du al or cl as s- wid e ba si s[ .] " U.S. EEOC v. Glo ba l Hor iz on s, In c ., 86 0 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 72
, 11 91 (D. Haw. 20 12 ) (ci ta ti o n s o mitt ed ). The EEOC m ay "s eek cl as s
act io n- type rel ie f wit ho ut co m pl y in g wit h

. . . F ed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 23 ." Id . (qu ot at io n a nd cit at io ns om it te d)

.

Here, th e EEOC br ou gh t su it un de r Tit le VII "t o co rrec t un la wfu l em pl oym en t
pr act ic es on th e ba si s of se x, an d to pr ov id e ap pr op ria te rel ie f to Mo ni ka St ark e an d

a c l a s s of si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e em pl oyees of de fen da nt CRST." (Em ph as i s ad de d.) The "St at em en t of Cl ai m s" pr ov id es t h a t "t wo of [CRS T's] le ad dr iv ers

su bjec te d St ark e to se xu al ha ras sm e nt du rin g th ei r su pe rv is io n of St ark e" an d th at "[o ]the r si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e em pl oyees of CRST were al so su bjec te d to se xu al ha ras sm en t an d a se xu al ly ho st il e an d of fen si ve wor k en vi ro nm en t whi le wor ki ng fo r CRST."

The EEOC a rg ue s at le ng th th at it is a "p rev ai li ng pa rty" pl ai nt iff be cau se it 3 ob ta in ed th e $5 0,0 00 se tt le m en t on St ark e's be ha lf. W e ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er th e EEOC is a "p rev ai li ng pl ai nt iff " an d in st ead fo cu s on whe th er CRST is a "p rev ai li ng de fen da nt " be cau se , as th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d, th e EEOC "i s no t en ti tl ed to a fee award un de r 42 U

. S

. C

. § 2 00 0e -5 (k )." CRS T III
, 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at *1 0 n.7 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thi s is be ca u s e § 2 00 0e -5 (k ) pe rm it s fees to pr ev ai li ng pa rti es "o th er th an th e Co m

m is si on or th e Uni te d St at es ." "Th us , it is o f n o c o ns eq ue nc e whe th er the EEOC qu al ifi es as a pr ev ai li ng pa rty." CRS T III
, 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at *1 0 n .7.

-1 3-W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th a t t h e EEOC a ll eg ed m or e th an on e cl ai m

.

As th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d, al th ou gh th e EEOC d id no t sp eci fy " h o w m an y in di vi du al s th e EEOC was pu rs ui ng rel ie f on be ha lf of un ti l th e li ti ga ti on was well un de r way ,"
"t he face of th e Co m

pl ai nt " sh ows th at "t he EEOC so ug ht rel ie f on be ha lf of at le as t
two in di vi du al s an d, th us , th ere were at le as t two [ s ex ua l-h aras sm en t] cl ai m s. By Octo be r 15
, 20 08
, it be cam e cl ea r t h a t t he EEOC was as se rti ng ap pr ox im at el y 27 0 cl ai m s, al th ou gh th at nu m be r dr op pe d to 25 5 by May 12
, 20 09 ." CRS T III
, 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at *9

. Fu rth erm or e, th e EEOC's arg um en t th at it as se rte d on ly on e cl ai m
ag ai ns t CRST in it s co m

pl ai nt is un de r mi n e d b y ou r pr io r op in io n. Thro ug ho ut th e
op in io n, we refe rred to th e EEOC's "cl ai m s." CRS T IV
, 67 9 F.3 d at 67 0– 74
, 68 2– 83
, 68 5, 68 8, 68 9– 90
, 69 4– 95

. W e di sa gr ee wit h th e EEOC's as se rti on th at we us ed th e
te rm "cl ai m s" in th e "n on -te ch ni cal sen se ." Fo r ex am pl e, we ex pl ai ne d t ha t "o ur de

no vo rev ie w of th e EE O C 's cl ai ms co nc er ni ng ea ch wo man co nf irms th e di st ric t

co ur t's co nc lu si on th at no fact is su e rem ai ne d" as to each wom an 's se xu al -h aras sm en t cl ai m

. Id

. at 69 0 (em

ph as is ad de d) . There fo re, we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ct co ur t "th at th is c a s e co nt ai ne d m

ul ti pl e an d di st in ct cl ai m s fo r rel ie f." CRS T III
, 20 13 W L 39 84 47 8, at *9

.

As to wha t types of cl ai m s th e EEOC's co m pl ai nt al le ge s, we rei te rat e ou r pr io r ob se rv at io n in th e fir st ap pe al th at "'t he EEOC di d no t al le ge th at CRST was en ga ge d i n 'a pa tt ern or pr act ic e' of il le ga l se x- ba se d di sc riminat io n or ot he rwis e pl ead a vi ol at io n of Sect io n 70 7 of Tit le VII, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-6 .'" CRS T IV
, 67 9 F.3 d at 67 6 n.1 3 (q uo ti ng CRS T II
, 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2, at *7 n.1 4)

. The di st ric t co ur t m erel y

as su med wi th ou t d e c i d i n g th at th e EEOC br ou gh t a pa tt ern -o r-p ract ic e cl ai m an d di sm is se d it wit h pr ejud ic e. Id . B ut th e face of th e co m pl a i n t a l l e g e s no pa tt ern -o rpr act ic e cl ai m ; th eref

or e, it "s eek s on ly to vi nd ic at e th e rig ht s of th e in di vi du al s un de r Se ct io n 70 6." U.S. EEOC v. Pio ne er Hot el

, In c. , No. 2: 11 –C V–1 588– L RH –R JJ, 2013
W L 12 93 90
, at *4 (D. Nev

. Ja n. 9, 20 13 ). Acco rd in gl y , to th e ex te nt th at th e di st ric t

co ur t's or de r a w a r d ed at to rn ey s' fees to CRST ba se d on a pu rp or te d pa tt ern -o rpr act ic e cl ai m , we rev ers e.

-1 4-In su m m ary, w e fin d th at th e EEOC's co m pl ai nt al le ge d m

ul ti pl e se xu al

ha ras sm en t cl ai m s s eek in g t o v in di cat e th e ri gh ts of i nd iv id ua ls

.

2. Rul in g o n t he Meri ts The EEOC n e x t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l of 67 cl ai m s fo r th e EEOC's fai lu re t o s a ti sf

y Tit le VII's pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s do es no t co ns ti tu te a ru li ng

on th e m eri ts ; th eref

or e, th e EEOC co nt en ds
, CRST can no t be a pr ev ai li ng pa rty wit h

res pe ct to th os e cl ai m s.

"[P ]roo f th at a pl ai nt iff

's c as e is fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss is no t
po ss ib le wit ho ut a jud ic ia l de te r m in at io n of th e pl ai nt iff 's cas e on th e m eri ts ."
Mar qu ar t v. Lo dg e 83 7, In t'l Ass 'n of Mac hi ni st

s & Aero sp ac e W

or ker s , 26 F.3 d 84 2,
85 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "At th e ve ry le as t , t h i s m ean s th at th e [d efen da nt ] m

us t ha ve m ad e a mo t i o n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e m eri ts ," as
op po se d to , fo r ex am

pl e, m ov in g fo r di sm is sa l fo r la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ,
on res jud ic at a g ro un ds , or o n st at ut e-o f-l im it at io ns gro un ds

. Id . (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) (h ol di ng th at de fen da nt was no t a pr ev ai li ng pa rty fo r award of at to rn ey fees in Tit le
V I I act io n whe re pl ai nt iff to ok vo lu nt ary di sm is sa l wit h pr ejud ic e be fo re an y

su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n was m ad e).

W e p rev io us ly set f

or th th e EEOC's p res ui t o bl ig at io ns in CRS T IV :

Fi rs t, an em

pl oyee fil es wit h th e EEOC a ch arg e "al le gi ng th at an
em pl oyer ha s en ga ge d in an unl aw fu l em plo y m en t pr ac tic e. " [ Occi de nt al Li fe In s. Co

. of Ca l. v. EEOC
, 43 2 U.S. 35 5, 35 9( 19 77 )]. Seco nd
, "[t ]he EEOC is th en req ui red to in ve st ig at e th e ch arg e an d de te rm in e whe th er th ere is reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th at i t i s t r ue ." Id

. If reas on ab le

cau se do es ex is t, t h e EEOC m ov es to th e th ird st ep , wh ic h at te m pt s to

rem ed y th e ob

jecti on ab le em

pl o ym en t pr act ic e th ro ug h th e in fo rm al
, no nju di ci al m ean s "'o f co nf eren ce, co nc il ia ti on , an d pe rs ua si o n

. '" Id

.

-1 5-(q uo ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e– 5( b) ). Howev er, if un su cces sf ul
, th e EEOC

m ay m ov e to th e fo ur th an d fin al st ep an d br in g a ci vi l act io n to red res s t h e c ha rg e. Id

. at 35 9– 60
, 97 S.Ct

. 24 47 (q uo ti ng 42 U.S

. C

. § 2 00 0e –5 (f)(1 )).

67 9 F .3d at 6 72 (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ).

The EEOC's ab il it y to br in g su it an d th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s are " se qu en ti al

st ep s in a un if

ie d sc he me fo r se cu rin g co m pl ia nc e wit h Tit le VII." Id

. (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

W he th er th e di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l of se ve ral cl ai m s fo r fai lu re of th e EEOC

to sat is fy it s Ti tl e VII p res ui t o bl ig at io ns co ns ti tu te s a r ul in g on th e m eri ts de pe nd s

on whe th er s u c h pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s co ns ti tu te cl ai m el em en ts , as op po se d to jur isd ic tio na l pr er eq

uis ite s or nonj ur is di ct io na l pr ereq ui si te s to fil in g su it

. In Arb au gh

v. Y & H Cor p. , t he Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d "wh et he r th e nu m eri cal qu al ifi cat io n

co nt ai ne d in Tit le VII's de fin it io n of 'em pl oyer' affe ct s fed eral -co ur t su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on or , in st ead
, de li ne at es a su bs ta nt iv e in gr ed ie nt of a Tit le V I I cl ai m fo r rel ie f." 54 6 U.S. 50 0
, 50 3 (2 00 6)

. Tit le VII req ui res "as a pr ereq ui si te to it s
ap pl ic at io n, th e ex is te nc e of a pa rti cu la r fact
, i.e ., 15 or m or e em pl oyees." Id

. at 51 3. The Co ur t ob se rv ed th at "w h en Co ng res s do es no t ran k a st at ut or y li m it at io n on

co ve rag e as ju r i s di ct io na l, co ur ts sh ou ld tre at th e res tri ct io n as no nju ris di ct io na l in ch arac te r." Id

. at 51 6. "Ap pl y in g th at read il y ad m in is tra bl e br ig ht li ne to th [at ] cas e, [th e Co ur t] h[ e]ld th at th e th res ho ld nu m be r of em pl oyees fo r ap pl ic at io n of Tit le VII is an ele m en t o f a p la in ti ff's cla im for rel ie f, no t a ju ris di ct io na l i ss ue ." Id

.

Afte r Arb au gh
, th e Fi fth Ci rcu i t "co nc lu de [d ] th at th e EEOC's co nc il ia ti on
req ui rem en t i s a p reco nd it io n t o su it bu t n ot a juri sd ic ti on al pre req ui si te ." EEOC v. Agr o Dis tr ib

., In c. , 55 5 F.3 d 46 2, 46 9 (5 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 9 )

. A s a res ul t, it he ld th at th e EEOC' s fai lu re to co nc il ia te do es no t de pr iv e a fed eral co ur t of su bjec t m at te r

-1 6-ju r is di ct io n. Id

. Bu t th e Fi fth Ci rcu it di d no t ad dr es s whe th er co nc il ia ti on is a n

el em en t of th e Tit le VII cl ai m or m erel y a no nju ris di ct io na l pr ereq ui si te to fil in g su it

. Se e id

.

The reaf te r, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ag ai n ad dr es se d t h e is su e of pr ereq ui si te s to fil in g s u i t i n Reed Els evi er , In c. v. Muc hn ic k
, ho ld in g th at th e Co pyrig ht Act's

req ui rem en t th at co pyrig ht ho ld ers reg is te r th ei r wor ks be fo re su in g fo r co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t "i s a pr eco nd it io n to fil in g a cl ai m th at do es no t res tri ct a fed eral co ur t's

su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ." 55 9 U.S. 15 4, 15 7 (2 01 0)

. The Co ur t reac he d th is

co nc lu si on by co m

pa rin g th e nu m ero si ty req ui rem en t ex am in ed in Arb au gh to th e Co pyrig ht Act's reg is tra ti on req ui rem en t an d fin di ng th at ne it he r were juri sd ic ti on al

req ui rem en ts

. Id

. at 16 1– 66

. Bu t th e Co ur t al so no te d a di ffer en ce be tw e e n th e

nu m ero si ty req ui rem en t at is su e in Arb au gh an d th e reg is tra ti on req ui rem en t, st at in g, "Th at th e nu m ero si ty req ui rem en t in Arb au gh co ul d be co ns i d e r e d a n el em en t of a Tit le VII cl ai m , ra th er th an a pr er eq ui si te to in it ia ti ng a la ws ui t , do es no t ch an ge th is

co nc lu si on

. . . ." Id

. at 16 5– 66 ( e mp h a s i s a d d ed ). Acco rd in g to th e Co ur t, "[a ]

st at ut or y co nd it io n th at req ui res a pa rty to ta ke so m e act io n be fo re fil in g a la wsu it is

no t au to m at ic al ly 'a ju ri sd ic ti on al pr ereq ui si te to su it .'" Id . a t 16 6 (q uo ti ng Zi pe s v. Tr an s W or ld Air li ne s, In c. , 45 5 U.S. 38 5, 39 3 (1 98 2) ). The Co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e
reg is tra ti on req ui rem en t fit th e "m ol d" of a no nju ris di ct io na l pr ereq ui si te to fil in g su it be cau se it " i mp o s es a pr eco nd it io n to fil in g a cl ai m th at is no t cl earl y la be le d juri sd ic ti on al
, is no t lo cat ed in a juri sd ic ti on -g ran ti ng pr ov i si on , an d ad m it s of

co ng res si on al ly au th or iz ed ex cep ti on s." Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. As a res ul t, th e Co ur t fo un d th at th e reg is tra ti on req ui re men t " i mp os es a type of pr eco nd it io n to su it th at

su pp or ts no nju ris di ct io na l t reat m en t u nd er o ur pre ced en ts ." Id

.

Here, ne it he r pa rty arg ue s th at th e EEOC's pr eco nd it io ns to fil in g su it are juri sd ic ti on al

. Se e Agr o , 55 5 F.3 d at 46 9. In st ead
, th e EEOC arg ue s th at it s Tit le VII
pr es ui t ob li ga t i o ns are no nju ris di ct io na l pr eco nd it io ns , as in Reed
, whi le CRST
arg ue s th at su ch req ui rem en t s a re el em en ts of th e EEOC's cau se of act io n, as in

-1 7-Ar ba ug h

. If CRST is co rrec t, th en th e di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l of cl ai m s fo r t h e

EEOC' s fai lu re to sa ti sf

y it s pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s wou ld co ns ti tu te a ru li ng on th e

m eri ts , as t he EEOC wou ld ha ve fai le d t o s at is fy ele m en ts of t he cla im s at is su e.

Reed m ak es cl ear th at a st at ut or y co nd it io n, al th ou gh no t juri sd ic ti on al
, m ay be

a no nju ris di ct io na l pr eco nd it io n to fil in g su it
, as op po se d to an el em en t of th e cl ai m

. Se e id

. at 16 5– 66

. W e ag ree wit h th e EEOC th at it s pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s co ns ti tu te

no nju ris di ct io na l pr eco nd it io ns th at ar e no t el em en ts of th e cl ai m

. The EEOC's Tit le
V I I p r e s u i t ob li ga ti on s se t fo rth in 42 U.S.C. § 20 05 e-5 (b ) are m or e ak in to th e
reg is tra ti on req ui rem en t in Reed

. Fi rs t, Tit le V I I r e qu ire s th e EEOC to is su e a

reas on a b l e c a u s e fin di ng an d at te m pt co nc il ia ti on be fo re fil in g an y la wsu it , n ot jus t

a se xu al -h aras sm en t l aws ui t. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -5 (b ).

Seco nd
, we ha ve ne ve r la be le d su ch pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s as "el em en ts " of a Tit le
VII se xu al -h aras sm en t cl ai m

. In st ead
, as we ex pl ai ne d in CRS T IV
, a pl ai nt iff as se rti ng a Tit le VII cl ai m

m us t s ho w

(1 ) [th at sh e be lo ng s to ] a pr o t e c t e d gr ou p; (2 ) [th at sh e su ffer ed ]

un welc om e ha ras sm en t; (3 ) [th at th ere was] a cau sa l ne xu s be twee n th e h a r a ss m en t an d he r m em be rs hi p in th e pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (4 ) th at th e ha ras sm en t affe ct ed a te rm , co nd it io n, or pr iv il eg e of [h er] em pl oym en t;

an d (5 ) th at th e em

pl oyer kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of th e ha ras sm en t

an d fa il ed to tak e p ro m

pt an d e ffec ti ve rem ed ia l ac ti on

.

67 9 F .3d at 6 85 (al te rat io ns in ori gi na l) ( qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

Fi na ll y , in co nt ras t to th e Tit le VII nu m ero si ty req ui rem en t at is su e in Arb au gh
, th e EEOC's Tit le VII pr es ui t ob l i g a ti on s do no t di st in gu is h whi ch em pl oyers are

su bjec t to Tit le VII or whe th er an em pl oyer ha s vi ol at ed Tit le VII. In st ead
, th e EEOC's

co m pl ia nc e wit h it s pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s pr ov id es em pl oyers an op po rtu ni ty to res ol ve th e d is pu te in li eu of l it ig at io n.

-1 8-Bec au se th e EEOC's Tit le VII pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s are no t el em en ts of th e cl ai m ,

th e di st ric t cou rt' s di sm is sa l of 67 cla im s for th e EEOC's fail ur e to sa ti sf y Tit le VII's

pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s do es no t co ns ti tu te a ru li ng on th e m eri ts

. The refo re, CRST is no t

a pr ev ai li ng pa rty as to th es e cl ai m s, an d it is no t en ti tl ed to an award of at to rn ey s' fees

on su ch cla im s. Se e Ma rq ua rt , 26 F.3d at 8 52

. 4

3. Fri vo lo us , Gro un dl es s, Un re as on ab le
Hav in g de te rm in ed that CR ST m ay no t reco ve r at to rn ey s' fees fo r (1 ) cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d ba se d on th e EEOC's fai lu re to sa ti sf y it s pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s an d (2 ) th e pu rp or te d pa tt ern -o r-p ract ic e cl ai m , we ne xt ad dr es s whet he r CRST is en ti tl ed to an award of at to rn ey s' fees ba se d on "s ev eral of th e di st ric t co ur t's di sp os it iv e ru li ng s co nc ern in g t he m eri ts of [ th e EEOC's] ho st il e wor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t CR ST." CRS T IV , 67 9 F .3d at 6 82 –8 3.

"In in te rp ret in g se ct io n 70 6( k) [o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64
, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (k ),] th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s di st in gu i sh ed be twee n pr ev ai li ng Tit le VII pl ai nt iff s an d pr ev ai li ng Tit le VII de fen da nt s." Mar qu ar t , 26 F.3 d at 84 8. A di st ric t "co ur t m ay award at to rn ey s' fees to a pr ev ai li ng Tit le VII pl ai n t i f f i n al l bu t ve ry

un us ua l ci rcu m s ta nc es ." Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. By co nt ras t, a di st ric t "co ur t m ay no t award at to rn ey s' fees to a p r e v a il in g Tit le VII de fen da nt un le ss th e 'co ur t fin ds th at [th e p la in ti ff's ] cl ai m was fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss , or th at th e pl ai nt iff co nt in ue d to li ti ga te aft er it cl earl y b e c a me s o.'" Id

. (al te rat io n in

or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Ch ri st ia ns bu rg , 43 4 U.S. at 42 2)

.

"In ap pl y in g th e s e cri te ria ," th e di st ric t co ur t m us t "re si st th e un de rs ta nd ab le

te m pt at io n to en ga ge in po st ho c reas on in g by co nc lu di ng th at , be cau se a pl ai nt iff di d

no t ul ti m at el y pr ev ai l, hi s act io n m us t ha ve be en un reas on ab le or wit ho ut fo un da ti on ."

Fo r th e sa m e reas on , CRST is no t a pr ev ai li ng pa rty as to Jo ne s's cl ai m , whi ch 4 th e EEOC vo lu nt ari ly dis m is se d fo r it s fa il ur e to sat is fy it s p res ui t o bl ig at io ns

.
-1 9-Ch ri st ia ns bu rg , 4 34 U.S. a t 42 1– 22 . " Thi s k in d of hi nd si gh t lo gi c co ul d di sc ou rag e

al l bu t th e m os t ai rti gh t cl ai m s , fo r se ld om can a pr os pe ct iv e pl ai nt iff be su re of ul ti m at e su cces s." Id

. at 42 2. "[T]he co ur se of li ti ga ti on is rare l y pr ed ic ta bl e," an d "[d ]ecis iv e fact s m ay no t em erg e un ti l di sc ov ery or tri al ." Id

. Add it io na ll y , "[t ]he la w

m ay ch an ge or cl ari fy in th e m id st of li ti ga ti on

. Eve n whe n th e la w or th e fact s ap pe ar
qu es ti on ab le or un fav or ab le at th e ou ts et , a pa rty m ay ha ve an en ti rel y reas o n ab le

gr ou nd fo r br in gi ng su it ." Id

. "Hen ce, a pl ai nt iff sh ou ld no t be as se ss ed hi s op po ne nt 's

at to rn ey 's fees un le ss a co ur t fin ds th at hi s cl ai m was fri vo l o u s , u n r e as on ab le
, or
gr ou nd le ss , or th at th e pl ai nt iff co nt in ue d to li ti ga te aft er it cl earl y be cam e so ." Id

. "So lo ng as th e pl ai nt iff ha s so m e ba si s fo r th e di sc riminat io n cl ai m , a pr ev ai li ng de fen da nt

m ay no t reco ve r at to rn ey s' fees ." EEOC v. Ken ne th Bal k & Ass oc s. , 81 3 F.2 d 19 7, 19 8 (8 th Cir . 19 87 ) (q uo ta ti on an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

In su m m ary, "a prev ai li ng Tit le VII defen da nt is no t ent it le d to at to rn ey s' fees

u n l e s s we de te rm in e th at th e pl ai nt iff 's cl ai m was fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le
, or
gr ou nd le ss ." Mar qu ar t , 26 F.3 d at 84 8 (ci ta ti o ns om it te d)

. Thu s, "m or e rig or ou s
st an da rd s ap p ly fo r fee award s to pr ev ai li ng de fen da nt s th an to pr ev ai li ng pl ai nt iff s in Tit le VII cas es ." Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Onl y in "v er y na rro w ci rcu m st an ces " is a pr ev ai li ng de fen da nt en ti tl ed to an a t t o r n e ys ' fee award

. Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. "[A] co ur t m ay no t award at to rn ey s' fees so le ly be cau se th e p la in ti ff d id no t p rev ai l." Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

In a n n o un ci ng th e "fr iv ol ou s, un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss " st an da rd
, Ch ri st ia ns bu rg di d no t ad dr es s a sc en ari o "i nv ol vi ng m ul ti pl e cl ai m s fo r rel ie f t h at im pl ic at e a m ix of l eg al th eo rie s and ha ve di ffer en t m eri ts ." Fox , 13 1 S . Ct. at 22 13

. "So m e cl ai m s su ccee d; ot he rs fai l. So m e ch arg es are f r i v o l o u s ; ot he rs (ev en if no t ul ti m at el y su cces sf

ul ) ha ve a reas on ab le ba si s. In sh or t, li ti ga ti on is m es sy, an d co ur ts

m us t de al wit h th is un ti di ne ss in award in g fees ." Id

. at 22 13 –1 4. The Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d th e m

ul ti pl e-cl ai m sc en ari o in Fox
, ho ld in g " t h a t a c ou rt m ay gr an t

reas on ab le fees to th e de f en da nt [wh ere th e pl ai nt iff as se rts bo th fri vo lo us an d no n-

-2 0-fri vo lo us cl ai m s], bu t on ly fo r co st s th at th e de fen da nt wou ld no t ha ve in cu rred bu t fo r

th e fri vo lo us cl ai m s." Id

. at 22 11

. The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at "a de fen da nt m ay de se rv e fees ev en if n ot al l th e pl ai nt iff 's cl ai m s were fri vo lo us "; th e de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to

r e li ef fo r "ex pe ns es at tri bu ta bl e to fri vo lo us ch arg es ." Id

. at 22 14

. The de fen da nt 's

en ti tl em en t to rel ie f "re m ai ns tru e whe n th e pl ai nt iff 's su it al so in cl ud es no n- fri vo lo us cl ai m s." Id

. W hi le a de fen da nt "i s no t en ti tl ed to a n y f e e s ari si ng fro m th es e no nfri vo lo us ch arg es ," "t he pr es en ce of reas on ab le al le ga ti on s in a su it do es no t im m un iz e th e pl ai nt iff ag ai ns t pa y in g fo r th e fees th at hi s fri vo lo us cl ai m s im po se d." Id

. (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

.

Pu rs ua nt to Fox
, "a co ur t m ay rei m bu rs e a de fen da nt fo r co st s un de r [§ 20 00 e5( k) ] ev en if a pl ai nt iff

's su it is no t who ll y fri vo lo us ." Id

. "Fe e-s hi fti ng to reco m pe ns e

a de fen da nt (as to reco m

pe ns e a pl ai nt iff

) is no t al l-o r-n ot hi ng : A de fen da nt ne ed no t sh ow th at ev ery cl ai m in a co m pl ai nt is fri vo lo us t o q u a l i f y f o r fees ." Id

. The co re is su e is "wh at wor k

. . . th e de fen da nt [m ay ] rece iv e fee s f o r " w h e n th e "l aws ui t in vo lv e[s ] a m ix of fri vo lo us an d no n- fri vo lo us cl ai m s." Id . " [A] d efen da nt m ay no t ob ta in co m

pe ns at io n fo r wor k un rel at ed to a fri vo lo us cl ai m ." Id

. Bu t a "d efen da nt

m ay rece iv e reas on ab le fees fo r wor k rel at ed ex cl us iv el y to a fri vo lo us cl ai m ." Id

. As

to "w or k th at he lp s de fen d ag ai ns t no n- fri vo lo us an d fri vo lo us cl ai m s al ik e—f or

ex am pl e, a de po si ti on el ic it in g fact s rel ev an t to bo th al le ga ti on s," id
., th e Co ur t in Fox he ld th at "a de fen da nt m ay reco ve r th e reas on ab le at to rn ey 's fees he ex pe nd ed so le ly be cau se of th e fri vo lo us al le ga ti on s. And th at is al l." Id

. at 22 18

. The di st ric t co ur t is

pr oh ib it ed fro m award in g th e de fen da nt "co m pe ns at io n fo r a n y f

e e s th at he wou ld ha ve pa id in th e ab se nc e o f th e fri vo lo us cla im s." Id

.

As in Fox
, t hi s is a m

ul ti pl e-cl ai m s cas e in vo lv in g at le as t on e no n- fri vo lo us cl ai m (St ark e's cla im ). To p ro pe rly app ly the Ch ri st ia ns bu rg -Fox st an da rd
, we m us t fir st kn ow why th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at a pa rti cu la r cl ai m w a s f r i vo lo us ,
un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss

. Se e Ch ri st an sb ur g , 43 4 U.S. at 42 2. Thi s is be cau se , in

a m ul ti pl e-cl ai m s cas e, "[s ]om e cl ai m s su ccee d; ot he rs fai l. So m e ch arg e s a r e

-2 1-fri vo lo us ; ot he rs (ev en if no t ul ti m at el y su cces sf ul ) ha ve a reas on ab le ba si s." Fox
, 13 1
S. Ct

. at 22 13 –1 4. Seco nd
, if th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de s th at "t he pl ai nt iff as se rte d bo th fri vo lo us an d no n- fri vo lo us cl ai m s," th en th e co ur t may a w a r d at to rn ey s' fees
"o nl y fo r co st s th at th e d e f e n d a n t wou ld no t ha ve in cu rred bu t fo r th e fri vo lo us cl ai m s." Id . at 2 21 1.

Here, t h e di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e pa rti cu la riz ed fin di ng s of fri vo lo us ne ss ,
un reas on ab le ne ss , or gr ou nd le ss ne ss as to each in di vi du al cl ai m up on whi ch it gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t on th e m eri ts to CRST. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t di sc us s sp eci fic cl ai m an ts , ch oo si ng in st ead to m ak e a un iv ers al fin di ng th at al l of th e EEOC's cl ai m s

were wit ho ut fo un da ti on

. Mo re pr ob le m at ic fo r ou r rev ie w is th at th e di st ric t c o u r t in cl ud ed in th is un iv ers al fin di n g c l a i ms fo r whi ch we no w fin d th at CRST is no t

en ti tl ed to at to rn ey s' fees —(1 ) th e pu rp or te d pa tt ern -o r-p ract ic e cl ai m an d (2 ) th e cl ai m s d is m is se d fo r th e EEOC's fa il ur e to sat is fy it s p res ui t o bl ig at io ns

.

W hi le we reco gn iz e th at it is an ard uo us ta sk
, th e Ch ri st ia ns bu r g st an da rd

req ui res th e di st ric t co ur t to m ak e fin di ng s as to why a pa rti cu la r "cl ai m was fri vo lo us ,
un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss ." 43 4 U.S. at 42 2. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e th es e pa rti cu la riz ed fin di ng s. The refo re, we ne ces sa ril y rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t to id en ti fy th os e cl ai m s di sm is se d be cau se th ey were fri vo l o u s, un reas on ab le
, or
gr oun dl es s. Bec au se CRST di d no t pr ev ai l on St ark e's no n- fri vo lo us cl ai m , on re m an d, if th e co ur t co nc lu de s th at a fri vo lo us cl ai m or cl ai m s ex is ts , th en it m us t ne ces sa ril y
ap pl y th e Fox st an da rd to de te rm in e wha t fees
, if an y , CRST "ex pe nd ed so le ly be cau se of th e fri vo lo us all eg at io ns ." Fox , 13 1 S . Ct. at 22 18

.

4. App el la te Co st

s Fi na ll y , th e EEOC arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in award in g CRST it s fees

on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, it as se rts th at CRST sh o u l d h a ve fil ed it s m ot io n fo r ap pe ll at e fees wit h th is co ur t, no t th e di st ric t co ur t. Seco nd
, it co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d

to off er an y ex pl an at io n t o s up po rt s uc h a n a ward

.

-2 2-Eig ht h C irc ui t Ru le 47 C g ov ern s m ot io ns for ap pe ll at e fee s an d p ro vi de s:

(a) Mo ti on fo r Fees

. A m ot io n fo r at to rn ey fees
, wit h p r oo f of se rv ic e,

m us t be fil ed wit h th e cl erk wit hi n 1 4 da y s aft er th e en try o f jud gm en t. The pa rty agai ns t wh om an award of fees is so ug ht m

us t fi le ob jecti on s to an al lo wan ce of fees wit hi n 7 day s afte r se rv ic e. The co ur t m ay gr an t

on it s o w n mo ti on an al lo wan ce of reas on ab le at to rn ey fees to a pr ev ai li ng pa rty.
(b ) Dete rm in at io n of Fees

. On th e co ur t's own m ot io n or at th e req ue st of th e p rev ai li ng pa rty, a m ot io n fo r at to rn ey fees m ay be rem an de d t o t he d i s t r ic t co ur t or ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy fo r ap pr op ria te he ari ng a n d de te rm in at io n.
(c) Man da te

. The cl erk wil l pr ep are an d cert ify an award of at to rn ey fees gr an te d by th e co ur t fo r in se rti on in th e m an da te

. Is su an ce of a m an da te wil l no t be de la y ed fo r an award of at to rn ey fees

. I f a mand at e is su es be fo re fin al de te rm in at io n of a m ot io n for att or ne y fees
, th e cl erk of th e di st ric t co ur t, on th e req ue st of th e cl erk of th is co ur t, wil l ad d th e award

an d i ts am en dm en ts to th e m an da te

.

"Th e us ua l pr act ic e fo r award in g fe e s a n d c o s ts

. . . is fo r th is
Co ur t to fix th e co m

pe ns at io n fo r se rv ic es ren de red be fo re it
, an d fo r th e Dis tri ct Co ur t t o d o s o fo r se rv ic es ren de red be fo re i t." Li tt le Rock Sc h.
Dis t. v. St at e of Ark.
, 12 7 F.3 d 69 3, 69 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) ( c i ti ng Ava lo n Ci ne ma Co rp

. v. Th omp so n , 68 9 F.2 d 13 7, 13 8 (8 th Ci r.19 82 ) (en ba nc )). The pu rp os e of Ru le 47 C is to pe rm it "t he co ur t m o s t fam il ia r wit h th e le ga l s erv ic es in qu es ti on " t o m ak e th e fee award

. Id

.

Bu t "Ru le 47 C can no t an d do es no t affe ct th e juri sd ic ti on of th e di st ric t co ur ts ." Id

. Des pi te ou r lo cal ru le
, "t he di st ri c t c o u rts ret ai n juri sd ic ti on to de ci de at to rn ey s' fees is su es th at we ha ve no t ou rs el ve s un de rta ke n to de ci de ." Id

. "[D]is cret io na ry an d

pr act ic al co ns id erat io ns co nt in ue to be rel ev an t to a di st ric t cou rt' s dec is io n whet he r

-2 3-to gr an t a m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s' fees fo r se rv ic es be fo re an ap pe ll at e co ur t." Id

. at 69 7.

Ru le 47 C "is no t a rig id juri sd ic ti on al ru le ." Id

. It pe rm it s us "t o gr an t at to rn ey s' fees

on [o ur ] own m ot io n" an d ex erci se o u r " d i s c r et io n to rem an d th e qu es ti on to th e Dis tri ct Co ur t, in st ead of de te rm in in g th e award [o ur se lv es ]. " Id

. ( ci ti ng 8t h Ci r. R. 47 C(a) –( b) ). "Th e Ru le th us pr es erv es m ul ti pl e pr oc ed ur al o p ti on s fo r th e de te rm in at io n of at to rn ey s' fees ." Id

. W he th er th e di st ric t co ur t or th is co ur t de te rm in es th e ap pe ll at e-fe e award , th e g oa l i s t he same: "ca lc ul at io n o f a fai r award ." Id

.

Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t in th is cas e ha d th e po wer to gr an t an at to rn ey s' fees award
, it co ul d on ly do so aft er fin di ng th at th e EEOC's "ap pe al was fri vo lo us ,
un reas on ab le [,] or wit hout fo un da ti on ." Bar ket

, Levy

, & Fin e, In c. v. St

. Lo ui s Th er mal
Ene rg y Co rp ., 21 F.3 d 23 7, 24 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). "To fin d th e ap pe al un reas on ab le
, we

m us t co nc lu de th at no reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha v e th ou gh t he co ul d su ccee d on
ap pe al ; to fin d th e ap pe al un f o u n de d, we m

us t co nc lu de th at th e ap pe al ha d no fo un da ti on in la w up on whi ch th e ap pe al co ul d be br ou gh t." W re nn v. Gou ld
, 80 8 F.2 d
49 3, 50 4 (6 th Ci r. 19 87 ). "Al th ou gh a di st ric t co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at th e pl ai nt iff 's

or ig in al act io n was fri vo lo us or m eri tl es s m ay be pr ob at iv e of th e effi c a c y o f th e
ap pe al
, su ch a de te rm in at io n is ne it he r ne ces sa ry no r su ffi ci en t to su pp or t an ap pe ll at e award ." Bug

g v. In t'l Uni on of

All ie d In du s. W

or ker s of Am.
, Lo ca l 50 7 AFL-CIO
, 67 4
F.2 d 5 95 , 60 0 n .10 (7t h C ir. 1 98 2)

.

Here, th e d is tri ct co ur t m ad e no pa rti cu la riz ed fin di ng s as to why t he EEOC's

ap pe al to th is co ur t was fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le
, or wit ho ut fo un da ti on ; in st e ad
, it fo un d on ly th at "CR ST is th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty an d th at th e Ch ri st ia ns bu rg st an da rd is

sa ti sf ie d as to al l of th e cl ai m s th at th e EEOC ap pe al ed
, ot he r th an th e cl ai m on be ha lf of St ark e." CRS T III

, 2 01 3 W L 3 98 44 78 , at * 19 . Th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc lu si on th at th e EEOC's or ig in al act io n was fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss is in su ffi ci en t
to su pp or t an ap pe ll at e award

. Se e Bug g , 67 4 F.2 d at 60 0 n.1 0. Fu rth erm or e, we ha ve al read y co nc lu de d th at th e di st ric t co ur t m us t m ak e pa rti cu la riz ed fin di ng s on rem an d

as to why it co ns id ers in di vi du al cl ai m s fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss

.

-2 4-The refo re, we rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er an ew whe th er CRST is en ti tl ed

to an award of ap pe ll at e fees

. The di st ric t co ur t m us t ex pl ai n why " n o reas on ab le

pe rs on wou ld ha ve th ou gh t he co ul d s u c c e e d on ap pe al " or why "t he ap pe al ha d no fo un da ti on in law." W

re nn , 80 8 F .2d at 5 04

.

III. Co nc lu si on The pr es en t li ti ga ti on ha s be co m e wha t th e Su pr em e Co ur t cau ti on ed ag ai ns t in
Fox —" a se co nd m ajor li ti ga ti on " ov er th e at to rn ey s' fees award

. 1 3 1 S. Ct . a t 22 16

. Non et he le ss , rem an d is req ui red in th e pr es en t c a se fo r a reas se ss m en t of whe th er CRST is en ti tl ed to fees

. In su m m ary, we co nc lu de th at CR S T is no t en ti tl ed to an award of at to rn ey s' fees fo r (1 ) cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t c o ur t di sm is se d ba se d on th e EE O C ' s fai lu re to sa ti sf

y it s pr es ui t ob li ga ti on s an d (2 ) th e pu rp or te d pa tt ern -o r

pr act ic e cl ai m

. On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t mu s t i nd iv id ua ll y as se ss each of th e cl ai m s fo r whi ch it gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to CRST on th e m eri ts an d ex pl ai n why it de em s a pa rti cu la r cl ai m to be fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le
, or gr ou nd le ss

. Bec au se CRST di d no t pr ev ai l on St ark e's no n- fri vo lo us cl ai m , on rem an d, i f t h e c o ur t

co nc lu de s th a t a fri vo lo us cl ai m or cl ai m s ex is ts , th en it m us t ne ces sa ril y ap pl y th e Fox st an da rd to de te rm in e wha t fees , i f an y , C RS T " e x p en de d so le ly b ecau se of th e fri vo lo us al le ga ti on s." Id

. at 22 18

. The reaf te r, t h e di st ric t co ur t m

us t co ns id er an ew whe th er C R S T i s en ti tl ed to an award of ap pe ll at e fees an d ex pl ai n why "n o

reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve th ou gh t he co ul d su ccee d on ap pe al " or why "t he ap pe al ha d n o fo un da ti on in law." W re nn , 80 8 F .2d at 5 04

.

Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e t h e ju dg m en t of th e di st ric t co ur t an d rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 5-