Assuming, without deciding, that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of persuasion, we conclude no prejudice occurred. In addition, CMA's office manager provided testimony regarding records which showed that during 1993 CMA had at least thirty employees. Our review of the transcript shows that approximately seventeen of these employees were employed by CMA for periods exceeding twenty weeks in 1993. In addition, as indicated previously, defendants' own excluded documents appear to provide further circumstantial evidence that jurisdiction was proper. Accordingly, defendants' argument is without merit.
Defendants claim such evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.
Because defendants failed to timely object to this statement, their argument is without merit. We have carefully reviewed defendants' remaining assignments of error and find them to be without merit. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in denying her request for attorneys' fees. Specifically, plaintiff argues that as the prevailing party in a Title VII action, she should have been granted attorneys' fees absent a showing of special circumstances to militate against the award. A prevailing plaintiff in a Title VII action is normally entitled to attorneys' fees unless special circumstances render such an award unjust.