Express Oral Findings Sufficient For FEHA Attorney Fees Award.

Plaintiff was employed by a university and terminated due to his harassment of a female employee after being given several warnings. In his action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code section 12900; FEHA), he contended his termination for harassment was a pretext for racial discrimination. Other than testifying he believed he was discriminated against because of his “native ancestry,” plaintiff produced no evidence to support his discrimination claim. The court granted the university’s nonsuit on the FEHA cause of action, but permitted plaintiff’s retaliation and other causes of action to go to the jury. The jury returned a defense verdict within 15 minutes. The university incurred over $235,000 in attorney fees defending the action, and the plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that he was unemployed and destitute. Reasoning that attorney fees were not available in the non-FEHA causes of action, the trial court apportioned fees and awarded $100,000 to the university. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that for an award of attorney fees in a FEHA action, express written findings are necessary (pursuant to the holding in Rosenman v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 859, [110 Cal.Rptr.2d 903]), stating the court’s express oral findings demonstrate the court applied the correct legal standards. (Robert v. Stanford University (Cal. App Sixth Dist.; February 25, 2014)224 Cal.App.4th 67, [168 Cal.Rptr.3d 539].)