Lack of Proof/Causation, And Some Crazy Assertions, Cemented Appellate Court’s Agreement With Trial Court’s Ruling.
Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace practices his favorite hobby, boomerang throwing. July 13, 1939. Library of Congress.
Baker v. Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Case No. B270973 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 25, 2017) (unpublished) shows how FEHA/whistleblower plaintiffs can be exposed to attorney’s fees where their case is unreasonable, frivolous or meritless in nature.
The trial court in this one granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s multi-count FEHA- and whistleblower-driven lawsuit. The defense then moved for an award of attorney’s fees against plaintiff based on the theory that the action was unreasonable, frivolous, meritless or vexatious in nature. (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., 61 Cal.4th 97, 103 (2015), applying the standard set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978).) The trial judge agreed that this was the case, awarding the defense $94,017.50 in fees.
Plaintiff’s appeal was unsuccessful. The problem here was the record of what happened below. Plaintiff alleged that he was born in China and was of Asian descent, although he was truly African-American—not a great credibility starter. Beyond that, plaintiff did no discovery and submitted largely inadmissible declarations to show FEHA discrimination or whistleblower retaliation. Even though the whistleblower claim might have deflected fees, plaintiff’s own testimony showed he had no evidentiary basis for such a claim such that the result below was sound.
BONUS: Dr. Charles R. Drew (1904 – 1950) was prominent in the field of blood transfusions, and protested the practically of racial segregation in the donation of blood.