Despite Plaintiff Proving Disability Discrimination Was A Substantial Motivating Factor In The Termination Decision.
Because FEHA contains a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision, plaintiff claimed she was the prevailing party, in Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Case No. B328357 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 9, 2025) (unpublished), because a jury found that disability discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in the employer’s termination decision. The problem for plaintiff employee was that the jury also decided that employer would have made the same decision anyway for nondiscriminatory reasons, awarding no damages to employee accordingly. The lower court determined that employee was not a prevailing party for fee award purposes.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed. The litigation demonstrated that plaintiff was attempting to vindicate her own personal interests, and that she did not prevail on a practical level when the jury awarded her no damages. (Bustos v. Global P.E.T., Inc., 19 Cal.App.5th 558, 564 (2017).)