In 21 contested California rulings on fees under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employees who won got fees in 13 of 14 motions. Courts added a multiplier in only 1 of 12 requests. Employers collected fees in 3 of 7 motions, and in all 3 the reason was the same: the employee kept litigating after the case had become groundless.
The number
| Who asked for fees | Motions | Fees awarded | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee who won | 14 | 13 of 14 | Multiplier granted in 1 of 12 requests |
| Employer who won | 7 | 3 of 7 | All 3 because the employee kept going after the claims became groundless |
These are contested fee rulings in California superior courts, as of October 24, 2026. Most came from Los Angeles County.
What decides it: a one-way fee rule
FEHA's fee rule is not the same for both sides. The court "may award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees, except that, notwithstanding Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prevailing defendant shall not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." (Gov. Code § 12965.) The California Supreme Court applied that standard in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97.
For employees, the fight is over how much. Courts cut the request in 12 of the 13 awards, and they turned down the multiplier in 11 of the 12 requests for one. One court said: "The court declines to award any multiplier because this case did not present complex or novel issues." (Los Angeles, 22STCV38343, 2026-07-23.)
What the average hides: when an employer can collect
Winning the case is not enough for an employer. In 4 of the 7 employer motions, the court refused fees even though the employer had won. "[T]he Court cannot find that Plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or that Plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." (Los Angeles, 21STCV11183, 2026-06-30.)
In the 3 rulings where the employer did collect, none found the case frivolous from the start. Each rested on the second part of the rule, and each limited fees to the period after the claims became groundless. "Plaintiff continued to litigate this case against Defendant after the claims brought against it became clearly groundless and unreasonable." (Los Angeles, 23STCV24193, 2026-05-08.) In another, the court fixed the date at a deposition and then cut the award to $30,000 of the $765,700.35 requested, after weighing the employee's ability to pay (Los Angeles, 24STCV12359, 2026-06-03).
What to do
| If you represent the employee | If you represent the employer |
|---|---|
| Expect a cut. Support your rates for your county, avoid block billing, and justify any multiplier on its own. A multiplier was granted in 1 of 12 requests. | Winning the case does not earn fees. Fees were denied in 4 of the 7 employer motions. |
| Know when your case becomes weak. Every employer award came from litigating after the claims had become groundless. | Mark the date the claims became groundless, and keep your fees separable from that date forward. That is the only window the 3 awards covered. |
Method: 21 contested California superior court rulings on FEHA fee motions under Government Code section 12965 (14 by employees, 7 by employers), as of October 24, 2026. Class and PAGA settlement approvals, Labor Code wage-fee awards, and other non-FEHA fee bases are left out. This is a small set, so it shows counts and examples, not rates. These are tentative rulings, not precedent, and these counts are not odds of winning. Nothing here is legal advice.