## Facts

- A female employee filed a Title VII race-discrimination charge against Christiansburg Garment Co. with the EEOC.
- The EEOC later notified the complainant that conciliation failed and she had a right to sue; she did not file suit.
- After the 1972 Title VII amendments authorized the EEOC to sue on certain charges “pending” on the amendments’ effective date, the EEOC sued Christiansburg based on the earlier charge.
- Christiansburg moved for summary judgment, arguing the charge was not “pending,” so the EEOC lacked statutory authority to sue.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Christiansburg and denied Christiansburg’s request for attorney’s fees under Title VII § 706(k), finding the EEOC’s position was not frivolous or unreasonable.
- The court of appeals affirmed the denial of fees under a restrictive standard for prevailing defendants.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine the proper standard for fee awards to prevailing Title VII defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII § 706(k) permits awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant on the same general basis as to a prevailing plaintiff.
2. Whether a prevailing defendant may receive fees only if the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation (including if litigation continued after it clearly became so), even without subjective bad faith.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Christiansburg attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- A prevailing Title VII plaintiff is ordinarily awarded attorney’s fees absent special circumstances.
- A prevailing Title VII defendant may recover attorney’s fees only if the court finds the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even without subjective bad faith.
- Courts must avoid inferring frivolity from the mere fact the plaintiff lost; defeat on the merits does not itself justify a fee award.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees because the EEOC’s statutory interpretation, though rejected, was not frivolous or unreasonable.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII § 706(k) establishes an asymmetric fee standard: routine fees for prevailing plaintiffs (absent special circumstances) and limited fees for prevailing defendants.
- A prevailing defendant’s fee award requires a finding that the claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or that the plaintiff continued litigating after it clearly became so.
- Subjective bad faith is not required for a defendant’s fee award, though bad faith independently supports fee shifting.
- Courts should not use hindsight to convert lack of success into a finding that the action lacked a reasonable basis.

## Conclusion

The Court held that prevailing Title VII defendants may obtain attorney’s fees only in the exceptional situation where the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation (or was pursued after it clearly became so), and it upheld the denial of fees because the EEOC’s unsuccessful suit was not frivolous.


Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978)