## Facts

- Belen Torres, a Filipino-born U.S. citizen with a master’s degree in social work, worked for Oakland County Community Mental Health Services as a casework supervisor beginning in 1979.
- Torres alleged national-origin discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on workplace incidents and adverse employment actions.
- Torres presented evidence that her supervisor used insulting language toward her during a meeting; defendants countered that the remark was a warning about her conduct in the meeting rather than discriminatory animus.
- Torres’s six-month performance evaluation was changed without her consultation from “outstanding” to “average” in the attendance category; defendants asserted the change was required by uniformly applied attendance guidelines, and she remained “outstanding” in the other categories.
- In 1980, defendants created a new supervisory position; Torres applied and was not selected. Defendants asserted they chose to hire externally due to dissension among employees rather than promote internally.
- At trial, a decisionmaker involved in the hiring process (Dr. Quiroga) testified, over objection, that he did not believe Torres was discriminated against because of national origin in the interview/promotion process.
- The jury returned a verdict for defendants on Torres’s discrimination claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting decisionmaker opinion testimony that Torres was not discriminated against based on national origin, including whether any such error was reversible.
2. Whether prevailing defendants were entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because Torres’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment for defendants on the jury verdict.
- The court held that admitting Dr. Quiroga’s testimony was not reversible error; any arguable overreach toward an ultimate issue was harmless.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees under § 1988.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion over the admission of opinion testimony; appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a), opinion testimony may embrace an ultimate issue, but it must not function as a legal directive to the jury; fact-based opinion from a decisionmaker about intent or motivation may be admissible.
- A new trial is not warranted absent prejudicial error; even if an evidentiary ruling is questionable, affirmance is proper where the error is harmless.
- Prevailing defendants in civil-rights actions may recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 only when the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation (Christiansburg standard); losing at trial does not, by itself, satisfy this standard.
- A district court’s decision to deny fees to prevailing defendants is reviewed for abuse of discretion and is entitled to deference.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld a defense verdict in a national-origin discrimination case, concluding that a decisionmaker’s opinion testimony regarding the absence of discriminatory motive did not warrant reversal, and it also upheld denial of attorney’s fees because the plaintiff’s claims were not shown to be frivolous under § 1988.


Torres v. County of Oakland, 758 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1985)