## Facts

- James Randy Williams worked as a department manager (cutting and gluing) from 2011 to 2015 and supervised four managers.
- In September 2015, Williams learned his prostate cancer had returned and requested medical leave; the employer granted leave.
- Williams had disclosed a family history of cancer to coworkers, and his supervisor asked about his condition and treatment.
- While Williams was on leave, subordinates complained to management and HR that Williams managed through intimidation, including yelling, public humiliation, and threats of termination.
- HR investigated by interviewing multiple employees and collecting accounts and communications; evidence included reports of threatening statements and texts discussing a serious rumor about Williams’s supervisor.
- After Williams returned from leave and denied the allegations, the employer concluded he violated company “core values” and terminated him in December 2015.
- Williams sued, asserting federal and state employment-discrimination and benefits claims (including ADA, TDA, GINA, ADEA, THRA, FMLA, and ERISA), alleging the stated reason was pretext for unlawful motives.
- The court granted summary judgment for the employer on all claims; the employer then moved for attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party, asserting the case was frivolous.

## Issues

1. Whether a prevailing employer was entitled to attorneys’ fees on the ground that the employee’s discrimination and related claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
2. Whether attorneys’ fees were warranted under ERISA’s fee-shifting standards after the employer prevailed at summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied the employer’s motion for attorneys’ fees.
- The court held that losing at summary judgment did not, by itself, establish that the employee’s claims were frivolous or groundless.
- The court found the employee presented enough evidence in opposing summary judgment to defeat a finding that the litigation lacked any foundation.
- The court found no evidence that the employee litigated in bad faith, including as to the GINA theory, which had a limited factual basis.
- Applying ERISA fee considerations, the court concluded the relevant factors did not support shifting fees to the employee.

## Legal Principles

- A prevailing defendant in employment discrimination litigation may recover attorneys’ fees only when the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.
- A plaintiff’s failure on the merits, including at summary judgment, does not automatically satisfy the “frivolous” standard.
- In ERISA cases, fee decisions are guided by equitable factors, including culpability or bad faith, ability to pay, deterrence value, whether fees would benefit plan participants or resolve significant legal questions, and the relative merits of the positions.
- Absence of bad faith and the presence of some evidentiary support for the plaintiff’s position weigh strongly against awarding fees to a prevailing defendant.

## Conclusion

The court refused to shift attorneys’ fees to the employee despite the employer’s complete victory at summary judgment, concluding the claims were not frivolous and were not pursued in bad faith, and that ERISA fee factors likewise did not justify a fee award.


Williams v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00102, 2018 WL 2118311 (M.D. Tenn. May 8, 2018)