Opinion
Case No. 01-2350-JWL
October 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant alleging that defendant, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., failed to accommodate her disability. On July 5, 2002, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. See Jewell v. Blue Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 229, 210 F. Supp.2d 1241 (D.Kan. 2002). This matter is presently before the court on defendant's motion for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Because plaintiff's case was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, the court denies the motion. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22 (1978).
The Americans with Disabilities Act, by incorporating the remedial provisions of Title VII, see 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), allows the prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney's fees. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). The Supreme Court, however, has set stringent standards regarding when the court may award attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k):
[A] district court may in its discretion award attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith. In applying these criteria, it is important that a district court resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. This kind of hindsight logic could discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success. No matter how honest one's belief that he has been the victim of discrimination, no matter how meritorious one's claim may appear at the outset, the course of litigation is rarely predictable. Decisive facts may not emerge until discovery or trial. The law may change or clarify in the midst of litigation. Even when the law or the facts appear questionable or unfavorable at the outset, a party may have an entirely reasonable ground for bringing suit.
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22 (1978).
Defendant urges that plaintiff's suit was frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation because relevant case law makes clear that hiring a "helper" to assist an employee with the essential functions of his or her position is not a reasonable accommodation. Defendant's characterization of plaintiff's theory of recovery, however, is overly simplistic. In fact, plaintiff's case presented an interesting and novel issue to the court (albeit an issue the court ultimately rejected) — whether defendant could be held liable under the ADA if it promised to provide certain accommodations, conceded that those accommodations were reasonable, and then failed to provide those accommodations. In sum, the court readily concludes that plaintiff's case was not frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation. The motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion for attorneys' fees and costs (doc. #73) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.