What makes a Fair Housing Act claim unreasonable enough to justify a defendant’s attorney fees?

Lexi, Chatbot

I understand that you're seeking clarity on what constitutes unreasonableness under the FHA regarding attorney fees. Can you share more about the specific case or situation you are dealing with?

Lexi, Chatbot

Have there been any previous rulings or decisions in your case that you think might be relevant to this issue?

Lexi, Chatbot

Is there anything else the lawyer should know before I connect you? Rest assured they'll be able to help with your attorney fees issue.

Andrew F., Esq.

Good day and welcome. Please give me a moment to review your question. Just so you are aware, this is a legal information only site. I do not provide representation, and no attorney-client relationship is formed. My answers and comments should not be considered legal advice. It is always best to hire a local attorney to review the specifics of your particular case to ensure that a proper review is conducted.

Andrew F., Esq.

Any other recent developments?

Andrew F., Esq.

Under the Fair Housing Act, attorney's fees for a prevailing defendant are governed by a much stricter standard than for a prevailing plaintiff, and courts apply the framework from Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC. This means a defendant is only awarded fees if the plaintiff's claims were "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation," even if not brought in bad faith. "Unreasonable" in this context generally does not mean that you simply lost the case or that your arguments were unsuccessful; rather, it refers to situations where the claim lacked a factual or legal basis that a reasonable person would have recognized as deficient. Courts look at factors such as whether there was any evidence supporting your claims at the time of filing, whether the law clearly foreclosed your theory, and whether you continued to pursue the case after it became clear that it had no merit. Importantly, claims that survive initial motions, like a motion to dismiss or summary judgment briefing, are rarely deemed frivolous or unreasonable.

In your situation, your request for reconsideration and limited additional discovery, such as asking the defendants to certify the completeness of their records search or seeking depositions, does not automatically constitute harassment or relitigation. Legally, courts distinguish between improper repetitive litigation and legitimate efforts to clarify the evidentiary record, particularly where a party believes relevant information has not been fully produced. To oppose the fee request, you should emphasize that your claims were grounded in a good-faith interpretation of the facts and law, that you pursued standard procedural steps available under the rules, and that your current motion is narrowly tailored to address specific evidentiary concerns rather than to burden the defendants. The key concept is that "unreasonableness" requires more than persistence; it requires a lack of any reasonable basis, and courts are generally cautious about awarding fees against civil rights plaintiffs unless that high threshold is clearly met.

The Fair Housing Act's own fee-shifting language, at 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2), gives courts discretion to award a reasonable attorney's fee and costs to the prevailing party, and courts have held this provision, rather than the general civil rights fee statute, governs FHA fee requests. Because that language closely tracks the Title VII provision at issue in Christiansburg, courts apply the same frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation standard here.

Andrew F., Esq.

You bet.

Andrew F., Esq.

Best of luck to you again, my friend.