California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Silo v. CHW Medical Foundation, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 (Cal. App. 2001):
"Whether to award fees under this statute is a matter within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion. But discretion may not be exercised whimsically, and reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or when the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied. [Citations.]" (Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 634.)
In this case there can be no question but that Silo enforced an important right affecting the public interest. We have found the policy against discrimination in employment on the basis of religion to be a substantial and fundamental public policy. It is closely related to the constitutional right of religious freedom. Where a public policy of constitutional stature is vindicated, the relative social importance of the policy is established. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 46, fn. 18 (Serrano III).)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.