The California Court of Appeal recently ruled in the case of Cecilia San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC, reversing a judgment that awarded Aspire nearly $15,400 in costs. The court found that the trial court did not properly determine whether San Diego-Tomas's claims were frivolous, which is required under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This decision is significant as it highlights the protections in place for employees who file discrimination claims.
The ruling affects Cecilia San Diego-Tomas, who claimed discrimination and retaliation against her former employer, Aspire Bakeries. It underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny in cost awards in employment discrimination cases, ensuring that employees are not discouraged from pursuing valid claims.
Background
Cecilia San Diego-Tomas filed her first amended complaint in August 2024, alleging multiple instances of discrimination and retaliation under FEHA, along with wrongful discharge and breach of contract claims against Aspire Bakeries. In October 2025, the trial court granted Aspire’s motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing San Diego-Tomas's claims.
Following the dismissal, Aspire filed a memorandum of costs seeking $15,397.96. The trial court later signed an amended judgment confirming Aspire’s entitlement to these costs, stating that San Diego-Tomas had not challenged the request within the specified time frame.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in awarding costs to Aspire without making the necessary finding that San Diego-Tomas's claims were frivolous. The court stated, "We agree and therefore reverse the judgment insofar as it awards costs to Aspire and remand for further proceedings." This ruling was made by Judges Goldman, Brown, and Streeter.
The court emphasized that under FEHA, a prevailing defendant is not automatically entitled to recover costs. Instead, the court must determine that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless. The court noted, "Nothing in the record suggests that the court considered the appropriate standard in awarding costs." This lack of consideration led to the reversal of the cost award.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future employment discrimination cases in California. It reinforces the requirement for trial courts to make explicit findings when awarding costs to ensure that plaintiffs are not discouraged from pursuing legitimate claims. The court's decision serves as a reminder that costs in FEHA cases cannot be awarded lightly and must be supported by a clear determination of frivolity.
The ruling may also influence how employers approach cost recovery in discrimination cases. Employers may need to be more cautious and prepared to substantiate claims of frivolity before seeking cost awards. This could lead to a more balanced approach in resolving employment disputes, ensuring that employees feel secure in their rights to seek justice without the fear of incurring substantial costs.
What's Next
The case is now remanded to the trial court for further proceedings regarding the cost award. Aspire may still file a motion for costs, but it must now adhere to the standards set forth by the appellate court. San Diego-Tomas can also recover her costs on appeal, further emphasizing the court's commitment to protecting employees' rights under FEHA.