Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
E823908
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the standard for awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants in Title VII civil rights cases, holding they may recover fees only when the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC canonical | 1 |
| Christiansburg Garment Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9829365 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC Context triple: [Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, keyCase, Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC]
-
A.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that held employers may not refuse to hire applicants to avoid accommodating their religious practices, even if the need for accommodation is not explicitly stated.
-
B.
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether federal employment discrimination law protects transgender employees from being fired because of their gender identity.
-
C.
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc.
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can pursue victim-specific relief in court for an employee despite that employee’s agreement to arbitrate disputes with the employer.
-
D.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
E.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the doctrine of disparate impact in employment discrimination law, holding that seemingly neutral job requirements that disproportionately exclude protected groups can violate Title VII.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC Target entity description: Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the standard for awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants in Title VII civil rights cases, holding they may recover fees only when the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
-
A.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that held employers may not refuse to hire applicants to avoid accommodating their religious practices, even if the need for accommodation is not explicitly stated.
-
B.
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether federal employment discrimination law protects transgender employees from being fired because of their gender identity.
-
C.
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc.
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can pursue victim-specific relief in court for an employee despite that employee’s agreement to arbitrate disputes with the employer.
-
D.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
E.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the doctrine of disparate impact in employment discrimination law, holding that seemingly neutral job requirements that disproportionately exclude protected groups can violate Title VII.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Title VII case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
Title VII civil rights actions
ⓘ
fee-shifting provisions modeled on Title VII ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil procedure
ⓘ
labor and employment law ⓘ |
| category |
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases on civil rights ⓘ United States Supreme Court cases on employment discrimination ⓘ |
| citation |
434 U.S. 412
ⓘ
54 L. Ed. 2d 648 ⓘ 98 S. Ct. 694 ⓘ |
| citationStyle |
Bluebook
ⓘ
linked to:
Bluebook legal citation
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1978-01-23 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| docketNumber | No. 76-662 ⓘ |
| fullName |
Christiansburg Garment Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ⓘ
linked to:
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
|
| holding |
A prevailing defendant in a Title VII case may be awarded attorney’s fees only when the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
ⓘ
Prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants are not to be treated identically for purposes of attorney’s fee awards under Title VII. ⓘ |
| impact |
adopted by courts in interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1988 fee-shifting
ⓘ
governs when defendants may recover attorney’s fees in many federal civil rights cases ⓘ |
| issue | Whether and under what circumstances a prevailing Title VII defendant may be awarded attorney’s fees. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalEffect | binding precedent on federal courts regarding defendants’ attorney’s fees in Title VII cases ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
attorney’s fees
ⓘ
civil rights enforcement ⓘ employment discrimination law ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Potter Stewart
ⓘ
linked to:
Potter Stewart
|
| petitioner | Christiansburg Garment Company ⓘ |
| reasoning |
Congress intended to encourage meritorious civil rights litigation by plaintiffs and to avoid chilling such suits through routine fee awards to prevailing defendants.
ⓘ
Courts must avoid post hoc reasoning that because a plaintiff did not prevail, the action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Hughes v. Rowe
ⓘ
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
fee-shifting
ⓘ
prevailing party ⓘ |
| respondent | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ⓘ |
| standardEstablished | frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation standard for prevailing defendants’ attorney’s fees ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ |
| statutoryProvision | 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) ⓘ |
| term | 1977 Term ⓘ |
| vote | 9-0 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1978 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC Description of subject: Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the standard for awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants in Title VII civil rights cases, holding they may recover fees only when the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
→
fullName
→
Christiansburg Garment Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ⓘ
linked to: Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC