Should the losing party in a civil lawsuit, such as a discrimination claim, always be required to pay the atto

Question

Should the losing party in a civil lawsuit, such as a discrimination claim, always be required to pay the attorneys, fees, expenses, and court costs of the prevailing party

Answer 1

Yes. Knowing this is a possibility curtails a great deal of false claims and invalid litigation.

Answer 2

I think it reduces litigation - because if people are afraid that they have a shaky case, they won't sue.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21 states:

(e) Attorney's fees
If the individual referred to in subsection (a) of this section is the prevailing party in a proceeding under this subsection, attorney's fees may be allowed by the court in accordance with the standards prescribed under section 2000e-5(k) of this title.

Answer 3

That is what some groups are wanting to do. They feel that this will cut down on the number of lawsuits. Of course then the big guys will run brutally over the little guy. The systen as it stands does get abused, but the little guy( or woman ) has to have a fighting chance. I would leave it as it is unless a creative alternative could be come up with.

Answer 4

Maybe not always, but yes in cases where there was abuse of the legal process. If the case was filed in good faith and with some merit, but not enough to prevail, I wouldn't necessarily make the loser pay.

Answer 5

Should you say? OF course (if the party is guilty of what you mention. Legally? I'm not sure there is a across the board answer for that. State by State then County by County ,Case by Case, is more like it.