![Villanueva v. City of Colton](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Villanueva v. City of Colton](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Villanueva v. City of Colton
73 CAL.RPTR.3D 343, 160 CAL.APP.4TH 1188, 2008 DAILY JOURNAL D.A.R. 3448, 08 CAL. DAILY OP. SERV. 2856, 2008.CA.0002252
-
- USD 0.99
-
- USD 0.99
Descripción editorial
Daniel Villanueva was employed by the City of Colton (the City) as a Lead Operator in its Wastewater Division. After being demoted to Operator II, he sued the City under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12940 et seq.), alleging discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, as was its motion for attorney fees. (12965.) On appeal, Villanueva maintains that he produced substantial direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment. Further, he contends that in awarding nearly $40,000 in attorney fees, the court failed to take into account his inability to pay such a sizable sum. We disagree with both contentions and affirm.