In a recent legal battle, a former employee took her supervisor to court over allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination. The case, which has drawn significant attention due to its implications on workplace conduct and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, was filed by Pamela Pollock against Michael Kelso in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on January 8, 2025.
Pamela Pollock accused her supervisor, Michael Kelso, of inappropriate behavior and discriminatory practices dating back to 2016. According to Pollock's claims, Kelso made unwelcome advances towards her and subsequently retaliated when she refused him by promoting less qualified individuals of different races over her. Initially, the trial court dismissed Pollock's lawsuit as time-barred; however, this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2021. The higher court clarified that the statute of limitations should begin when the plaintiff becomes aware or should have become aware of the adverse promotion decision. They also emphasized that costs or fees on appeal could not be awarded to a prevailing defendant unless it was determined that the plaintiff's action was frivolous or unreasonable.
Following these developments, Pollock sought $526,475.63 in attorney fees under Government Code section 12965(c)(6), with the trial court eventually awarding her $493,577.10 in March 2022. This led Kelso to file an appeal against this fee award in May 2022. As both parties prepared for a trial set for May 1, 2023, they reached a settlement in February 2023 regarding most aspects of their case but left the attorney fee issue unresolved for appellate review.
Pollock contended that she was identified as the prevailing party in their confidential settlement agreement and offered to present this document for an in-camera review during appellate proceedings—a move contested by Kelso based on procedural grounds. Despite these objections, the appellate court found no merit in dismissing Kelso’s appeal concerning jurisdictional issues raised by Pollock.
The appellate court ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision regarding attorney fees after examining several factors including reasonableness under statutory guidelines and discretionary judgment exercised by lower courts. They noted that determining who is a prevailing party can sometimes be complex but affirmed that Pollock had indeed gained something tangible from her legal efforts post-settlement.
Representing Pamela Pollock were attorneys from Lipeles Law Group: Kevin A. Lipeles, Thomas H. Schelly, and Julian Bellenghi while Michael Kelso was represented by Lann G. McIntyre and Tracy Forbath from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. The case was presided over by Judge Lia Martin with Case ID BC676917.