dissenting.

I believe that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants. Attorney’s fees were awarded for the plaintiff’s October 12 motion (and for that part of the motion for fees attributable to the October 12 motion). The district court found that this motion met the Christiansburg standard of “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Costs were awarded for the October 12 motion as well as for an unsuccessful retaliation claim pursued by the plaintiffs. Attorney Fees ■

The parties agreed to a partial audit of Spanish-surnamed employees. The auditor investigated a random sample of the persons listed by the company as Spanish-sur-named. He found the listings substantially inaccurate because forty-five percent of these people had origins in peninsular Spain. The auditor reasoned that these people were not disadvantaged and so were not the true focus of the consent decree.

On the basis of the auditor’s finding, the plaintiffs moved for a complete audit of all persons listed as Spanish-surnamed. They argued that the court should accept the auditor’s premise that people with origins in peninsular Spain were not the object of the consent decree. The defendant responded that a full audit was unnecessary. It argued that the auditor’s finding was incorrect because the definition of “Spanish-sur-named” in the consent decree included persons of peninsular Spanish origin. The court decided that the definition in the consent decree governed and so a full audit was not warranted.

On October 12 the plaintiffs then made a second motion to require the bank to pay the full cost of the initial partial audit. The district court denied this motion and it is this motion that was found frivolous. The district court believed that the second motion turned upon the same question as the first one — whether the auditor had used the correct definition of “Spanish-sur-named” in evaluating the sample. But this is incorrect. The relief sought, the legal issues, and the language of the consent decree to which the motions were directed were all different. The first motion sought a full audit, it concerned whether the auditor’s findings were legally correct, and it focused on the proper definition of the term “Spanish-surnamed.” The second motion, in contrast, sought payment for the partial audit, concerned what the auditor found (whether correct or not), and focused on the language of the consent decree stating that *1295 if the auditor or the court found substantial inaccuracies by the bank, then the bank was to pay the full cost of the audit.

I believe that the district court erred in not awarding plaintiffs the cost of the audit. While the October 12 motion is not directly before us, the trial court characterized it as frivolous and assessed substantial attorney’s fees against the plaintiffs because they pursued it. For this reason this court must evaluate the October 12 motion. Moreover, even if my conclusion as to the merits of the October 12 motion is incorrect, it is clear that the motion was not identical with the first one and not at all frivolous. The award of fees should be reversed.

Costs

The trial judge awards costs to the prevailing party unless his discretion dictates otherwise. I believe that in this ease the award of costs was incorrect. At the very least, I believe that the award of costs was excessive and should be reduced.

The court’s discretion in awarding costs in Title VII cases should be guided by the Christiansburg standard. If a Title VII plaintiff pursues an unsuccessful but reasonable claim, he should not be assessed costs. See Dual v. Cleland, 79 F.R.D. 696, 697 (D.D.C.1978); of. August v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 600 F.2d 699 (7th Cir. 1979), affirmed on different grounds, 450 U.S. 346 , 101 S.Ct. 1146 , 67 L.Ed.2d 287 (1981) (award of costs pursuant to Rule 68 read liberally in light of Title VII policy). Moreover, if the bank’s appellate brief is at all indicative of its work in the district court, its costs are far in excess of what is “reasonably necessary.” The brief is far too lengthy. For example, it discusses at length pre-Chris-tiansburg cases which are completely irrelevant to this appeal; in addition, it details motions filed in the district court that have no relevance whatever to this appeal. I do not believe that the plaintiffs should be forced to bear these excessive costs. The magistrate had reduced the costs awarded to the defendants, but the district judge reinstated the full amount. I see no basis for this action.

I would order each side to bear its own costs. Alternatively, I would, at the very least, reduce the costs awarded the bank.

I dissent.