Cope

Cope v. United Capital Mortgage

Good Law
9 F. App'x 743
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 29, 2001No. 99-17636; D.C. No. CV-97-01524-JBRCalifornia679 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant United Capital Mortgage Corporation (“United Capital”) appeals the district court’s award of attorney fees and costs to appellee Laurie Cope (“Cope”). *** United Capital contends that the award of fees and costs to Cope was disproportionate to her success in her Title VII discrimination claim. Because the jury decided that United Capital’s decision to terminate Cope was based on a mixed motive, her pregnancy and other legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, United Capital contends that Cope’s fees and costs should have been reduced substantially to reflect the degree of her success. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Cope began working as a loan processor for United Capital in its Las Vegas office around March 1996. On March 11, 1997, when Cope was five months pregnant, she was terminated. Cope filed suit in district court and alleged that United Capital terminated her because she was pregnant, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e). A three day jury trial was held and the jury found that Cope’s termination was based on a mixed motive. The district court entered judgment in favor of Cope…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.