In the case of Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 1977, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a Title VII action can be awarded attorney's fees when the plaintiff's claim is found to be without foundation, frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. The EEOC had sued Christiansburg Garment on behalf of an employee who claimed racial discrimination but lost at trial and on appeal. The company then sought reimbursement for its legal costs from the EEOC under section 706(k) of Title VII which allows courts to award reasonable attorney’s fee to prevailing parties in certain circumstances. However, it was unclear whether this provision applied equally to plaintiffs and defendants or only favored plaintiffs as they were typically individuals fighting against discriminatory practices by larger entities like corporations or government bodies. The court held that while successful plaintiffs should ordinarily recover their legal costs unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust; successful defendants should only recover if they could show that the suit was brought without foundation i.e., it was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. This decision established important guidelines for lower courts regarding awards of attorneys' fees under federal civil rights statutes ensuring fairness between both sides involved in litigation process while discouraging baseless claims thereby protecting judicial resources from being wasted on merit-less lawsuits.

In the dissenting opinion for Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to allow defendants in Title VII cases to recover attorney's fees only when a plaintiff’s claim is found frivolous or unreasonable was not consistent with congressional intent behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He believed this ruling would deter potential plaintiffs from filing suits due to fear of financial repercussions if they lose, thus undermining one of the key purposes of Title VII - encouraging private enforcement actions against discriminatory practices. Furthermore, he pointed out that other federal statutes allowed prevailing parties (plaintiffs and defendants) to recover legal costs without such restrictions as imposed by this ruling on Title VII cases.