A federal judge has ruled that an Oregon farm cannot recover nearly $200,000 in attorney fees that it spent defending against a farmworker’s discrimination lawsuit that a jury rejected last summer.

In August, a federal jury unanimously decided that Siri and Son Farms of St. Paul, Ore., did not unlawfully fire the plaintiff, Teofilo Ibanez de Dios, for complaining about alleged preferential treatment received by foreign H-2A guestworkers.

The plaintiff accused the farm of terminating his employment after he’d objected to being paid $2.30 less per hour than H-2A workers, costing him about $28,000 in lost wages and causing “mental anguish and humiliation.”

Siri and Son Farms argued that H-2A employees were compensated for harvest work that paid $2.30 per more per hour than the weeding and irrigation positions held by the plaintiff, who was dismissed for “hostile and abusive” behavior.

After winning the jury verdict, the farm sought $197,250 in attorney fees and $3,430 in other litigation costs from the plaintiff, based on the 516 hours that seven attorneys and two paralegals spent working on the case for more than two years.

The plaintiff presented no evidence that he’d performed the same work as H-2A employees or that he’d tried to enforce a wage claim when asking for a raise, according to the motion for attorney fees.

“In summary, plaintiff’s claims were unfounded and objectively unreasonable based on the evidence, and in particular plaintiff’s own testimony,” the motion said. “Plaintiff’s testimony was not even aligned with the allegations of his own complaint and it is clear that plaintiff never had any belief in a legal right to a wage higher than the one he contracted for.”

The plaintiff urged the judge against approving the award, arguing that it’s an “abusive request” aimed at “intimidating migrant and seasonal farmworkers who have the temerity to assert their rights.”

The farm cannot prove that each of his claims was “frivolous, unreasonable or groundless” as required by state law, the plaintiff said.

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane has agreed that the farm isn’t entitled to attorney fees because the claims weren’t objectively unreasonable or unfounded.

“Although plaintiff’s claims proved unsuccessful at trial, it does not follow that is claims were frivolous,” McShane said.

Requiring the plaintiff to pay for the farm’s attorney fees simply because he didn’t prevail “would have a chilling effect on similarly situated employees,” the judge said.

The judge also refused to award the full $3,400 in other litigation costs sought by the farm, ruling the amount would be “unduly burdensome” for a “low-income migrant worker.”

However, McShane said it’s appropriate to require the plaintiff to pay the lower sum of $1,550, which represents the costs incurred by the farm since it offered to settle the case for $10,000 in July.