In Linsley v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 762, the plaintiff filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging, among other things, that he had been terminated by his employer because of his age and medical disability in violation of FEHA. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment based on a prior settlement agreement and general release that the plaintiff had executed and for which he received $ 17,000. The trial court initially denied the motion, finding that plaintiff had presented a triable issue concerning whether he was "coerced" into signing the settlement agreement and general release. On appeal, the court concluded, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff had executed a valid and binding release and directed the trial court to enter judgment against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the employer moved for attorney's fees. In support of its motion, the employer argued that the plaintiff's discrimination claims were "unreasonable and groundless" because they were filed in derogation of a valid release signed by him and for which he received consideration. The trial court agreed, and awarded fees to the employer. In sustaining the attorney's fee award on appeal, the court found it significant that, after the filing of the complaint, but prior to service, the employer had sent a letter to plaintiff's attorney advising him that the prior execution of the settlement and general release provided for the release "of all claims, known and unknown;" that "all the claims also appear to be utterly without basis in fact or law;" and that "in the event that this baseless lawsuit should be served on any defendant, we will immediately procure its dismissal." On these facts, the court concluded that the trial court was well within its discretion to award fees to the employer: "In this case, the trial court acted within its discretion to award attorney's fees to defendant because plaintiff continued to litigate when it was clear that the claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless due to the executed release which was directed in part at the unlawful discrimination complained of in this lawsuit. A release of unlawful discrimination claims under the FEHA under the circumstances present here was fully enforceable. . . . Yet, the plaintiff continued to litigate the matter after his counsel was advised of a release of all claims against the employer related to his termination, including an unlawful discrimination cause of action, prior to service of the Complaint. Under such circumstances, there was no legal basis to pursue the unlawful discrimination cause of action because plaintiff, who is represented by an attorney, knew of should have known, the claims were unreasonable or without foundation because they were explicitly the subject of the release. Accordingly, the trial court acted well within its discretion to award attorney's fees to the employer for plaintiff's continuing to litigate in the face of this release. " ( Linsley, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at pp. 767, 769-771.)