An attorney fee award under this section is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( Flannery v. California Highway Patrol, supra, 61 Cal. App. 4th at p. 647; Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 918, 921 [57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 917]; Cummings v. Benco Building Services (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 1386 [15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 53].) The trial court may then augment or diminish the touchstone figure by taking various relevant factors into account. ( Serrano v. Priest, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at pp. 48-49; Meister v. Regents of University of California (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 437, 446-447 [78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 913]; Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, supra, 63 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1171-1172; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol, supra, 61 Cal. App. 4th at p. 647.) In Serrano v. Priest, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at page 49, the California Supreme Court identified the relevant factors in that case as follows: "AMONG THESE FACTORS WERE: (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; (3) the contingent nature of the fee award, both from the point of view of eventual victory on the merits and the point of view of establishing eligibility for an award; (4) the fact that an award against the state would ultimately fall upon the taxpayers; (5) the fact that the attorneys in question received public and charitable funding for the purpose of bring law suits of the character here involved; (6) the fact that the monies awarded would inure not to the individual benefit of the attorneys involved but the organizations by which they are employed; (7) the fact that in the court's view the two law firms involved had approximately an equal share in the success of the litigation." (Fn. omitted.) (Accord, Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 311, 322, fn. 12 [193 Cal. Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704].) The broad goal of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is to safeguard an employee's right to seek, obtain, and hold employment without being subjected to discrimination because of sexual preference, race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age. ( 12920; Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 880, 891 [66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157]; Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 479, 493 [59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 20, 926 P.2d 1114]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 629, 637 [71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 632].) Section 12965, subdivision (b) provides in part: "In actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs . . . ." The determination for fees under section 12965 must be based upon a proper utilization of the lodestar method. ( Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 1171-1172 [74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 510]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol, supra, 61 Cal. App. 4th at p. 647.) In California, the lodestar method requires the trial court to first determine a touchstone or lodestar figure based on a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25, 48 [141 Cal. Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303]; Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, supra, 63 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1171-1172; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol, supra, 61 Cal. App. 4th at p. 647.)