In Cummings v. Benco Building Services (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 1386-1387 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 53, the Court explained the standards to be applied in determining the propriety of an attorney fees award under the employment discrimination statutes: "Attorney fees are allowable as costs to a prevailing party when authorized by statute. ( Code Civ. Proc., 1021, 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) Government Code section 12965 authorizes an award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in any action brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). That section provides in pertinent part: 'In actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs except where such action is filed by a public agency or a public official, acting in an official capacity.' The language, purpose and intent of California and federal antidiscrimination acts are virtually identical. Thus, in interpreting FEHA, California courts have adopted the methods and principles developed by federal courts in employment discrimination claims arising under title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 United States Code section 2000e et seq. . . . A trial court's award of attorney fees and costs under the section is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. " The court relied on precedent interpreting the federal anti-discrimination statutes to conclude that under state law as well a prevailing defendant may recover legal fees only where the claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. Despite the employment of the term "vexatious," the plaintiff's subjective bad faith is not a necessary prerequisite to a fee award. The issue is one within the sound discretion of the trial court. The court is not required to make express findings if the record is otherwise adequate for appellate review. Because the Cummings court concluded that reasonable minds could differ over the adequacy of the evidence of discrimination, "the trial court erred in presumably finding the plaintiff's claim to be frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation . . . ." (Cummings, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at page 1389).