Defendant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. Defendant claims that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to award attorney’s fees because it erred as a matter of law in finding that the appellee’s lawsuit did not meet the frivolity standards of applicable case law.

Appellant misconstrues the nature of the district court’s order. The district court did not commit error as a matter of law. On the contrary, the district court accurately stated the applicable case law, and the decision to deny the motion was an exercise of the district court’s broad discretion to determine whether a prevailing party should be awarded attorney’s fees. Having reviewed the record and the pleadings of the parties in the case, the district court reasoned that appellee’s “continued pursuit of his employment discrimination claim” was not so unreasonable as to satisfy the governing standards of frivolity. This was an interpretation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, not an erroneous application or interpretation of the applicable case law. In light of the evidence, especially that with respect to comparator Kronsperger, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the order of the district court must be

AFFIRMED. 1