D'Antignac v. Deere & Co.
604 F. App'x 875
11th Cir.2015Background
- Veronica D’Antignac filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2005 and was discharged in November 2008; the case closed January 13, 2009.
- While her bankruptcy was pending, she filed an EEOC charge in August 2008 alleging race discrimination arising from a June 2008 incident; the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights on June 1, 2010.
- D’Antignac did not disclose the employment-discrimination claim to the bankruptcy court before her bankruptcy closed.
- She sued Deere & Co. in federal district court on August 31, 2010 for race and sex discrimination (sex claim arose from same 2008 incident).
- District court granted summary judgment for Deere on judicial-estoppel grounds and denied D’Antignac’s Rule 59(e) motion; she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Title VII claims not disclosed in Chapter 13 bankruptcy | D’Antignac argued she should be allowed to pursue her discrimination claims despite nondisclosure | Deere argued nondisclosure of the claim in bankruptcy is an inconsistent sworn position warranting judicial estoppel | Court held judicial estoppel applies: failure to disclose was an inconsistent sworn position and not inadvertent, so claims are barred |
| Whether omission was inadvertent (intent to conceal) | D’Antignac implied omission was not wrongful or was inadvertent | Deere argued she knew of the claim and had motive to conceal it (benefit to debtor) | Court held district court did not clearly err in inferring intent to conceal; motive and knowledge support estoppel |
| Whether Rule 59(e) relief was warranted after summary judgment | D’Antignac sought reconsideration raising arguments/evidence she could have presented earlier | Deere opposed; argued no new evidence or manifest error | Court held denial of Rule 59(e) was not an abuse of discretion; motion repeated prior arguments |
| Timeliness of sex-discrimination claim under Title VII | D’Antignac included sex claim in 2010 complaint arising from 2008 incident | Deere argued sex claim is time-barred for failure to file a timely EEOC charge | Court noted even if not estopped, sex claim is time-barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Tyson Foods, 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (failure to disclose Title VII claims in Chapter 13 can warrant judicial estoppel)
- Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.) (doctrine of judicial estoppel and duty to disclose bankruptcy assets)
- Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir.) (nondisclosure of TILA claim in bankruptcy satisfies first estoppel prong)
- Waldron v. Brown (In re Waldron), 536 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir.) (claims arising after confirmation but before completion may be estate property and must be disclosed)
- Barger v. City of Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir.) (motive to conceal when nondisclosure lets debtor keep proceeds)
- De Leon v. Comcar Indus., Inc., 321 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir.) (financial motive to hide assets under Chapter 13)
- Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 163 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for denial of Rule 59 motions)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.) (grounds for Rule 59(e) relief: newly discovered evidence or manifest errors)
- Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir.) (Rule 59(e) cannot relitigate matters that could have been raised earlier)
- Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir.) (new arguments previously available cannot be raised on Rule 59)
- H & R Block E. Enters., Inc. v. Morris, 606 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.) (administrative exhaustion and 180-day charge-filing requirement under Title VII)