Muhammad v. Walmart Stores East, L.P.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20589
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Christina Agola is a Western District of New York attorney with a long disciplinary history in this Circuit.
- Abidan Muhammad filed an employment discrimination suit pro se; Agola represented him.
- During summary judgment, Agola argued Muhammad had a gender discrimination claim that the record did not pled; the district court sanctioned her for misrepresenting the pleadings.
- Muhammad’s DHR/EEOC filings alleged race and disability discrimination but not sex; in the form, he left sex blank and checked disability.
- In opposition to summary judgment, Agola claimed the liberal pleading standard allowed reading gender discrimination into Muhammad’s filings based on deposition responses; the district court sua sponte sanctioned Agola for bad faith assertion and awarded $7,500.
- The Second Circuit vacated the sanction and reversed, holding the district court applied the wrong standard and did not show subjective bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct standard for sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions | Agola contends the court should consider Muhammad’s deposition responses and liberal pleading. | Walmart argues the court properly used the bad-faith standard to sanction for misrepresenting pleadings. | Sanctions vacated; improper standard applied. |
| Whether Agola acted in subjective bad faith in asserting a gender claim | Agola argues Muhammad’s filings and deposition evidence put Walmart on notice of a gender claim. | Court should view conduct under objective reasonableness; actions were not in bad faith. | Record insufficient to show subjective bad faith. |
| Whether sanctions should be reversed based on misapplication of standard | Agola appeals the sanction as misapplied and excessive. | Sanctions were appropriate under Rule 11 for misrepresentation. | Sanctions reversed and vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP, 323 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard for sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions; bad-faith requirement analog to contempt)
- ATSI Commcns., Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 579 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2009) ( heightened review for sua sponte sanctions; subjective bad faith required)
- Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Local Lodge D129, 910 F.2d 1056 (2d Cir. 1990) (court must apply correct legal standard for sanctions)