663 F.3d 879
7th Cir.2011Background
- Sambrano (plaintiff) filed an EEOC charge alleging race, sex, national origin, age, and disability discrimination by the Navy.
- EEOC found the charge unsupported; Sambrano filed a federal complaint seeking de novo review of the EEOC decision.
- Discovery was scheduled but nothing occurred; Navy did not need discovery and Sambrano did not pursue discovery actions.
- Sambrano moved for judgment on the pleadings after discovery period; motion argued the proceeding was an appeal from the EEOC decision.
- The district court dismissed for want of prosecution after more than a year of inaction; Sambrano’s counsel then filed an ex parte motion to vacate.
- The district court denied the ex parte motion; Sambrano appealed, and the court imposed sanctions on her counsel for frivolous conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit is an appeal of the EEOC decision. | Sambrano argues it's an appeal; de novo review applies. | Navy contends it is not an appeal; the record governs. | Not an appeal; de novo review applies if the administrative record supports the claims. |
| Whether judgment on the pleadings was proper given the discovery posture. | Discovery unnecessary because proceeding is an appeal from EEOC decision. | Discovery could be necessary; motion inappropriate and unsupported by the record. | Improper use of Rule 12(c); discovery issues unresolved; motion denied. |
| Whether dismissal for want of prosecution was warranted. | Court should have warned about risks of inaction before dismissal. | District court acted within discretion for prolonged inaction. | Affirmed dismissal for want of prosecution; warning not deemed required in this context. |
| Whether ex parte motion to vacate dismissal was proper and sanctionable. | Motion should be considered; the Rule 41.1 challenge has merit. | Ex parte motion without service violated procedure and merits. | Sanctions appropriate; motion improper and vexatious conduct by counsel. |
| Whether sanctions against counsel are warranted for frivolous appeal. | Appeal should be considered on its merits; sanctions unnecessary. | Appellate conduct frivolous and not in accord with rules; sanctions justified. | Sanctions ordered; court grants show-cause 21 days for counsel; affirmance maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840 (U.S. 1976) (de novo review for federal employee challenges to EEOC decisions)
- Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (due process limits on constitutionality of procedures; notice requirements)
- Gabriel v. Hamlin, 514 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2008) (warning for inaction prior to dismissal)
- Ball v. Chicago, 2 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 1993) (precedent on dismissal for inaction and sanctions context)
- Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1989) (frivolous appeal and sanctions standards)
- Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d 1322 (7th Cir. 1989) (sanctions for Rule 30 violations and frivolous conduct)
- Urso v. United States, 72 F.3d 59 (7th Cir. 1995) (sanctions and appellate conduct standards)
- Lee v. Cook County, Ill., 635 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2011) (professional conduct and disciplinary considerations for attorneys)
- United States v. Clark, 657 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2011) (professional conduct standards in litigation)
- Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2011) (professional responsibility in the bar; sanctions considerations)