Vonda James v. Penney OPCO, LLC
24-12086
11th Cir.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Vonda James filed a federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, JCPenney, after completing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.
- James had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy several times in the past (1996, 2012, 2015, and 2017) and had previously disclosed lawsuits as required.
- While her 2017 bankruptcy case was pending, James started working at JCPenney and later filed an EEOC charge over alleged racial discrimination during her employment.
- James did not amend her bankruptcy filings to disclose her employment dispute or potential legal claim against JCPenney, even after filing the EEOC charge.
- After her bankruptcy was complete, James filed the discrimination lawsuit, leading JCPenney to move for dismissal on judicial estoppel grounds.
- The district court granted the motion, finding James was judicially estopped from proceeding based on her inconsistent positions during bankruptcy and civil proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether James took inconsistent positions under oath about her legal claim | James argued her initial bankruptcy disclosure was true at filing time and omission was inadvertent | JCPenney argued James failed to amend bankruptcy to disclose the claim, thus taking inconsistent positions | Court held James did take inconsistent positions as her duty to disclose is ongoing |
| Whether omission was calculated to "make a mockery of the judicial system" | James argued failure to update was inadvertent due to timing, lack of counsel, and honesty in other disclosures | JCPenney argued James’s background and prior experience with bankruptcy showed she knew her disclosure obligations | Court found the district court did not clearly err in finding James’s omission met the intent standard |
| Relevance of post-bankruptcy timing of lawsuit filing | James said the claim only became actionable after bankruptcy concluded | JCPenney argued duty to disclose attaches when claim arises (EEOC charge predated end of bankruptcy) | Court agreed timing does not excuse failure to disclose as duty attaches when claim arises |
| Necessity of evidentiary hearing before applying judicial estoppel | James asserted district court should have held an evidentiary hearing | JCPenney argued no hearing was required, especially since none was requested | Court held no evidentiary hearing was required in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (articulates judicial estoppel doctrine to prevent inconsistent positions in courts)
- Slater v. United States Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (establishes two-part test for judicial estoppel in bankruptcy context)
- Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2010) (application of judicial estoppel and standard of review explained)
- Smith v. Haynes & Haynes P.C., 940 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 2019) (describes continuing bankruptcy disclosure obligations)
- Weakley v. Eagle Logistics, 894 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2018) (application of judicial estoppel where debtor had multiple bankruptcies and omitted asset)
- Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2006) (failure to amend bankruptcy schedules may support judicial estoppel)