Bridges
v.
Diesel Service, Inc.

1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9429 (E.D. Pa. 1994)

What's Going On?

Defendant moves for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel under FRCP 11 in response to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a suit for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Who's Who?

Plaintiff     :

James Bridges – former employee of Diesel Service, Inc.

Defendant :

Diesel Service, Inc. – former employer of James Bridges.

Facts:

Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant, his former employer, claiming that his employment was terminated as a result of his disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the ADA's procedural requirements. The ADA requires that a Plaintiff exhaust all administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. Plaintiff did not exhaust all administrative remedies because he failed to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Defendant now seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel under FRCP 11 as a result of Plaintiff's failure to exhaust all administrative remedies.

Issue:

Should monetary sanctions be imposed upon an attorney who fails to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to bringing a lawsuit?

Decision:

No. FRCP 11 requires counsel to engage in thorough factual investigation and legal research, both before bringing a suit, and throughout the litigation. Counsel's signature certifies that the pleading is grounded in sound investigation and research. Rule 11 is violated if the signing of the document filed was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances at the time of filing. Plaintiff's counsel failed to engage in a competent level of legal research, which would have uncovered the EEOC's requirement that a charge must be filed with the EEOC prior to bringing a discrimination suit under the ADA. Sanctions may be imposed in this situation, but the court will not impose sanctions here because Rule 11 is not a means by which the fees of litigation should be shifted from one party to another. The purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is deterrence of improper conduct. Rule 11 sanctions should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances where a claim is obviously frivolous or without merit, and where the sanctions are necessary to deter future misconduct. In this case, Plaintiff's counsel made a procedural mistake regarding the EEOC's filing requirement and quickly attempted to remedy the mistake. Sanctions are not appropriate in this case because counsel has most likely learned its lesson and will be more diligent in the future.

Basic Rule:

Rule 11 sanctions should be reserved for exceptional circumstances in which a claim is obviously frivolous or without merit.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us