Plaintiff Loses Discrimination Claim – But Prevails On Sanctions Claim


Gibson v. SOLIDEAL USA, INC., Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2012 – Google Scholar.

The plaintiff filed a discrimination claim – alleging that he was fired because of his filing of a workers compensation claim. He did not take discovery or obtain affidavits of any kind. As a result, the former employer obtained summary judgment.

The employer’s motion for sanctions was denied and the denial was affirmed in an unpublished opinion.

The 9th Circuit explained:

“As an initial general proposition, we are not entirely unsympathetic to Solideal’s position. Statutes designed to empower employees in the vindication of their rights may, at times, be used as bases on which a plaintiff asserts claims that are later determined to be without merit. Undeniably, large employers may be forced to incur significant litigation expenses in defending against such claims. However, if this Court were to follow the course now advocated by Solideal, it would effectively hold that a plaintiff who elects to forgo formal discovery and whose claims are unable to withstand summary judgment is responsible for paying all fees and costs the defendant incurred in connection with the litigation. This is a bridge too far.”

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s