MCKNIGHT
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court vacated sanctions imposed on an employment discrimination claimant's attorney for appealing a dismissed case based on retroactivity arguments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1991, holding that the appeal was not frivolous even though circuit precedent opposed the retroactivity position, because the Supreme Court had not yet ruled on the issue and district courts were divided on the question. The Court established that an attorney's good-faith effort to preserve an unsettled legal issue for Supreme Court review, even when contrary to existing circuit precedent, does not constitute a frivolous appeal warranting sanctions.
[1] A court may impose sanctions on an attorney for filing a frivolous appeal.
[2] An appeal is not frivolous if it raises an issue that is unsettled by controlling precedent and has divided lower courts.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
After petitioner appealed the dismissal of his employment discrimination claim, respondent moved for dismissal of the appeal and for sanctions. Respondent argued that the appeal was frivolous in light of controlling decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit holding that § 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071, 42 U. S. C. § 1981 (1988 ed., Supp. IV), does not apply to cases arising before its enactment. See Luddington v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 966 F. 2d 225 (1992); Mozee v. American Commercial Marine Serv. Co., 963 F. 2d 929 (1992). In an order dated September 30, 1992, the Court of Appeals granted respondent’s motion, dismissed the appeal, and imposed a $500 sanction on petitioner’s attorney.
The Court of Appeals correctly rejected petitioner’s argument that § 101 applies retroactively. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, ante, p. 244; Rivers v. Roadway Express; Inc., ante, p. 298. However, if the only basis for the order imposing sanctions on petitioner’s attorney was that his retroactivity argument was foreclosed by Circuit precedent, the order was not proper. As petitioner noted in his memorandum opposing dismissal and sanctions, this Court had not yet ruled on the application of § 101 to pending cases. Filing an appeal was the only way petitioner could preserve the issue pending a possible favorable decision by this Court. Although, as of September 30,1992, there was no circuit conflict on the retroactivity question, that question had divided the District Courts and its answer was not so clear as to make petitioner’s position frivolous. See Mozee, supra, at 940-941 (Cudahy, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order imposing sanctions is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mozee v. Am. Commercial Marine Serv. Co., 963 F.2d 929 (7th Cir. 1992)
- Luddington v. Ind. Bell Tel. Co., 966 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1992)