From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feldman v. Olin Corporation

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
Nov 29, 2010
CIVIL NO. 09-168-GPM (S.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2010)

Summary

proceeding on plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim as a failure to recall claim because plaintiff alleged in complaint that defendant "refused to return him to work"

Summary of this case from Nutall v. Reserve Marine Terminals

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 09-168-GPM.

November 29, 2010


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Global Brass and Copper, Inc.'s motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and alternate motion for attorney fees under § 2000e-5(k) of Title VII (Doc.s 92, 96). Defendant's motion for fees and costs is GRANTED under both rationales. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 is DENIED.

Under Rule 11, the Court may impose sanctions if a claim is "not well grounded in fact." Cuna Mutual Insurance Society v. Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 39, 443 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2006). Factual contentions in pleadings must have evidentiary support. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 11. Section 2000e-5(k) of Title VII authorizes the Court to grant attorney's fees to the prevailing party. "[A] plaintiff should not be assessed his opponent's attorney's fees unless a court finds that his claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." Christiansburg Garment Co. V. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). Mr. Feldman's claims against Global Brass and Copper were groundless. Mr. Feldman ignored Global Brass and Copper's attempts to rightfully extricate itself from a proceeding where it was an improper defendant, as this Court's Order granting summary judgment fully explains.

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to pay attorney's fees and costs to Defendant Global Brass and Copper resulting from the failure to properly release that defendant from this lawsuit. Global Brass and Copper is directed to submit details of those costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/29/1010


Summaries of

Feldman v. Olin Corporation

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
Nov 29, 2010
CIVIL NO. 09-168-GPM (S.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2010)

proceeding on plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim as a failure to recall claim because plaintiff alleged in complaint that defendant "refused to return him to work"

Summary of this case from Nutall v. Reserve Marine Terminals
Case details for

Feldman v. Olin Corporation

Case Details

Full title:DAVID FELDMAN Plaintiff, v. OLIN CORPORATION, OLIN BRASS, and GLOBAL BRASS…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

Date published: Nov 29, 2010

Citations

CIVIL NO. 09-168-GPM (S.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2010)

Citing Cases

Nutall v. Reserve Marine Terminals

See Basek, 69 F. Supp. 3d at 855 ("There are situations where retaliation couched as a demotion or some other…