Muhammad v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
732 F.3d 104 (2013)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Abidan Muhammad (plaintiff) did not have an attorney prepare his discrimination complaint against his former employer, Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (defendant). Instead, he used the pro se form the court supplied. On the form, Muhammad checked the boxes indicating he intended to sue under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The next question asked which basis of discrimination Muhammad claimed, and he checked only disability, not race, color, or sex. In the narrative portion, Muhammad described actions Wal-Mart took related to his disability but did not mention race or gender discrimination. After discovery, Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment. Attorney Christina Agola prepared and filed a response opposing the motion that falsely stated Muhammad had clearly pled gender discrimination, which Wal-Mart should have foreseen based on Muhammad’s deposition answers. After ruling on the motion, the court on its own initiative ordered Agola to show cause why the court should not sanction her for the misrepresentation. Agola filed a response but sent an associate to attend the hearing. The court applied an objective reasonableness test referencing what “any competent attorney” would have done under the same circumstances, discussed Agola’s incompetent practice in other areas extensively, and sanctioned Agola $7,500. Agola appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
