Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery
Decided: January 30, 2002 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's legal argument is not frivolous or sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 if it has an objective, good-faith basis for the modification or reversal of existing law, even if it contradicts controlling circuit precedent, especially when the argument is supported by a majority of other circuit courts.
Facts:
- Pamela A. Hunter, an attorney, represented a group of workers at a Charlotte bakery owned by Earthgrains Company Bakery.
- The workers alleged a pattern of racial discrimination, including a manager's statement about wanting to change the 'complexion' of the workforce.
- The workers were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that included a general clause agreeing not to 'illegally discriminate.'
- Earthgrains management allegedly represented to employees that the Charlotte bakery was profitable and would remain open after a corporate spinoff, but subsequently closed it.
- Hunter filed a lawsuit on behalf of the workers, alleging Title VII violations and misrepresentation.
- In response to the lawsuit, Earthgrains contended that the workers' claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under their CBA.
- Hunter argued that the CBA's general anti-discrimination language did not constitute a specific waiver of the employees' statutory right to a judicial forum for their federal claims.
Procedural Posture:
- Pamela Hunter and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit against Earthgrains in North Carolina state court (Superior Court of Mecklenburg County).
- Earthgrains removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Earthgrains, finding the claims were subject to arbitration.
- In the same order, the district court sua sponte issued a Show Cause Order directing Hunter to explain why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed.
- The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on other grounds and declined to address the arbitration issue.
- Over two years after the initial Show Cause Order and fourteen months after the appeal was decided, Earthgrains filed a motion in the district court for Rule 11 sanctions against Hunter.
- The district court entered a Sanctions Order, suspending Hunter from practicing law in the district for five years.
- Hunter, as appellant, appealed the Sanctions Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Earthgrains as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's assertion of a legal position that is contrary to binding circuit precedent, but supported by a majority of other circuits and later substantially adopted by the Supreme Court, constitute a 'frivolous legal contention' sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge King
No. An attorney's assertion of a legal position that is contrary to binding circuit precedent is not a frivolous legal contention sanctionable under Rule 11 when it is supported by a significant circuit split and represents a nonfrivolous argument for the modification or reversal of existing law. The district court abused its discretion by sanctioning Hunter. Her legal position—that a general arbitration clause in a CBA does not waive an employee's right to a judicial forum for statutory discrimination claims—was contrary to the Fourth Circuit's precedent in Austin v. Owens-Brockway. However, at the time the argument was made, six other circuit courts had rejected the Austin rule, creating a clear circuit split. An argument with such substantial support from other jurisdictions cannot be deemed to have 'absolutely no chance of success.' Furthermore, the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wright v. Universal Maritime, issued before the sanctions order, substantially vindicated Hunter's position by requiring a 'clear and unmistakable waiver' in a CBA. Rule 11 does not prohibit attorneys from advocating for the reversal of precedent; doing so is essential for legal evolution, as exemplified by landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education.
Analysis:
This decision provides critical protection for zealous advocacy under Rule 11, clarifying that an argument is not frivolous merely because it challenges existing precedent within a circuit. It reinforces the principle that attorneys can and should make good-faith arguments to extend, modify, or reverse existing law, especially when there is a split among the circuit courts. The case serves as a check on the district courts' sanctioning power, distinguishing between losing an argument and making a sanctionable one. This precedent ensures that the law can evolve and correct itself without punishing attorneys for making arguments that are later adopted by higher courts.
Unlock the full brief for Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery