In perhaps the largest sanction of its type, a Manhattan plaintiff's attorney was recently sanctioned $25,000 for not investigating the merits of his client's claim. In Forbes v. Merrill Lynch Fenner & Smith Inc., 96 Civ. 7461 (S.D.N.Y. April 1998), the plaintiff alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of his HIV status under the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating his employment several months after learning of his status.
The plaintiff filed a claim of discrimination with the New York City Human Rights Commission, which found no probable cause for his complaint. He then obtained new counsel, who filed an action in federal court. During the trial, the plaintiff offered testimony that differed with both his own complaint and the pre-trial order submitted by his attorney.
Judge Constance Baker Motley dismissed the action, finding it to be "entirely without substance," and stressed that the sanction was necessary to "underscore the point that the importance of the civil rights statutes requires corresponding seriousness" by attorneys who bring the actions. Not only did the attorney fail to corroborate his client's story, but he never even investigated the nature of his disability, according to Judge Motley.
This article was first published in the Spring 1998 Issue of Mayer, Brown & Platt's Labor and Employment Newsletter.
Copyright © 1999 Mayer, Brown & Platt. This Mayer, Brown & Platt article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
