Estevez v. Berkeley College

Background

The plaintiffs, who were formerly employed in Berkeley College’s admissions office, sued Berkeley College and individual defendants. They asserted hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, along with aiding-and-abetting claims under New York law against Martinez, Orsini, and Bertone.

In a July 2021 order, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. As relevant to this opinion, the court found that Estevez and Mancini had not shown that they engaged in legally protected activity for purposes of their retaliation claims, that Mekuli had abandoned her retaliation claim, and that the plaintiffs had not shown that defendants’ stated reasons for the terminations were pretextual. The plaintiffs appealed that order.

Defendants later sought attorneys’ fees under Title VII, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent authority. They also sought a retroactive extension of the deadline for filing the fee motion. The plaintiffs asked the court to stay, or pause, consideration of the fee motion until the appeal was resolved.

Motion to Stay

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay. It considered the likelihood of success on appeal, possible irreparable harm, harm to other parties, and the public interest. The court found that the retaliation claims had significant weaknesses and that the plaintiffs identified only the relatively minor burden of having to brief a fee appeal separately from their merits appeal. The court also concluded that judicial efficiency and the public interest favored resolving the fee issue without waiting for the appeal.

Deadline Extension

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 generally requires a motion for attorneys’ fees to be filed within 14 days after judgment. Defendants’ pre-motion letter was filed 28 days after judgment. Under Rule 6(b), however, a court may extend an expired deadline when the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect.

The court granted defendants’ motion for a retroactive extension. Defendants’ lead counsel had been away attending to family matters and then became ill with COVID-19. The court found that these circumstances were outside counsel’s control and reasonably explained the delay. It also found little prejudice from the delay, that the delay was short, and no basis to conclude that counsel acted in bad faith.

Attorneys’ Fees

The court denied defendants’ request for fees under Title VII. A prevailing defendant may receive fees only when the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or when the plaintiff continued litigating after the claim clearly became so. The court described the plaintiffs’ retaliation theory as extremely thin and criticized their counsel for misrepresenting or stretching the record. Even so, the court found that the claims were not so frivolous as to justify a fee award. The court noted some evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ pursuit of the claims, including evidence that Estevez and Mancini had complained about workplace conduct and that Mekuli had reported conduct that made her uncomfortable.

The court also denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and its inherent authority. Those provisions can support sanctions for claims that were entirely without a reasonable basis and brought in bad faith. The court found that the claims were not clearly without a reasonable basis, even though counsel’s handling of the record could support an inference of bad faith.

Rule 11 Show-Cause Order

Defendants had not moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, so the court did not consider Rule 11 based on counsel’s conduct during the summary-judgment briefing. The court did, however, raise the issue on its own regarding statements made in opposition to the fee motion and in support of the stay request. The plaintiffs’ counsel was ordered to explain in writing why the identified statements did not violate Rule 11(b). The order to show cause was not a finding that Rule 11 had been violated.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay and denied defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. It granted defendants’ request for a retroactive deadline extension and ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to respond to the Rule 11 show-cause order by June 20, 2022.