Lopez v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Perry Lopez filed the action representing himself. The opinion says that his surviving claims included an age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The case had not yet entered discovery when the parties agreed to a court-facilitated settlement conference.

The scheduling order required each party to attend in person with its lead trial attorney. It also required the New York City Department of Education, a government entity, to send a decision-maker who knew the case and had responsibility for determining the amount of any settlement. The order separately required the parties to exchange at least one good-faith settlement demand and offer before the conference.

The Department asked to postpone the original conference so it could seek settlement authorization and prepare for mediation. Before the rescheduled conference, the Department’s lead counsel represented in writing that the Department would have settlement authority. The Department identified an agency attorney and an attorney from the Office of the New York City Comptroller as client representatives.

Settlement Conference and Alleged Violations

At the April 27, 2023 conference, the parties had exchanged settlement positions, and the Department had made a modest offer. Lopez then lowered his demand during the conference. During a later discussion, however, the Department’s lead counsel said that her supervisor would not authorize any increase in the offer. She also confirmed that neither she nor the representatives attending the conference had independent authority to negotiate a settlement.

The supervisor, Bruce Rosenbaum, had not appeared in the case and did not attend the conference. The court then adjourned the conference because the Department’s representatives could not proceed with further negotiations.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) permits a district court to issue appropriate orders when a party or its attorney fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference, is substantially unprepared or does not participate in good faith, or fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. The opinion explains that these provisions apply to settlement conferences and that a court may impose sanctions when a party sends representatives without actual authority to settle. It also states that a finding of bad faith is not required for sanctions based on violating a pretrial order.

Ruling

Judge Moses concluded that the Department violated the scheduling order by failing to send a representative with settlement authority. She also concluded that the Department was substantially unprepared and failed to participate in good faith because its representatives’ lack of authority was not disclosed at the outset, allowing Lopez to believe that he was engaged in a genuine negotiation.

The court imposed a total sanction of $1,100 under Rule 16(f)(1)(B) and (C), making the Department and the New York City Law Department jointly responsible. Of that amount, $1,000 must be paid to the Clerk of Court and $100 must be paid directly to Lopez. The order states that payment must be made within 30 days. Because Lopez represented himself, the court did not award attorney fees; it identified his travel to Manhattan from his home in New Jersey as the basis for the direct payment to him.