Braitsch v. EMC Corporation ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    JOAN H. BRAITSCH,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    EMC CORPORATION,
    Defendant-Appellant,
    and
    No. 97-1467
    THOMAS AARON; FRANK KEANEY,
    Defendants.
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY
    COUNCIL; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE;
    NEW ENGLAND LEGAL FOUNDATION;
    NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
    ASSOCIATION;
    Amici Curiae.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-94-1693-A)
    Argued: October 30, 1997
    Decided: December 24, 1997
    Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge,
    and BULLOCK, Chief United States District Judge for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Whitney Adams, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rich-
    ard Lee Swick, SWICK & SHAPIRO, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
    Appellee. ON BRIEF: C. Torrence Armstrong, MCGUIRE,
    WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for
    Appellant. Ann Elizabeth Reesman, Corrie L. Fischel, MCGUIN-
    NESS & WILLIAMS, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Advisory
    Council; Stephen A. Bokat, Robin A. Conrad, NATIONAL CHAM-
    BER LITIGATION CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Cham-
    ber of Commerce. Todd S. Brilliant, NEW ENGLAND LEGAL
    FOUNDATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Amicus Curiae Founda-
    tion. John M. Bredehoft, CHARLSON & BREDEHOFT, P.C., Res-
    ton, Virginia, for Amicus Curiae Lawyers Association.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    EMC Corporation appeals the district court's denial of its petition
    for attorney's fees under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1988
    . We cannot determine the
    reasons for the district court's conclusions and therefore vacate the
    judgment and remand for amplification.
    I
    Joan H. Braitsch sued EMC Corporation claiming that EMC dis-
    criminated against her on the basis of gender, during the course of her
    employment and in her termination, violating Title VII of the Civil
    Rights Act, 
    42 U.S.C. § 2000
    (e). EMC moved for summary judgment
    before trial. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema denied the motion
    without prejudice reasoning that "because [Braitsch] ha[d] not been
    2
    afforded the opportunity to take discovery yet . . . it [was] premature
    to address the summary judgment issue."
    During the subsequent trial, EMC moved for judgment as a matter
    of law at the conclusion of Braitsch's evidence. District Judge Claude
    M. Hilton granted this motion and dismissed the case.
    Braitsch filed a notice of appeal, after which EMC filed a petition
    for attorney's fees in the district court. District Judge Hilton denied
    EMC's motion. This court affirmed the dismissal of Braitsch's case
    by unpublished per curiam opinion. EMC then filed a second petition
    for attorney's fees in the district court. Judge Hilton also denied that
    motion. From this second denial, EMC now appeals.
    II
    "[A] district court may in its discretion award attorney's fees to a
    prevailing defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plain-
    tiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even
    though not brought in subjective bad faith." Christiansburg Garment
    Co. v. EEOC, 
    434 U.S. 412
    , 421 (1978). Judge Hilton, denying
    EMC's first petition for attorney fees, wrote "[i]t appearing to this
    Court that Plaintiff's case survived Defendant's Motion for Summary
    Judgment and proceeded to trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff's case
    was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." Judge Hilton
    denied EMC's second petition for attorney's fees"for the reasons
    stated in [his prior] order."
    EMC argues that Judge Hilton's conclusion that Braitsch's case
    was not frivolous was based solely on Judge Brinkema's earlier denial
    of summary judgment. According to EMC, Judge Brinkema's denial
    of summary judgment was based only on the observation that discov-
    ery was not complete, and this reason could not form a basis for the
    Christiansburg analysis. Braitsch argues that Judge Hilton indepen-
    dently found that her lawsuit was not frivolous.
    It is not clear from the order whether Judge Hilton undertook an
    independent analysis of the case or relied on Judge Brinkema's earlier
    denial of summary judgment. We vacate the district court's judgment
    3
    and remand to Judge Hilton for amplification of his conclusion that
    the case was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1467

Filed Date: 12/24/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014