Court Vacates Sanctions Against Attorney in Employment Discrimination Case

Appeals court finds attorney's arguments against summary judgment were not frivolous.

Mar. 13, 2026 at 8:06pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has reversed a district court's decision to impose sanctions against the attorney for the plaintiff in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The appeals court found that while two specific factual allegations in the plaintiff's case were disproved by discovery evidence, the attorney put forth at least two non-frivolous arguments to oppose the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and therefore the sanctions were unwarranted.

Why it matters

This ruling provides guidance on the appropriate use of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which allows courts to impose monetary penalties on attorneys who "unreasonably and vexatiously" multiply legal proceedings. The appeals court clarified that merely continuing to litigate a claim that is later found to lack merit is not necessarily sanctionable, as long as the attorney has made non-frivolous arguments in support of their client's position.

The details

The case involved an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Nawal Ali against her former employer, BC Architects Engineers PLC. After the district court granted summary judgment to BC on Ali's final claim, it imposed sanctions of around $57,000 against Ali's attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, finding that he had continued to litigate a frivolous retaliation claim. However, the appeals court found that while two specific factual allegations in Ali's complaint were disproved, the attorney had put forth at least two non-frivolous arguments to oppose summary judgment, such as presenting evidence that BC's stated reasons for terminating Ali were pretextual. The appeals court ruled that the district court had framed its sanctions inquiry too narrowly, and that continuing to litigate a claim that later proves unsuccessful is not necessarily sanctionable under § 1927.

  • The district court granted summary judgment to BC Architects Engineers PLC on Nawal Ali's final claim in 2026.
  • The district court imposed sanctions of around $57,000 against Ali's attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in 2026.

The players

Nawal Ali

The plaintiff in the employment discrimination lawsuit against BC Architects Engineers PLC.

BC Architects Engineers PLC

The defendant employer in the employment discrimination lawsuit.

Ali's attorney

The attorney representing Nawal Ali in the employment discrimination lawsuit.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What’s next

The case will be remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court's ruling.

The takeaway

This decision reinforces that attorneys should not be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 merely for continuing to litigate a claim that later proves unsuccessful, as long as they have made non-frivolous arguments in support of their client's position. The bar for imposing such sanctions remains high, requiring a finding that the attorney's conduct was both unreasonable and vexatious.