McKnight v. General Motors Corp.
Headline: Court vacates $500 sanction against attorney who appealed an employment-discrimination dismissal, allowing the appeal to proceed because retroactivity questions were unsettled and not plainly frivolous.
Holding: The Court granted review, vacated the Court of Appeals’ $500 sanction on the attorney, and remanded because appealing unsettled retroactivity questions was not frivolous.
- Vacates a $500 sanction and returns the case for further proceedings.
- Allows attorneys to appeal unsettled retroactivity issues without automatic sanctions.
- Protects appeals filed to preserve legal questions for higher court review.
Summary
Background
A person who filed an employment-discrimination claim appealed after the case was dismissed. The opposing party asked the appeals court to dismiss the appeal and to fine the claimant’s lawyer $500, saying the appeal was frivolous because recent Seventh Circuit decisions said a 1991 law provision did not apply to earlier cases.
Reasoning
The Court agreed that the appeals court was correct that the 1991 law provision did not apply retroactively. But the Supreme Court explained that telling an attorney they deserve a fine just because a circuit had settled law against their argument was not proper here. The Supreme Court noted that the national courts were divided on the issue and that this Court had not yet spoken, so filing the appeal was a reasonable way to preserve the question for possible review.
Real world impact
The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the $500 sanction against the attorney, and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The ruling protects an attorney’s ability to appeal unsettled retroactivity questions to preserve issues for higher court review. It also makes clear that following unsettled or divided law is not automatically frivolous.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?