Opinion ID: 611820
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: 25 Plaintiff added a claim under the hostile work environment theory of Title VII in his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff set forth the elements of a hostile work environment claim, citing this Court's opinion in Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1041 (1987), but did not allege facts to support a prima facie case. On this issue, the magistrate judge concluded that it was collateral to the main issue of whether plaintiff otherwise had raised a valid legal claim of sex discrimination under Title VII.... Joint App. at 181. Again, the magistrate judge did not make the requisite Rule 11 inquiry. There is absolutely nothing in the record that supports a hostile work environment claim. The addition of this claim was objectively unreasonable and warrants the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. 26 In sum, by signing the amended complaint and the Motion Opposing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Gentile violated Rule 11 because (1) Mrs. Albert's claims lacked jurisdiction; (2) Lowe should have been dismissed from the suit; and (3) plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was baseless. Rule 11 sanctions must be imposed against Gentile, plaintiff or Mrs. Albert or all three. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (providing that the attorney, the represented party or both may be sanctioned).