[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 140 (Friday, October 28, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2212-E2213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 420, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 
                                  2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 27, 2005

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 420, the so-

[[Page E2213]]

called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. The legislation will have a 
significant, adverse impact on the ability of civil rights plaintiffs 
to seek recourse in our courts.
  This bill would remove a court's discretion to impose sanctions on 
attorneys for frivolous lawsuits under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. By removing a court's discretion to impose sanctions, 
this bill would make Rule 11 sanctions mandatory.
  Mandatory Rule 11 sanctions are a failed experiment. When they were 
mandatory--between 1983 until they were repealed in 1993--they were 
disproportionately used to harass civil rights plaintiffs bringing 
claims to enforce civil rights laws. It would be a mistake to turn back 
the clock on civil rights.
  If such mandatory sanctions are reinstated, what can we expect? The 
movie, based on the first sexual harassment class action, North 
Country, perfectly illustrates the problem. North Country is based on 
the real life case of Lois Jensen, who in 1975 was a single mother on 
welfare and took a job working in the taconite mines of northern 
Minnesota. In that male-dominated work force, she endured extreme 
sexual harassment and her employer refused to do something about it. 
After 25 years and three trials, Jensen finally prevailed in 1998. 
Landmark litigation takes time. And landmark causes of action, often 
referred to as novel, should not be confused with frivolous claims.
  If H.R. 420 passes, motions for Rule 11 sanctions will be 
disproportionately brought by big corporations against individual 
plaintiffs to harass, drag-out, and make the costs of their litigation 
more expensive.
  It's important not to make landmark civil rights cases more 
difficult. Mandatory Rule 11 sanctions would make such compelling cases 
more difficult by allowing big companies even more opportunities to 
out-litigate the individual. H.R. 420 will require a mandatory 
sanctions regime that would apply to civil rights cases and massively 
skew the playing field against injured victims. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on H.R. 420, and support the Democratic alternative.

                          ____________________