ORDER

BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge.

It may be, under the 3rd Circuit case, that Defendant will not be entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, assuming the jury awards some damages to Plaintiff, which would seem to defeat any argument that her claim was frivolous.

On the other hand, I do not see that Defendant's offer of judgment is harassment.

It seems to me that Plaintiff should concentrate on whether Defendant's offer is reasonable. If Plaintiff recovers less than the offer, then Plaintiff is obviously subject to having fees or cost denied or cut. I emphasize that I am saying "subject to"; that is, it is something I will consider. I am not deciding that issue until it comes to pass, if it does.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

In advance of the trial next week, I believe the Court should be aware of a serious litigation abuse committed by PPG Industries, Inc. in this case. On June 24, 2019, PPG served Plaintiffs counsel with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment (see attached). As part of this offer of judgment, PPG threatened Ms. Knox as follows:

(Redacted Offer of Judgment at 2, emphasis added.)

This threat to assess an award of PPG's attorneys' fees against Ms. Knox constitutes a gross misstatement of the law, because the Third Circuit has specifically held that "a defendant in a Title VII civil rights suit can never recover its attorneys' fees under Rule 68," in a blatant effort to intimidate Ms. Knox. Tai Van Le v. Univ. of Pa. 321 F.3d 403, 411 (3d Cir. 2003). Predictably, this improper threat has caused my client severe distress when faced with the prospect of being forced to pay PPG's legal fees even if she were successful at the upcoming trial. Defendant's intimidation tactics are unconscionable, and the Court should exercise its inherent power to sanction this inexcusable action. See Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)(The Court's inherent power to issue sanctions "extends to a full range of litigation abuses.")

We look forward to discussing this matter with the Court in further detail during the pretrial conference on Monday.

OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendant PPG Industries, Inc. ("Defendant" or "PPG"), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby offers to allow judgment to be taken in favor of Plaintiff Carol Knox ("Plaintiff" of "Knox") and against PPG, in the amount of $[REDACTED/] apportioned as follows:

This amount [REDACTED/] represents the total amount PPG shall be obligated to pay on account of any liability claimed herein, including all costs and reasonable attorneys' fees that may be recoverable in this action.

This Offer of Judgment is made for the purposes specified in Rule 68 and is not to be construed as an admission that Defendant is liable in this action or that Plaintiff has suffered any damages. If Plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment against Defendant, please take notice that pursuant to Rule 68(d), Defendant will ask the Court to deny Plaintiff any post-offer costs, including attorneys' fees, and for an award of Defendant's post-offer costs, including but not limited to, its attorneys' fees, a sum to cover costs of the services of experts in preparation for trial, costs incurred during trial, and such other costs and fees as the Court deems proper, in addition to any other rights and remedies available under the law.

This Offer of Judgment will be deemed withdrawn if it is not accepted, in writing, within fourteen (14) days of receipt by Plaintiff. Evidence of this Offer of Judgment is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs and/or fees.