Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, AI NEWS—Court sanctions lawyers over fake case citations in lawsuit by professor who had been 9/11 first responder, (Sep 15, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

A federal court in New York dismissed most of a former professor's discrimination lawsuit against Long Island University and sanctioned his former attorneys after finding their court filings relied on numerous fake, nonexistent, or misquoted legal authorities.

In a September 14 opinion, U.S. District Judge Sanket J. Bulsara of the Eastern District of New York granted Long Island University's motion to dismiss claims brought by a professor who alleged that the university forced him to resign because of his age and in retaliation for seeking disability accommodations. However, the court devoted a portion of its opinion to what it described as serious citation misconduct by the professor’s lawyers, concluding that sanctions were warranted.

Ultimatum. The underlying employment dispute involved a tenured professor who founded the university's online Homeland Security Management Institute. He alleged that after requesting accommodations related to medical conditions stemming from his service as a 9/11 first responder, university officials presented him with a "resign or be fired" ultimatum after deciding to discontinue his program. He sued under the ADEA, the ADA, and Title VII.

The court dismissed the ADA and Title VII claims with prejudice because the professor failed to allege that he received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC before filing suit. It also dismissed his age discrimination and retaliation claims, finding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that age was the but-for cause of any adverse employment action. The judge granted the employee leave to amend the ADEA claims.

Briefing problem. When the court reached the end of its underlying case analysis, however, it turned to problems with the briefing and, more specifically, a January 2026 letter filed by plaintiff’s counsel after opposing counsel had identified several problematic citations in the plaintiff's opposition brief. According to the court, the plaintiff’s lawyers characterized the problems as "citation errors" and "typographical" mistakes and failed to “acknowledge the gravity of the misrepresentations.”

Incorrectly cited or nonexistent. Among the examples cited by the court was reliance on a purported decision that supposedly supported the proposition that a "resign-or-be-fired ultimatum creates duress invalidating release." However, the judge found that the cited Westlaw reference actually corresponded to a transcript of testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee, not a court opinion. When confronted, counsel attempted to substitute an entirely different case with a different name and citation.

Another example was a citation of a case presented as a Second Circuit decision, but which was a Tenth Circuit case. Counsel later acknowledged the error and further noted that the cited version of the opinion had been withdrawn and superseded. A third cited authority apparently did not exist at all—counsel ultimately stated they were unable to verify the authority and no longer relied upon it. The judge noted that the cited Westlaw reference actually corresponded to a declaration filed in an unrelated California case.

Judge Bulsara said the problems extended well beyond the citations identified in counsel's corrective letter. The court independently identified a series of other authorities that it could not confirm existed and the court pointed to several instances in which briefs attributed quotations to genuine court decisions even though the quoted language could not be found in those opinions.

Brushed off apparent AI reliance. While the court stopped short of expressly finding that artificial intelligence generated the erroneous citations, it nevertheless suggested that possibility. "Instead of taking accountability for what appears to be counsel's reliance on artificial intelligence, counsel brushes off these misrepresentations to the Court as simple 'citation errors,' 'typographical' in nature.”

The court further criticized counsel for representing to the court that all remaining citations had been verified, that it would conduct a comprehensive review, and that it would promptly notify the court of additional errors, only for additional inaccuracies to remain in the brief months later. Judge Bulsara said the court took the conduct, as well as what he described as a lack of accountability, “very seriously.”

Reputational sanction. Although the judge declined to impose monetary sanctions, citing the professor’s subsequent dismissal of his attorneys and their withdrawal from the case, he nonetheless imposed a significant sanction. For the next two years, the two attorneys associated with the filings containing the fake citations are required to file a copy of the opinion in any case in which they appear before the Eastern District of New York.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-04618-SJB-LGD.

News: LitigationNewsTrends AINews RemediesDamages