Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—11th Cir.: Flight attendant won’t face sanctions for untimely claims against coworker who outed her as January 6 participant, (Feb 20, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Even if the district court could have imposed Rule 11 sanctions (which are discretionary) against the flight attendant because her defamation claims were time barred, the court was not required to do so.

A federal district court that dismissed, on statute-of-limitations grounds, a flight attendant’s lawsuit against a coworker who allegedly posted a petition on social media calling for her to be fired and prosecuted over her participation in the January 6 Capital riot did not abuse its discretion in denying the coworker’s bid for Rule 11 sanctions. In an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit found that while the flight attendant “did not strictly comply with Rule 11’s safe-harbor provision—given that she did not attempt to amend her complaint until shortly after the safe-harbor period expired—her attempts to cure her potentially sanctionable conduct indicated that she was acting in good faith in the spirit of Rule 11” (Trocano v. Vivaldi, No. 25-11813 (11th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026, unpublished)).

In July 2023, the former American Airlines flight attendant filed this lawsuit alleging the coworker defamed her by posting statements on the Internet in January and February 2021 about her participation in the January 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol. She also filed several claims of employment discrimination and various state-law torts against American Airlines that were not a subject of this appeal.

“Fire & prosecute” her. The flight attendant alleged that on January 8, 2021, the coworker posted a petition on the website “change.org” seeking to “Fire & prosecute” her as a “domestic threat!” due to her participation in the January 6 riot. The petition was created by a group called “Attendants for Justice,” which the coworker allegedly led. He also posted a video of her on his YouTube account, and updated the petition with new statements, including stating that the flight attendant violated federal law by trespassing on restricted government property. The flight attendant claimed that as a result of his actions, she was contacted by news stations, bullied on social media, and harassed at work.

Motion to dismiss. In September 2023, the coworker filed a pro se document that, after obtaining counsel, he labeled as a “motion to dismiss.” On October 31, the magistrate judge granted his motion to file an amended motion to dismiss which argued that the flight attendant’s defamation claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations and failed on the merits.

Motion for sanctions. On November 3, the coworker also filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions alleging that the defamation claims were frivolous. He attached a letter that he sent to her counsel on October 12, advising of his intention to file the sanctions motion in compliance with Rule 11’s safe-harbor provision.

Seeks to amend complaints. On November 9 and 10, the flight attendant attempted to file amended complaints adding allegations regarding defamatory statements that the coworker made about her that were within the statute of limitations. The magistrate judge warned that if she had not received the defendants’ written consent to file an amended complaint, they would be stricken. In response, she filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The magistrate judge then struck her amended complaints and directed her to show cause as to why she had failed to respond to the motions for dismissal and sanctions.

Responds to motions. In her response, she stated that she believed her proposed amended complaint mooted the sanctions request since she added allegations about defamatory statements that were made within the limitations period. She also acknowledged that any statements her coworker made outside of the statute-of-limitations period were not actionable, but asserted that his motion to dismiss was moot if she was permitted to amend her complaint.

Magistrate denies bid to amend. In December, the magistrate judge denied her motion to amend her complaint since, amongst other things, the deadline in the scheduling order had lapsed “several days” before she filed her motion.

Lawsuit dismissed. On March 12, 2024, the district court granted the coworker’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, concluding that the flight attendant’s defamation claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. However, the court granted her leave to file an amended complaint to assert claims based on statements allegedly made within the statute-of-limitations period. She chose not to do so, and instead moved the court to abstain from jurisdiction since she had filed a separate suit in Florida state court against him and did not wish to proceed with her claims in federal court. The court later deemed her request moot.

Sanctions motion denied. On May 16, 2024, the court denied the coworker’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions. First, the court reasoned that the flight attendant’s initial pursuit of claims outside the statute of limitations was proper because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that can be waived or forfeited. The court also found there was no evidence of bad faith by the flight attendant or her counsel, noting that she was not pursuing the barred claims.

Appeal. The coworker filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his sanctions motion, which the Eleventh Circuit dismissed since the flight attendant’s remaining claims against American Airlines were still pending. After the court granted the airline’s motion for summary judgment, this appeal followed.

Could consider affirmative defense. The coworker first argued that the district court erred in finding that the application of a waivable affirmative defense could not serve as the basis for Rule 11 sanctions. However, the Eleventh Circuit found that this was a misrepresentation since the court considered the fact that it dismissed the defamation claims based on a waivable affirmative defense as one factor among others that indicated that sanctions were not warranted. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

While a district court may in its discretion impose Rule 11 sanctions against a party or lawyer who pursues a claim that is obviously barred by a waivable affirmative defense like the statute of limitations, the coworker did not cite to any caselaw in which the Eleventh Circuit held that a court may not consider the fact that a claim was dismissed based on a waivable affirmative defense as simply one of other factors indicating that Rule 11 sanctions are not warranted. Given the extent of the broad discretion a district court holds in determining whether to impose Rule 11 sanctions, the district court did not legally err by considering this factor.

Sanctions not mandatory. The coworker was also incorrect that the district court was required to impose Rule 11 sanctions under these circumstances. The defamation claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, as the district court determined, and once the coworker raised that affirmative defense, she promptly sought to amend her complaint to add his later statements that were within the limitations period. While the magistrate judge denied her late attempt to amend, the district court ultimately granted the request. Under these circumstances, even if the district court could have imposed Rule 11 sanctions (which are discretionary) against the flight attendant because the defamation claims were time barred, the court was not required to do so.

The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that the flight attendant did not continue to pursue the barred claims after he filed his amended motion to dismiss, but instead attempted to file an amended complaint with claims based on statements that he made within the limitations period. Although she did not strictly comply with Rule 11’s safe-harbor provision—given that she did not attempt to amend her complaint until shortly after the safe-harbor period expired—her attempts to cure her potentially sanctionable conduct indicated that she was acting in good faith in the spirit of Rule 11.

The case is No. 25-11813.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Kevin Drummond (Blue Line Law Firm) for Alaina Trocano. Marc Burton (Law Office of Marc Burton) for Michael Vivaldi.

Cases: Procedure TortClaims StateLawClaims AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews