The Pro Se Litigant

By Bonnie Walker

It was always an event when a pro se plaintiff appeared in the courtroom. Anything could happen when someone unacquainted with the culture and ritual of the court stood at the podium to argue his case. Pro se litigants were often misfits pursuing preposterous cases in a desperate effort to imbue their lives with purpose. Others were colorful eccentrics who regarded the courtroom as a theater and relished the opportunity to perform before a captive audience. There was, for instance, the gentleman who feigned a limp and insisted on being called “captain.”

Maria Jaretzki* was different. She was no lost soul, no kooky pretender. There was something regal about this woman who stood before the court, straight and proud like a timber tree. The panel—three judges renowned for making even experienced attorneys tremble—scrutinized her sternly. But she was not in the least intimidated. She would not bend.

As a staff attorney for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, I was responsible for reviewing Ms. Jaretzki’s case and making a recommendation to the panel regarding the disposition of her appeal. It was clear to me that Ms. Jaretzki had been treated unfairly. She had devoted 20 years to her employer, ascending from a clerical job to a middle-management position. When the company brought in a new vice president, an African-American woman, to shake things up, Ms. Jaretzki watched helplessly as her authority gradually diminished and her superiors treated her with less and less respect. The message was sent: Ms. Jaretzki was no longer important. It was a familiar scenario, one that plays out repeatedly in corporate offices across the country.

Eventually, Ms. Jaretzki quit, or, rather, from her perspective, was pushed out. She then sued her employer for age and reverse race discrimination. But Ms. Jaretzki could establish none of the elements essential to an employment discrimination claim. There is no cause of action for unfair treatment, and the law compelled me to recommend that the panel affirm the lower court’s dismissal of Ms. Jaretzki’s case.

For five years, Ms. Jaretzki had acted as her own lawyer, pursuing a case with undeniable moral appeal but no real legal foundation. This was her last stop, as far as she would go. If the panel affirmed the dismissal of her discrimination claim, her case, and her quest for vindication, would be at an end. The judges listened to Ms. Jaretzki politely and intently. But they were constrained by the law, and the law held no consolation for Ms. Jaretzki.

Litigation cannot promise reparations for the wrongs that cut most deeply. Often, in cases like Ms. Jaretzki’s, it is the plaintiff, not the defendant, who ends up paying the highest price, in emotional pain and energy. For me, this was a sad lesson, one that I witnessed again and again during my tenure at the court. For Ms. Jaretzki, this lesson was incalculably more difficult to learn.

The law can do many things. But the law can’t repair wrecked lives. At best, it can only offer limited compensation to those who have lived them. The court could not give Ms. Jaretzki back her job or award her money damages. Nor could the court bestow that which Ms. Jaretzki wanted most—an authoritative, unassailable acknowledgement that she had been wronged.

Ms. Jaretzki won only that which the law enabled the court to give her—an opportunity to state her case in a public forum before a panel of objective decision-makers.

I hope that was enough. But I know that it wasn’t.  

* A pseudonym.

Bonnie Walker is a member of the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the Young Lawyers Division.


©2007 ABA Journal


eReport Table of Contents

eReport Table of Contents