When Going Pro Se Together Just Means Losing With Company
We have preached before about the dangers of an employee handling an employment discrimination or wrongful termination case by going it alone. Apparently, two employees thought they found a loophole to avoid hiring an employee’s rights lawyer: don’t go it alone. Go together.
Nope.
Two pro se plaintiffs do not equal one lawyer.
If you want quality time with a friend, take a cruise. Join a pickleball league. Split the Pick Three appetizer at Friday’s. There are hundreds of activities better suited for friendship than trying to figure out federal appellate procedure together. IKEA furniture without the instructions? Still probably higher on the list.
Susan Shipp and Kailyn Cook learned that lesson the expensive way. They originally had counsel when they sued the Albany County Board of County Commissioners, bringing First Amendment retaliation claims and Title VII claims for hostile gender discrimination work environment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The district court granted summary judgment against them and dismissed all of their claims.
Then came the appeal.
Without counsel.
Shipp and Cook represented themselves before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. They argued that the district court overlooked evidence, improperly resolved credibility disputes, and mishandled their retaliation and discrimination claims. Maybe they had arguments worth hearing. We will never know from this decision. Because before an appellate court decides whether your argument wins, you have to properly make the argument.
They didn’t.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that their arguments were conclusory. They provided no record citations. The few legal authorities they cited did not establish error. Worse, they failed to challenge the district court’s dispositive rulings. The result was not a judicial do-over or some extra help because they were not attorneys. It was waiver of appellate review. Cook v. Albany County Board of County Commissioners, No. 25-8047, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 27384, at *4–6 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2026).
Legal Takeaways
- Employees who represent themselves must still comply with procedural rules. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that pro se litigants must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”
- An employee can waive appellate review by failing to properly develop arguments, cite the record, and challenge the rulings that actually caused the employee to lose.
Will An Appeals Court Figure Out My Employment Law Arguments For Me?
No. An appeals court reviews legal errors that you properly present. It is not a second chance to tell another group of judges why you think what happened was unfair.
Cook and Shipp had plenty to say about what they thought went wrong. They argued that the district court overlooked evidence, improperly resolved credibility disputes, relied on an overly narrow at-will employment framework, ignored protections for public employees, and failed to properly address retaliation for protected speech and whistleblower activity.
Those may all sound unfair.
But unfair is not a legal standard. And unfair is not an appellate procedure.
An appeal requires more. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A) required Cook and Shipp to present their contentions, the reasons supporting them, and citations to the legal authorities and portions of the record upon which they relied. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an appellate brief requires more than a generalized assertion that the district court made a mistake. Cook, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 27384, at *4–5.
This is where representing yourself gets you into trouble. You may know why you believe your employer discriminated against you. You may know which evidence you think the judge got wrong. You may even be completely convinced that the result was unfair. None of that tells you how to convert those complaints into reversible legal error.
Cook and Shipp did not make that conversion. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that their opening brief “does not come close to complying with these requirements.” Their arguments were conclusory. They provided no citations to the record. And the few legal authorities they cited did not demonstrate why the district court’s dispositive rulings were wrong. Id. at *5.
Nor would the judges do that work for them. Relying on Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the rule that “we cannot fill the void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research.” Cook, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 27384, at *4–5.
Judges are not coming to rescue your appellate brief.
Cook and Shipp gave the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reasons they believed the result was wrong. What they needed were properly developed legal reasons the judgment could be reversed. That difference ended up being everything.
Practical Tip: If you are challenging the dismissal of an employment discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination claim, start with the precise legal basis for the ruling against you. An appeal must demonstrate why that ruling was legally erroneous, with supporting authority and record citations—not merely why you believe the result was unfair.
Best Employment Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
Can I Skip Over Court Rules If I Just Don’t Understand Them?
No. And this is where the legal system can feel incredibly unfair to an employee representing themselves.
You believe your employer discriminated against you. Or retaliated against you. Or wrongfully fired you. You want the appeals court to decide whether you are right. Instead, the court tells you that it will not reach the merits because you did not properly present the issues in your appellate brief.
That may not seem fair. But the proper form for presenting an argument is what gets the merits before the court in the first place.
Cook and Shipp learned that distinction the hard way. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A) required their opening brief to support their arguments with citations to legal authority and the relevant parts of the record. Their opening brief contained no record citations.
And that was not an oversight.
In their reply brief, Cook and Shipp acknowledged that they had “made the deliberate choice to avoid formal citations.” Their reasoning was understandable on a human level: “[r]ather than risk mis-citing the record or inaccurately referencing materials,” they decided not to formally cite them. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did not find that explanation compelling. Cook, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 27384, at *6 n.3.
That is like avoiding spelling mistakes by refusing to use words.
Worse, the problem went beyond citation form. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Cook and Shipp also failed to challenge the district court’s dispositive conclusions. That independently waived appellate review. The authority applied in Cook makes the obligation remarkably simple: “The first task of an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.” Nixon v. City & County of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015).
Cook and Shipp never successfully completed that first task.
And that is the painful part. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did not decide whether Cook and Shipp were right about every alleged error they identified. It held that their deficient briefing waived appellate review. Their effort to avoid making mistakes with the record helped produce a much bigger mistake: they failed to properly put their arguments before the judges who could review them.
Court rules can look like technicalities when you are focused on what your employer did to you. They are not. They are the rules for getting the court to consider what your employer did to you.
Practical Tip: If you do not understand a procedural requirement in an employment discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination appeal, do not simply omit it. A procedural mistake can prevent the appellate court from ever reaching the merits of the employment law claim you wanted it to decide.
Best Wrongful Termination Attorney Blogs on Point:
When Is It Best To Consult An Attorney About Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Or A Hostile Work Environment?
Before you need someone to fix a mistake that could have been avoided.
If you believe your employer is discriminating against you, subjecting you to a hostile work environment, retaliating against you, or preparing to wrongfully fire you, consulting an employment lawyer early can help you understand what facts matter, what evidence should be preserved, and what decisions could affect your legal rights. And if you have already been wrongfully fired, the best time to consult an attorney is now—not after trying to navigate an employment discrimination lawsuit on your own.
Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm represents employees, not employers. We are one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated to protecting employee rights. Our attorneys understand that proving something was unfair at work and proving unlawful discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, or wrongful termination are very different things. We also understand how procedural mistakes can keep strong facts from ever being considered on their merits.
Our employment lawyers have the resources and trial experience to take on employers of every size, while never forgetting that every case belongs to an employee whose job, income, reputation, and future may be at stake. We offer a free initial consultation and our No Fee Guarantee means you pay no attorney fees unless we recover for you.
If you think your employer violated your rights, talk with an employment lawyer before going it alone—or together with a friend.
Best Employee Rights Law Firm Blogs on Point:
Frequently Asked Questions About Employment Discrimination And Wrongful Termination
Employees can represent themselves, but pro se employees are still required to follow the procedural rules that apply to their case. Missing a deadline, failing to properly support an argument, or failing to preserve an issue can prevent a court from considering the merits of a discrimination or wrongful termination claim.
What Does Pro Se Mean In An Employment Law Case?
Pro se means representing yourself in court without an attorney. An employee proceeding pro se is responsible for handling the legal and procedural requirements that an employment lawyer would ordinarily address.
Can My Employer Fire Me Because I Complained About Discrimination?
An employer cannot lawfully retaliate against an employee for engaging in activity protected by applicable employment discrimination law. Whether a termination amounts to unlawful retaliation depends on the particular facts and governing law.
Is An Unfair Termination The Same As Wrongful Termination?
No. An employer can make a decision that seems unfair without necessarily violating employment law. A wrongful termination claim requires a legal basis showing that the termination was unlawful, not merely unreasonable or unfair.
Can A Hostile Work Environment Be Illegal Discrimination?
Yes, a hostile work environment can violate employment discrimination law when the applicable legal requirements are satisfied. Workplace hostility, bullying, or unfair treatment alone does not necessarily establish an unlawful hostile work environment.
Can I Lose A Wrongful Termination Case Because Of A Procedural Mistake?
Yes. Procedural requirements can determine whether a court ever reaches the merits of an employee’s wrongful termination, discrimination, or retaliation claim. Having strong facts does not excuse failing to properly present or preserve the legal claim.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and hostile work environment blog is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Employment law varies depending on the applicable federal, state, and local laws and the specific facts involving each employee and employer. If you believe you were wrongfully fired, subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment, retaliated against, or otherwise denied your workplace rights, consult with a qualified employment lawyer about your individual circumstances. Reading this blog, submitting information through our website, or communicating with Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee or predict the outcome of any future discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, or wrongful termination case. No employment attorney or lawyer can promise a particular result. This blog may constitute attorney advertising or a legal advertisement under applicable rules.