## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3388 A ARON S MEI GH, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. J O HN S M ANVILLE, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:0 9-cv-41 4-TWP

— Tanya W alt on P ratt, Judg e. A RG UE D A PRI L 6, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 29, 2011

Befo re F LA UM, E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. A aron Sm eigh b rings th is diversity suit against h is form er em p loyer, Joh ns M an vil le (JM ), f orr eta l i ato rydi schar ge an d c i vi lco nver si on under In d ian a la w . H e a lleg es th at JM w ro n gfu lly te rm in at ed h is empl o y m en t f o r fi l i ng a wor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n c l ai m a nd u n law fu lly re ta in ed h is p er so n al pr op er ty aft er h is t er m in a t ion. JM m oved f or sum m ary j ud gm en t on Sm eigh’s cl ai m s a nd the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted the m oti on. S m eigh appeal s.

### 2 No. 10-3388 W e a ffi rm . S m ei gh has not prese nted suffi ci ent e vi dence up on wh i ch a re aso nabl e j ury coul d concl ud e that he was fired i n r et al i at i o n fo rfi l i ngwor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n. A l though he w as ter m i nated sho rt l y a fterhi s work pla ce inj u ry , th e e vid en c e s h ow s t h at JM t er m in at ed h im for h is post- acci dent sta tem ent that he m i ght not pass a drug te st ( he l ater passed the drug te st) and subse quent r efusalto si gn an agr eem ent pr es en ted byJ M r equi ring hi m to un d ergo cou ns eli ng a nd ran d om d rug testin g (at Sm eigh’s expense) to r eta i n hi s j ob . Sm eigh m ade no showing that J M ’ s proffered r eas on forte rm i nati ng hi m was a l i e t o c ov er u p ret alia tio n . Sm eigh sim il arly has no t pre sen t e d eviden ce th at JM kn ow in gly ex er te d u n au th or ize d co n tr ol ov er h is proper ty. I t w as com pany p ro toc olaft erterm i nati on to sor t thro ugh an em plo yee ’ s be l ongings t o separ ate per sonalpro perty fro m co m pany pro perty
. S m ei gh di dn ’t obj ect w hen Berni ce W i lso n , a J M em plo yee and unio n sec re tar y, in d ica te d sh e w ou ld c lea n ou t his loc ke r an d t e m p or ar ily tak e pos ses si on o fhi s be l ongings. H i s proper ty ( too l s) was then s tol en fro m W i l son ’ s o ffi ce. S m ei gh, however, neve r i nfo rm ed J M thatW i l son sti l lhad posse ssi on of hi s t oo l s o r th a th e o bj e c t e d t o h e rt e mpo r a r y p o s s e s s i o n o fth e m. He wa i v e d a nyc l a i m t o v i c a r i o us l i ab i l i t y a nd wi tho utp r o v i di ng so m e e vi dence thatJ M had the re quis i te m ens r ea, S me i g h ’ s c l a i m f a i l s a s a ma t t e ro fl a w.

I . B a c kg r o und S m ei g h s ta r te d wor k i ngf o rJ M in 199 4 an d thr o ugho ut hi s e mpl o y men t b e l o ng e d t o a un i o n. S mei g h was a n excel l ent, r el i abl e, and ti re l ess w or ker

. H e was co nsi dered

### No. 10-3388 3 k no wl edg eabl e, ha d a s po tl es s empl o y m en t r ec o r d, a nd w ou ld often w ork overtim e hou rs

— 50 to 60 hours a week. On Septem ber20 , 20 08, S m eig h suffer ed a work pla ce inj ury

— he se ver ed the tip o f h i s fi ngerwh i l e m oving a f i be r i z e rc a r t
. Wh i l e wa i t i n gf o ra n a mb u l a n c e i n t he parking l ot, he spoke to hi s dir ect supervi sor, Bi l lS eam ans. J M enf or ced a pol i cy that re quir ed w or ker s inju re d on the j o b t o s ub mi tt o drugt e s t i ng . S mei g h t e s t i fi e d a s f ol l ows: Bi l l as k ed m e i fIwoul d ha ve a ny pr o bl ems pa ss i ng a dr ugt es t. A nd I t o l d hi m Is ho ul d no t ha ve a ny probl em s pass i ng a drug t est, bec ause Ido notuse drugs. A nd Isa i d i fby a n y c h an ce that Iwas to com e up i ncon c lu si ve orposi ti ve, i t’ s no t be cause Iwas o n a ny dr ug s. And he a sk ed m e whatImean t by that. A nd Ito l d him ab ou t a w eekpri orIhad w ent into a roo m wh er e s om e pothad bee n smok ed. And Idi d no t k no w ifi t woul d s ho w up i n my s y s t e m a s a p o s i t i v e r e s u l ta s , y o u kn o w, se c on d h an d br ea th in g. A cti ng pl ant m anage r M att W eber ar ri ved on the s cene as th e ambul an ce t o o kS m ei g h to th e ho spi ta l

. S ea m an s expla i ned to W eberthe nature o f the i nj ury and tol d W eber th at Sm eig h m igh t p ot e n tia lly fail a d ru g t es t. W eb er d id n otta lk to Sea m an s a b ou t t h e inc id en t a fte r h av in g t h is co nv er sa ti o n. W eberwe ntt o the h o s pi t a lwi th S mei g h. T he p a r t i es d isp u te th e c on te n t o ft h e ir co n ve rs at ion atth e h os p ita l. S m ei g h c l ai m s th eydi d no t ta l kabo utma r ij ua na o rdr ug us e. W eber cl ai m s th atS m ei g h t o l d hi m tha t he ( S m ei g h)

### 4 No. 10-3388

Sm eig h con ten d s th at JM ha d thre e d ifferen t sub stan ce ab u se 1 polic ie s: one i n th e em ployee hand boo k ( J uly 1998) , one t it le d “Uni f or m Su bs t anc e- Fr ee W or kpl ac e Pol i cy ,” an d the on e qu ote d her e d ated J u ly 2 00 7. Sm eig h d id n’t p r o p erly au the nticat e the fir sttwo p oli ci es , and ther ef ore, they aren’ t adm is sible. Ev en i fadm is sible, the evidence s how ed that the J uly 2007 pol i c y was i n e ffec tatthe t i m e ofthe ac c i dentan d thi s w as the po l i c y W e be r r e fe r e nc e d. had sm oke d m ar ij uana ov erLaborDay weeke nd

. Because thi s ca se com es to us on J M ’ s m oti on fo r sum m ar y j ud gm en t, w e t ake the f acts i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o Sm ei gh and as sum e that Sm ei gh neveradm i tte d to sm oki ng m ar ij uana. S m ei gh to oka drug scre en at the hospi tal that cam e ba ck negat i ve. H e had sur ger y a few days l ater and afterthe surg er y, W ebervi si ted Sm ei gh and r equeste d th at h e go in to w or k th at a fte rn oo n . U p on th e a d vic e o f h is doctor s, Sm ei gh decl i ned. S m ei gh di dn ’ t di scuss w or ker s’ co m pen sa ti o n wi th J M
. I ns te ad, J M t o o kthe i ni ti at i ve a nd fi led for w orkers’ com p en sation on Sm eigh’s beh alf

. Despit e S m ei gh’ s neg ati ve drug r esul ts, W eberdeci ded to i nvest i gat e whether Sm ei gh’ s “ adm i ssi on” w as a vi o l at i o n o fJ M ’ s su bs ta nc e ab us e po l i cy . The r el ev an t po l i c y i n e ffe c ts t a t e d: 1 [ T]he use, sa l e, poss ess i on, purchase o r tr ansfero f illeg al d rugs wh i l e o n oro ffthe j ob i s pro hibi ted and w i l lnotbe tol er ate d. The off-th e-j ob use o f alc o h ol or d ru gs in a n y m an n er th atad ve rs ely a ffe c t s j o b p e r f o r man c e wi l la l s o n o tb e t o l e r a t e d. V iolation of this poli cy w il l resu lt in d iscipli na ry

### No. 10-3388 5

m ea su re s a ga in st th e o f fen d er an d m ay res u lt in ter m i nati on o fem plo ym ent.

. . . I fan empl o y ee vo l unt ar i l y c o m es f o r war d a nd i denti fi es a s u b sta nce abuse pr obl em pri orto an i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o mme n c e d b y th e c o mp a n y, e mp l o y e e a s s i s t a n c e w i l lb e p r o v i de d o n a o n e - t i me b as is w ith n o im p ac t o n j ob st at u s . . . . W eb er co n ta c te d JM ’s H u m an R es ou rc e M an ag er G ail Thr ee t an d s he de te r m i ne d tha t S m ei g h h ad br ea ch ed th e su bs ta nc e ab us e po l i cyb as ed o n wha t W eb er to l d he r . S he a t t e s t e d: “ F r o m m yc onver sat i on with W eber, Iundersto o d, w hi l e wai ti ng f orthe am bul ance, S m ei gh to l d his di rect supervi sor[ the he ] would n ot p as s a drug tes t. Ifurther und er sto od Sm ei gh di scusse d his use ofm ar ij uana w i th W eb er w h ile W eb er w as at th e h os p ita l aft er th e a c c id en t.” T hree t con clud ed that “Sm eigh ha d m a d e an inv olun tary adm i ssi on o fi l l ega ld rug use a nd vi ol ate d JM ’ s S ubstance A b u se P olic y.” J M deci ded n ot to ter m i nate Sm ei gh as l ong as he si gned a S ti pu l ati on of Und er sta nd i ng. W eberm et w i th uni on re prese ntati v e s t o di scuss the S ti pu l ati on. On Septe m ber24 ( f o urda y s afte rh i s i nj ur y ) , S m ei g h a tt en ded a m ee ting wi thJ M m an ag ement an d uni o n r epr es en ta ti ve s wher e he wa s p r e s e nt e d wi th the S t i pu l a t i o n, wh i c h pr o v i de d: (1) M r. S m ei gh wil lbe re quir ed to m eetwith a n EA P [ empl o y ee a ss i st an ce pr o g r am] c o uns el o ra nd sig n ap p ro p ria te rele as e o f info rm at ion form s . . . . (2) M r. Sm eig h m u st co m p ly w ith an d c om p let e a ll co uns el i ngr ec o m m en dati o ns r efer r i ngt o min d

### 6 No. 10-3388 alt er in g c h em ica ls. V er ifica tio n of co m p let io n is re q u ire d

. ( 3) M r. Sm ei gh m ust subm i t to ei ght ( 8) ran d om drug and al coholdetec ti on t es ts o r tes t for cause w i thi n twelv e ( 12) m onths ofr etur ni ng to w or k . .

. . A n y c on firm ed p os i t i v e res u lts w ill re su lt in te rm in at ion
. ( 4) A l lexpenses notco ver ed by tr eat m ent pr og r ams wi l lb e th e r es po ns ibi l i tyo fM r . S m ei g h. ( 5) A ny vi ol ati on o fthi s agr eem ent a s dete rm i ned by the Com pany w i l lr esul t in i m m edi ate te rm i nati on o f M r. S m ei gh, r ega rdl ess o fany speci al c irc u m st an c es th at m igh t s u rro u n d th e v iola tio n . Du ring the m eet i ng, no on e me nti o ne d wo r k e r s ’ co m pensatio n . S m ei g h r efus ed to s i g n the S ti pul at i o n e ve n tho ugh h e w as aw ar e that no t s i gni ng w oul d l i kel y r esul t in ter m i nati on. H e r eas oned thathe nevervi ol ate d the s ubstance abuse pol i cy and didn’t thi nk J M was f ollow in g proper disc i plina ryp r o c e dure s g i ven hi s neg ati ve drug te st re sul ts and fl aw l ess work re cor d. H e a l so thought i t was i l l ega l f orJ M to requi re h i m to p ay f orthe re quested drug tes ti ng. J M te rm i nated S m ei gh and sent hi m the offi ci alte rm i nation letter on Sep tem ber 25. Th e letter ind icated he w as term i nated f or r efusi ng to si gn the S ti pu l ati on. W hen ask ed i fthi s was an a ccurat e r eas on forhis te rm i nati on, S m ei gh r es po nde d: “ Bec au se Ir efus ed to s i g n the s ti p ulatio n a nd und er sta nd i t, ye s, that’s a n accur ate r eas on wh y I was fi r ed. ” Lat eri n h i s depo si ti o n, S m ei gh te st i fi ed th athe

### No. 10-3388 7 be l i ev ed he w as te r m i na te d bec au se he was i nj ur ed o n the j o b an d ha d a l o st
- ti m e ac ci den t. H e te st i fi ed: “ [ T] he equi pm en t tha t I was i nj ur ed o n was i m m edi at ely s hut dow n f orthe next 12 hou rs , b oth l i nes. S o they had 24 hou rs w orth of dow nt im e w he re they m oved the d rivers over th at I got hu rt on, w hich to m e states that they w ere ne g l i g en t o n the i ns ta l l at i o n ofthe dr i ve r s an d wer e try i ng to co ve r th eir bu tt s . . . from O SH A .” The un i o n fi l ed a g r i ev an ce o n b eh al fo fS m ei g h, b ut didn’tarbi tr ate hi s ca se. Inst ead, the unio n cal l ed Sm ei gh i nt o a m ee ting i n F eb r ua r y 20 09 to si gn a Rei ns ta te m en t A gr e e men t t o s e t t l e the g r i e v a nc e . Th a t a g r e e men thad l ess o nero us te rm s than the St i pu l ati on. I t r equi re d Sm ei gh to su b m it t o a n ot h er d ru g s c re en u p on w i t h d r a w al of h is gr iev an c e. If th e t es t c am e b ac k n e g a t i ve , JM w ou ld re in sta te Sm ei gh w i th full seni or i ty, but not back pay. If r eins ta te d, S m ei g h wo ul d b e su bj ec t to a m ax i m um o ff o ur ra nd om d rug tes ts ove r the ne xt two ye ar s; J M ag re ed to pay al lc o s t s o fthe drugt e s t s . T he u ni o n e nc o ur a g ed Sm ei gh to si gn, but Sm ei gh r efu se d bec ause he be l i eve d th atJ M “ ha d no g r o unds ” to r equi r e hi m t o signthe agreem en t, an d he d id n ot w a n t to blem ish his w ork re cor d. ( A t o ra lar gum ent, co unself orS m ei gh al so poi nted to the f act that the a gr eem ent di dn ’ t provi de backp ay as a bas is for Sm eigh’s refusal to si gn . O f c ou rse, cou ns el’ s ar gu m en t c an n otbe a su b st itu te for re c or d ev id en c e). A t the ti m e ofh i s ter m i nati on, Berni ce W i l son, as uni on r ec o r di ngs ec r et ary, i nf o rm ed S m ei g h tha t th e uni o n a nd com pany w oul d be cl eani ng out h i s lo cker s and to olboxes , and that he would then g et h i s per sonalpro pertybac k.

### 8 No. 10-3388 Sm eig h ac kn ow led ge d t h at w h en em p loy ee s a re te rm inated, J M m ust s epara te thei r perso na l p roperty fro m c o m p a n y p ro p er ty . Sm eig h d id n otrais e t h e is su e o f h is perso nalpro pertywith J M bec ause he “a ssum ed that [ he] w oul d be g ett i ng [ hi s] j ob backafterthe gr i evance pro cess , afteri t went to arbi tr ati on. ” S m ei gh’ s l ock erwa s cl eaned out and W i l son too k pos ses si on ofhi s pro perty
. S m ei gh l a t e rc o nt a c t e d Wi l s o n ab o uth i s p r o pe r t y . He t e s t i fi e d: Iha d i nqui r ed ab o ut m yt o o l s wi thBe r ni ce W i l so n. A n d sh e s ai d t h at sh e h ad se n t a few [p er so n al] i te m s ho m e . . . . Buta s far as my t o o l s, s he i nf or m ed m e that they were in hero ffi c e, and that she ne eded to go thr ough them

. T hen abo ut a w eek l ate r, she i nfo rm ed m e that s om e o fm y t oo l s had b ee n st ole n ou t o f h er offic e, an d th at s h e w ou ld have to re pla ce them

. A nd I ’ ve neverhear d fr om h er sin c e o n th e is su e o f m y t oo ls.

I I . Di s c us s i o n S m ei g h a ss er ts tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n g r an ting su m m ary j ud gem en t to J M on his claim s f or retali atory d ischa r g e and conv ersion. W e review a district cou rt’s gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent de nov o, co nstr uingal lf acts a nd r e a s o nab l e i nfe r e nc e s i n the l i g htmo s tf a v o r ab l e to th e n on -m ov in g p a r t y . Spi vey v . Adapt i veM ktg. LL C, 62 2 F. 3d 816, 82 2 ( 7th Cir
. 2010 )
. S um m ar y j ud gm ent i s a pp ro pr i at e i f“ th e m o va nts ho ws tha t t he re i s no g enui ne dispute as to an y m at eri alf act and the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm en t as a m atter of l aw . ” Fed . R . C iv. P. 56(a). Even const ruing the f acts i n f avo r ofS m ei gh, we agr ee w i th

### No. 10-3388 9 th e d ist ric t c ou rt t h a t h e c an n otsu c c ee d on eith er h is r e t a l i a t i o n o rc o n v e r s i o n c l a i m a s a ma t t e ro fl a w.

A . Reta l i at ory Dischar ge U n d er Ind ian a la w , “[g]e n er ally , em p loy er s m ay te rm inate em plo yee s forno cause w hatso eve r orfor an y c ause at al lwitho ut i ncurr i ng l i abi l i ty. ” Ham ann v. Gat e s Che vrole t, Inc. , 91 0 F
. 2d 1417, 14 18 ( 7th Ci r. 199 0). On e e xcepti on to thi s g ener alr u le i s that a n em plo yee wh o has be e ndi sc ha r g ed i n r et al i at i o n fo rfi l i nga wor k er s’ c o m pen sa tio n cl ai m m ay re cove r dam age s forwrongful ter m i natio n . Fram pt on v. Ce nt
. Ind. Gas Co. , 29 7 N
. E.2 d 425, 42 8 (I nd. 1 97 3) ( ho l di ngtha t ane m pl o y ee who a l l eg es he w as disc harg ed i n re tal i ati on f or fi l i ng a cl ai m pursuant to the Ind i a na Wo r k men ’ s Co mpe ns a t i o n Acth a s s t a t e d a cl ai m upon w hic h rel i efcan be g ra nted). To s urvi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n a Fram pt on claim , the p la in tiff m ust p resent evi dence thatwould support a fi nd i ng tha t th e d isc h ar ge w as c au se d b y his filing for b en efit s. Goetzke v. Ferro C o rp . , 28 0 F
. 3d 76 6, 7 74 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. A su cc es sful litig an t m u s t d em on st ra te th at h is d isc h ar ge w as so lely i n r et al i at i o n fo rthe e xe r ci se o f a st atut o r y r i g ht, mean i ng tha t a ny and al lr eas ons f orthe disc harg e m u st be u n law fu l in o r d e r to su st ain a c laim

. Pur dy v. Wr ight Tre e Serv., Inc. , 835 N
. E
. 2d 209, 212 (I nd

. Ct
. A p p . 2005). Causati on m ay not be infe rr ed m er el y fro m ev i dence that th e em p loy ee filed for b en efit s an d w as fi re d

. See Ham ann , 91 0 F
. 2d at 1420
. B ecause Sm ei gh “d oes n ot have dir ect evi dence, he m ust r ely o n i nd i re ct e vi dence of re ta l i a t o r y mo t i v e , s uc h a s p r o xi mi t y in t i me b e t ween

### 10 No. 10-3388 the fi l i ng o fthe cla im and the ter m i nati on o r evi dence that the e m plo yer ’ s a sse rt ed l aw ful re as on forthe discharg e i s pre text. ” H uds on v. Wal

-M ar t St ore s , Inc . , 41 2 F
. 3d 78 1, 78 5 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). “ [ T ]im in g e vid en c e is rar ely suffi ci ent in and ofi tse l fto cr eat e a j ury issue on ca usati on[ , ] ” i d. a t7 8 7, b u t“ wh e n c o n s i d e r e d wi th o th e rc i r c u msta nces, the tem pora lpro xim ity betw een t er m i nati on an d fil ing of th e w orker’s com p en sation claim m ay satisfy the pl ai nti ff’ s bur den i n so m e ca ses[ , ] ” Goetzke, 28 0 F
. 3d at 77 4. A p l a i nt i ffb r i ng i nga r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m m us tfi r s tp ro ve, by a pre pond er ance o fthe ev id ence, hi s pri m a f aci e ca se. P ow der tech I n c. v. Joga nic, 77 6 N
. E.2 d 1251, 12 62 ( I nd

. Ct. A pp . 2 002)
. The bur den then shi fts to the e m plo yer to ar ti cul at e a l eg i ti m at e, non di sc r i m i na to r y r ea so n fo rthe d isc h ar g e. Id. I fthe e m pl o y ermeet s th atb ur den, the n the empl o y ee ha s th e o ppo r tu ni tyto pr o ve , a g ain b y a pr epo nder an ce o fthe eviden ce , tha t th e r ea so n o ffer ed bythe em p loy er is p re te x tu al. Id. Pr et ex t ca n be sh o wn byde m o nst r at i ngtha t th e e m pl o y er ’ s “e xpl an at i o n fo rthe fi r i ng was e i th er d i sh o ne sto rpa te nt l y i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe evi dence befor e the co urt. ” H uds on , 41 2 F. 3d at 785 ( quotations om i tte d). To m ake thi s s how i ng, an e m plo yee m ust produce ev i dence showing that( 1) the em plo yer ’ s s tat ed r ea so n h as no b as i s i n f ac t; ( 2) a l th o ugh b as ed o n f ac t, the sta ted r eas on w as not the a ctualr eas on fordi schar ge; o r ( 3) the s ta te d r ea so n was i ns uffi ci en t t o war r an t th e disc harg e. Po w der te ch , 776 N
. E.2 d a t 1262
. The foc u s of a prete x t inquir y i s whether the e m plo yer ’ s s tat ed re aso n w as honest, notwh etheri t was acc urat e, wise o r w ell-c on sid er ed

. Se ePur dy, 83 5 N
. E. 2d at 21 4 ( “[ T] he i ss ue

### No. 10-3388 11

o fpr et ex t do es no t co nc ern the a ppr o pr i at en es s o fthe r e a s o n s o ffe r e d b y th e e mpl o y e rf o ri t s e mpl o y m en t dec i si o ns [ ; ]
. . . the i ss ue [ i s] whethe rthe e m pl o y erho nestly beli eves i n th e exp lanation i t offers.”)
. I n H uds on , the pla i nti ff e m plo yee was pun ched by anothe r em plo yee and tak en to the hospi talf ori nj u rie s. 41 2 F
. 3d at 78 3- 84
. W al

- M ar t i nv es ti g at ed th e ac ci den t an d deter m i ned th at t h e pl ai nti ffhad prov oke d the fi ght. B oth em p loyees w ere term inated pu rsu a n t to W al- M art’s W orkp lace Violence P oli cy. A fter th e incide nt, the p lai nt iff in q u i r ed ab ou t filin g for w or ke rs ’ co m p en sa tio n . Id. He r e t u r n e d t o w o r kab o u ta w e e kl a t e r, a tw h i c h t i me h e w as in for m ed of h is t er m in at ion
. Id. at 784. Th e plaintiff su b se q u en tly filed for w or ke rs ’ co m p en sa tio n . Id. at 785. W e f ound tha t W al-M ar t off er ed a l egi ti m ate , non -retalia t ory reason f or firing the p lai nt iff

— he was i nvol ved i n a physi cal al ter cati on at w or k with a c o- w or ker afte rwee k s o fb i ck er i ng

— and the p l ai nti ff’ s argum ent that he s ho ul dn’ t ha ve b ee n fi r ed be ca us e he was a n inno ce nt vi cti m was “bes i de the poi nt. ” Id. at78 6. W e r eas oned th at“ [ t] he j udi ci ary i s no t a su per - per so nne lde p ar tment th at ree x am in es an d rein ve st i g a t es em p loy ee d isp u te s.” Id. Ou rc o nc e r n i s wh e the rthe p r o ffe r e d r e a s o n g i ven b y t h e e m p loy er is a lie t o c ov er u p for r e t a liat ion
. Id. The pl aint i ffi n H uds on c ou ld n otm ak e t h is s h ow in g. Id

. W e ac k no wl edg ed th atthe pl aint i ffi n H uds on w as fi re d sh o r tly a fte rhe i nqui r ed ab o utwor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n, b ut we s t a t e d th a tth i s a l o n e w a s i n s u ffi c i e n tt o d e fe a ts u mm a r y j u d gm en t. Id. a t 78 6- 87
. W e r ea so ne d tha t th e “sam e underl yi ng i nci dent l ed to bo th H ud son’ s t er m i na-

### 12 No. 10-3388 t i o n ( a t l e a s t the s t a t e d r e a s o n f o r i t, whi c h Huds o n [ did ] not effecti vel y underm i ne) and hi s work er s’ co m pensati on c laim , w h ich m a[d e] H u d so n ’s t im in g e vid en c e a w as h .” Id. W e hel d that the t im in g evi dence w as not suffi ci ent, inan d of its elf, to cr ea te a fac t is su e fo r th e jur y. Id
. at 787. W hi l e o therev i dence ofr eta l i ati on co uld m ake th e tim ing evide nc e strong er (al low ing a reason able j ury to fi nd in the pl aint i ff’ s f av o r ) , the pl aint i ffdi dn’ t pr es en t su c h ev id en c e. Id. I ns te ad, W al

- M ar t o ffer ed a st r o ng cre dibl e r eas on for te rm i nati ng the pl ai nti ff, and thus, we f o und i t i na p p ropr i at e to a tt ac h s i g ni fi ca ntwei g ht to th e p lain tiff’s p ro x im ity ev id en c e. Id. Sm eigh reli es he avily on p roxim ity evi d en ce to su p p ort hi s cl ai m f or re tal i ati on. I fti m i ng was al lthatwas needed to cre ate a re asonabl e infe re nce o fr eta l i ati on, S m ei gh w ou ld h a v e a go od ca se . H e w as te rm in at ed sh or tly afte rhi s ac ci den t an d the fi l i ngf o rwor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n. B ut as H uds on expla i ns, ti m i ng ev i dence, byi tse l f, is ra re ly su fficie n t to c re at e a j u ry q u es tio n . T h at is es p ec ially true he r e wher e th er e was a n int er ve ni nge ve ntl ea di ng to Sm ei gh’ s t er m i nati on a nd no evi dence ofpre text. Se eCas key v . Colgat e - Palm ol i veCo. , 53 5 F
. 3d 585, 59 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) (fi nd i ng the p l ai nti ffu nabl e to m ake a casual c on n ec tio n ev en th ou gh sh e w as d isc ip lin ed an d te rm inated sho rt l y a fterheri nj ury w here there w er e s eve ra l i nter veni ng ev en ts, i ncl ud i ng a ser i es ofunexerc i sed ab se n c es , l ea d in g t o h er te rm i n at ion ); s e eal s o Pur dy, 835 N
. E.2 d at 214 ( fi nd i ng em plo yer ’ s r eas on fordi schar ge w asn ’t a pre text f ordi scr i m i nati on; r ather, the cause of Purdy’s di schar ge w as his m edi cali nabi l i ty to re turn t o wor ka t th e co nc l us i o n o fhi s F M LA l ea ve pe r i o d)

. The

### No. 10-3388 13 f acts sho w thatS m ei gh w as ter m i nated f orhi s f ai l ure to si gn the Sti pu l ati on aft erh e indi cate d he m i ght no t pass a drug te st. Sm ei gh has not prese nted suffi ci ent e vi dence to cre ate a genui ne i ss u e ofm ate ri alf act that J M ’ s s tat ed re as on for Sm eig h ’s d isc h ar ge w as p re te x tu al. I t i s un d isp uted that at the t i m e o fhi s inj ury Sm ei gh i nd i cate d t o hi s s up er vi sorthatther e was a possibi l i ty that he m i ght no t pass a drug tes t

— no t be ca us e he was a dr ug user, but because he ha d been a ro u nd m ar ij uana sm oke

. This adm i ssi on, h owever, was re aso n f orJ M to i nvest i gat e an d t ak e eff o r ts t o e ns ur e tha t Sm ei g h was no t a dr ug us er . J M ha s a wor k pl ac e po li cya g ains t o ff si te dr ug u se an d JM h ad rea so n to be liev e Sm eig h vio lat ed th is p olic y e ve n t h ou gh h e te st ed n eg at ive for d ru gs . “It is w ellest abl ish ed that an em plo yee can be t er m i nated f orvi ol atio n s o f va lid w or k ru les t h at a p p ly to all em p loy ee s . . . . ” P ow der te ch , 77 6 N
. E.2 d at 1 262. S m ei gh ar gues that J M vi o l at ed i ts i nt erna lsub st an ce abus e po l i cyf o rs o m eo ne w ho volu nt aril y ad m its to dru g use , and J M ’s fa ilure to f ol l ow it s o w n pol i cy con stitutes evi dence ofpre text. Se ee . g. , R u d in v. Li ncoln Land C m ty. Co ll
. , 42 0 F
. 3d 712, 727 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “[ A ] n em plo yer ’ s f ai l ure t o fol l ow it s ow n i n te rn al e m p loy m en t p ro c ed u re s c an co n st itu te evid en ce of pretex t.”)
. S m eigh, how ever, was n’ t te r m i na te d unt i lhe r efus ed t o s i g n the S ti pul at i o n, so hi s a rgum ent b oils dow n to thi s: J M so ught t o re tal i ate ag ain sth im for filin g a w or ke rs ’ co m p en s a t i o n cla im by prese nti ng hi m with the S ti pu l ati on in vi ol ati on o fi ts intern al poli cy. T his argu m en t m akes li ttle sens e. First, J M filed for w or ke rs ’ co m p en sa tio n on Sm eig h ’s b eh alf an d s ec o nd, i fS m ei g h h ad si g ne d the Stip ul at i o n, he

### 14 No. 10-3388

w oul d have r eta i ned his j ob. The t erm s o fthe St i pu l ati on cer tainl y were n’tso o nero us as to r esul t in con structi ve d isc h ar ge , B aker v. Tre m co, Inc. , 9 1 7N. E. 2 d 6 5 0 , 6 5 5 ( I nd

. 2009 ) ( sta ti ng tha t a cause o fact i on forco nstr ucti ve re tal i ato rydi schar ge exi sts f oran e m plo yee w ho can sho w th athe ha s be enf o r ce d t o r es i g n a s a r es ul t o fe xercis i ng th is s ta tu to rily c on fer re d righ t), n or d oe s Sm eig h m ak e t h is ar gu m en t. The re cor d show s that J M wanted Sm ei gh to sign th e Stipu lation and reta in h is j ob. Given thes e interven ing facts betw een his i nju r y and disch arge, Sm eigh’s ar gum en t th athe was fi r ed i n r et al i at i o n fo robtaining w or ke rs ’ co m p en sa tio n falls flat

. Fu rt h er, Three t’ s co ncl usi on that S m ei gh m ade an i nvol untaryadm i ssi on o fi lleg al druguse w as not so “patently i nconsi ste nt with the e vi dence” t o “sugg est s that re tal i ati on was af oo t. ” Hu d s on , 4 12 F.3d at78 6. JM co u ld concl ud e that S m ei gh’ s s tat em ent about possib l y no t p assing a d rug test, m ad e only after he w as aw are h e ’d ha v e t o s u b mi t t o o n e , wa s n o t v o l u n t a r y wi th i n t he m eani ng o fJ M ’ s s ubstance abuse pol i cy. H i s e xplana tion ab ou t b ein g in a ro om w ith m ar ij u an a sm ok e w as ce rt ain ly c u riou s. E ve n if h e h ad m ad e a vo lu n ta ry ad m iss ion w ith in the par am ete rs o fthe substa nce ab use pol i cy, despi te Sm ei gh’ s co ntenti ons to the c ontr ar y, he was o ffer ed em plo yee as si sta nce a nd the abi l i ty to re tain hi s j ob. I t i s no t forus t o deci de w hetherS m ei gh sho uld have b ee n req u ire d to sign th e St ip u lat ion
. Se ee . g, O ’Reg an v . A r b i t ra t i o n F o r u ms , Inc . , 246 F
. 3d 975, 98 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) (find ing no p retex t un d er Title VIIand A D E A w he re the e m plo yee was re quir ed to si gn an em plo ym ent a gr ee-

### No. 10-3388 15

m en t th ats he c lai m ed was unl awful ; “ th e f ac t th atthe A gr eem ent m ay have been unnecessary, i neffecti ve or un en forceable w ou ld, at m ost, ind icate th at [the em p loyer] m ade a bad busi ness d ec isi on, ” but i t di dn ’ t dem onst ra te th at th e em p loyer i m p lem en ted the A greem en t t o j us tify th e fi r i ngo fo l derwomen)
. The o nl y que st i o n b efo r e us i s whether re quir i ng S m ei gh to si gn the S ti pu l ati on t o kee p hi s j o b was pr et ex t f o rr et al i at o r y mot i ve . The r e i s no th i ng to sh ow t h at it w as. The f act that J M was w i l l i ng to al l ow Sm ei gh to si gn a Rei nsta te m ent Agree m ent ( w i th l ess o ne ro us te rm s) furthersupports a concl usi on that J M ’ s r eas ons f orte rm i nati on weren’ t pr ete x tu aland that J M was l eg i ti m at ely c o nc erne d that S m ei g h was us i ng (or h ad u se d ) illega l d r u gs . Sm eig h p oin ts to n ot h in g in th e re c or d to sh ow th at JM ’s d ec isio n t o t er m in at e h im h ad an yt h in g t o w ith w or ke rs ’ co m p en sa tio n . Sm ei gh ci tes to M a rkl ey E nterp ., Inc. v. G rov er, 716 N
. E.2 d 5 5 9 ( I nd

. Ct
. App. 1999) a nd D a le v. J.G. B o w ers, Inc . , 70 9 N
. E.2 d 366 ( I nd

. Ct. A pp . 19 99) , i n supp or t o f hi s cl ai m , but i n both thos e c as es there w as evi dence o fpr et ex t. In M a rkl ey, the co ur t he l d th ata j ur y c o ul d fi nd prete xt be cause ther e was ev i dence thatthe em plo yerhad d i sc ip lin ed th e p lain tiff on a p rior oc c as ion for a lleg ed ly a t t e mp t i n gt o fi l e a f a l s e w o r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n c l a i m. 7 1 6 N
. E
. 2 d a t 5 6 6
. F u r th e r, “ [ a ] n i n t e r n a lC o mp a n y me mo di sclo se [ d] a n e xt r emel y ho st i l e at ti tu de ag ains t [ th e pla i nti ff ] f orhaving at tem pted to fi l e the p re vi ous [ w or ker s’ com pensati on] cl ai m and s tat ed that [ the p lai nti ff’ s] em p l oy m en t w ou ld be te rm in at ed im m ed iat ely in th e even t of ‘an y repe at viol ations.”’ Id. The c o ur t f o und th o se f ac ts s uffi ci en t to r ai se a n i ss ue o f w he the rthe

### 16 No. 10-3388

em p loyer’ s tru e m o tive forterm inating th e plaintiff’s em plo ym ent was hi s fi l i ng o fthe w or kers’ co m pensati on c laim

. Id. S i m i l ar l y, i n D ale, 7 09 N
. E
. 2d a t 369-70, the cou rt foun d that a j ury co uld i nfer p retex t w he re th e em p loyer’ s st ate d rea son f orte rm i nati on

— that em plo yee ’ s m edi cal r es tr i ct i o ns r en der ed hi m unabl e to ful fi l lhi s j o b duti es

— w as i nconsi ste nt with evi dence thathi s j ob re str i cti ons w er e t em pora ryand w here the em plo yee was di sc ha r g ed j us t two da y s afte rr etur ni ngt o wor kand o ne d ay aft er rec eiv in g a n im p air m en t ra tin g. T h e o u tc om e in D alewas base d not o n suspi ci ous tim i ng al one, but on suspi ci ou s t i m i ng co m bi ned w i th st ro ng ev i dence ofpre text. S m ei gh hasn’ t s how n si m il arev i dence of p re te x t. O u r c on c er n is w h et h er JM ’s p ro ffer ed re as on for t er m in at in g S m e i g h w as a lie to co ve r u p ret alia tio n . A s in H uds on , S m ei g h di d no t m ak e th i s sh o wi nga nd no r ea so nabl e j ury coul d find i n hi s f avo r base d on the evi dence p re se n te d

.
B . C r i mi na l C o nv e r s i o n Sm ei gh al so brings a cl ai m f orcrim in al c onver si on agains t JM
. T o s uc ceed , Sm eigh ha s to show that J M “kno w i ngl y o r i ntenti onal l y e xert [ ed] una u thor i zed contr ol ” o verhi s pro p erty. Ind

. Code § 35- 43- 4- 3( a)
. “A perso n enga ges i n conduct ‘ knowingl y’ i f, wh e n heenga ges in th e con d u c t, h e is aw ar e o f a h igh p ro b ab ility th at h e is doi ng so . ” Id

. § 35- 41- 2- 2( b)

. A p erson’ s co ntro lo ver p ro p er ty of an ot h er p er so n is “u n au th or ize d ” if it i s e xert ed “i n a m an n ero r to an exte nt o therthan

### No. 10-3388 17

M en s r ea , ho wever, i s n ot an el em en toft or t i ous c onve rs i on. 2 C ompu t ers U nl i m i t ed, Inc. v. M idw es tData Sys. , Inc. , 657 N
. E.2d 16 5 , 1 7 1 ( I n d. C t
. Ap p . 1 9 9 5 )
. S me i g h d i d n o tb r i n g a c l a i m f or (co n tin u ed ...) that to w hi ch the oth erper son has co nsented. ” Id

. § 35-43-4-1(b)( 2). A pers on w ho h as su ffere d a pec un iary l oss as a r es ulto fa cri m i nalco nver si on m ay bring a c i v i la c t i o n t o r e c o v e rthe l o s s. JE TCr e di tU ni on v. Loud erm il k, 879 N
. E
. 2d 594, 597 (I nd

. Ct
. A p p . 2008). A cl ai m ant i n a c i vi lact i on m ust o nl y s how that th e d efend an t c om m itted th e crim inal act by a pre p ond eran c e o f th e e vid en c e. Fre nc h- Tex Cle ane rs , Inc . v. Cafaro Co. , 89 3 N .E .2d 11 56 , 116 6 (In d . C t. A p p . 200 8). Sm ei gh m ust pro ve a ll the el em ents ofthe al l ege d c rim in al a c t. Id. at 1166
. Cri m i nali ntent i s a n ess enti al ele m en t o f cr im in al c on ve rs ion
. Id. “It is th is m ens rea re quir em en t th at differ enti ate s cr i m i nalco nver si on fro m a m or e innocent bre ach o f c ontr act orf ai l ure to pay a debt, wh i ch si tuati ons the c ri m i nalco nver si on s tatute w as not i ntended to cove r. ” Id. at 1168 (find ing no con versi o n whe r e th e defen dan t ac te d i n ac co r dan ce w i thr ea so nabl e inter preta tio n of an am b igu ou s c on tr ac t); NationsCre dit C om m er cial C orp. v. Grauel E nte rs . , Inc. , 70 3 N
. E.2 d 1072, 10 79 (Ind . C t. A p p . 1 99 8) (sa m e). A d efe n d an t’s rea so n ab le bel i efthatshe contr ol l ed orconti nued to contr olpro perty wi ththe o wner ’ s co ns en t defea ts th e m en s r ea e l ement of c on ve rs ion
. Whi t l ock v. Brown , 596 F.3d 406, 413 (7th C ir. 2010 ). I f th e m en s rea elem en t exists, even a tem p orary de pr i v a t i o n o f pr o pe r t y i s s uffi c i e nt t o s uc c e e d und er th e s ta tu te
. Id. 2

### 18 No. 10-3388

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 t or t i ous c onve rs i on, whi c h “ c ons i s t s ei the r ofthe appr opr i at i on ofthe pers ona l pr ope rty ofan othe r t o the par t y’ s own us e and b en efit, or in its d estru ction , or in exer cising d o m i n ion ov er it, i n e x c l u s i o n a n d de fi a n c e o f th e r i g h t s o f th e o wn e r o r l awful posse ss or, or i n w ithholding itfrom his poss es si o n , u nd er a cl aim and tit le i nconsi st ent w ith the ow ner’ s. ” Id. ; seeal so S ch ren ke r v . S t ate , 919 N
. E. 2d 1188, 1194 ( Ind. Ct. Ap p. 2010) ( ex pl ai ni ng the di ffer en c e betweenc ri m i nalan d t or t i ous co n v er sio n ). S m eig h co nte nd s that JM con tinu ed to p ossess his too ls 3 despite his repeated reques ts f or them

. There are no rec ord ci tat ions f or these f actual content ions and they are contradic ted b y t h e re co rd . W e th er efo re d o n o t co n sid er su ch fac ts. S ee Fe d. R . A p p . P . 28 (a )(9)(A ) (re q u ir in g cit a tio n s to th e r ec o rd ). There i s no ev i dence i n th e re c or d that W i l son’ s co ntro l ove r Sm ei gh’ s proper ty w as unauthori zed or eve n if it w as u n au th or ize d , th at sh e w as aw ar e o f a h igh p ro b ab ility th at h er co n tr ol w as u n au th or ize d . Sm eig h ac kn ow ledged thati t was co m pany pro toc ol to so rtthr ough a ter m inated e m plo yee ’ s be l ongings t o separ ate per sonal proper ty fro m c om p any pr oper ty. H e was aware that W i l son w as going to ta ke hi s pro pertyand separ ate hi s t oo l s fro m J M ’ s t oo l s; ye t, he ne ve r obj ecte d. Sm ei gh i nquir ed abo ut hi s pro perty, and W i l son tol d him that sh e stil l ne ed ed to go th roug h his tools. Th e record doe sn ’t sugge st that Sm ei gh dem ande d the i m m edi ate r etur n of his tools or gave W il son an y ind ication th at he r tem p orary

3 p ossess ion of th em w as u na ut horized

. A w eek later, W i l son i nfo rm ed Sm eig h thattheyhad bee n sto l en fro m her o ffi c e . S he o ffe r e d t o r e pl a c e the m, b utthe n S mei gh

### No. 10-3388 19

n ev er h ea rd fr o m h er . A lth ou gh a d em an d for re tu rn “is not i tse l fan e l em ent o fcr i m i nalco nver si on, ” Lambe r tv. Yel low bird, Inc. , 496 N
. E
. 2d 4 06, 409 -10 (Ind

. Ct
. A p p . 1986), Sm eig h h ad to p re se n t e vid en c e t o ra ise a rea so n ab le i nfe re nce that W i l son w as aw ar e that herpos sessi on was u n au th or ize d . H e fa iled to d o s o. M or e i m port antl y, ther e is n o evidence that J M was aw ar e that W i l son sti l lh ad Sm ei gh’ s t oo l s o r that he rcont i nu e d p o s s e s s i o n o fthe m was u na utho r i z e d. W i l son i s no t par t o fJ M m an ag em ent; she i s a n hourl y em p l oye e. S m ei gh te sti fi ed that he di dn ’ t r ai se the i ssue ofhi s per sonalpro pertywh en he w as ter m i nated bec au se h e “ ass um ed that [ he] would be get ti ng [ hi s] j ob backafterthe grie vance proce ss, afteri t went to arbi tr ation.” A fter that d ay, Sm eigh ne ver in q uired w ith a JM m anage r about the r etur n ofhi s pro perty
. A n em p loy er c an b e h eld lia b le for co n ve rs ion as a re su lt of i ts em plo yee ’ s a cti ons und erthe doctr i ne o fr espondeat su p er ior. A co m p an y “ m ay be co n vic te d of an offe n se . . . i fi t i s pr o ve d tha t th e o ffen se was co m m i tt ed byi ts a g en t acting within the sco pe of hi s author i ty. ” I nd

. Code § 35

- 41- 2- 3. Thi s s ecti on cr eat es “a sta tutory v er si on o fr espondeat su p er ior” p u rs u an t t o w h ic h p r in c ip als are liab le f o ro ffe ns e s co mm i t t e d b y anag e ntac t i ngwi thin the s c o pe of h is a u th or ity
. Tip p e c a n o eBe ve r ag e s , In c . v . S
. A. El A gu ila B r e win g Co. , 8 33 F
. 2d 63 3, 6 37( 7th Ci r . 1 98 7)
. Oddl y, Sm ei g h di dn’ t r ai se a n a r g um en t o fv i ca r i o us l i abi l i ty at the di str i ct court, ev en tho ugh i t was address ed by J M i n it s sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ri ef

. A t o ra lar gum ent, S m ei g h a ckno wl edged thathe di dn’ t r ai se v i ca r i o us

### 20 No. 10-3388

Ru l e 3 8 r e q u i r e s e i th e r a se par at e l y fi l e d mot i o n o r th a twe 4 g iv e n o tic e w e a re co n sid e r i n g sa n ct io n s. G re viskes v. Un i v. R es ea rc h A ss ’ n, Inc. , 4 1 7 F. 3 d 7 5 2 , 7 6 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. W e have stated tha t “a state m en t inserted in a p arty ’ s br ief tha t the p arty m oves f or s ancti ons i s not s uffic ie nt notice
. ” Id. ; s eeal so F e d. R. A p p . P
. 38 ad v isory com m . no tes ( 19 94 am en d m en ts) ( “R equ ests (co n tin u ed ...) l i abi l i ty bel ow an d w asn’ t r ai si ng i t o n appeal

. S m ei gh th erefore ha s w aived th is argu m en t. A s th e d istr ic t cou rt st at ed, “W i thout a vi car i ous l i abi l i ty hooko r evi dence to es ta b lish cr im in a l int en t, Sm eig h ’s c on ve rs ion cla im f ai l s. ” S meigh v . Joh n s M an vi l l e, In c. , No. 1: 09- cv- 0414, 2010 W L 37814 92, at * 10 (S. D
. Ind

. Sept
. 2, 2010). W e s i m i l ar l y c oncl ud e tha t Sm ei gh, wh o ar guabl y m ay h av e h ad a c laim ar i s in g in n eg lige n c e fo r th e los s o f h is p ro p er ty , s e eKo t t l ows kiv . Br i dg e s t on e/F i r e s t on e, Inc. , 67 0 N
. E. 2d 78 , 8 2- 84 ( I nd. Ct. A pp. 19 96 ) ( fi ndi ngg enui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act on ba i lm en t cl ai m wh er e e m plo yee s left t he ir tools at em p loyer’ s p rem ises and they w ere st ole n ), ca n n otm ak e o u t a cla im for c rim in al c on ve rs ion
. J M c o nt en ds th atS m ei g h’ s co nv er si o n cl ai m i s fr i vo l o us and seek s s ancti ons pu rs uant to Rule 38 of the F edera l R u les of A p p ella te P ro c ed u re . W e a gr ee t h a t h i s c laim i s fr i vo l o us , b ut for the r ea so ns s ta te d b el o w, we dec l i ne to aw ar d m on et ar y d am ag e s t o JM . Ru le 3 8 s ta te s: “If a c ou rto f a p p ea ls d et er m in es th at an ap p ea l is frivo lou s, it m ay, a fte ra s epa r at ely fi l ed m o ti o n o rno ti ce f rom the co u rt and reason able op p ortu nity to resp ond , aw ard j u s t d am ag es an d sin gle or d ou b le c os ts to th e a p p elle e.” F ed. R. App. P. 3 8. Under Rul e 38 , we m us t fi r stde te r m i ne 4

### No. 10-3388 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 i n b r i e fs for san ction s hav e b eco m e so co m m on p lace th at it is unr ea l i s t i c t o ex pec t c ar eful r es pons es t o s uc h r eques t s without any indicat ion that the courtis a ctually c ontem plati ng such m easu res.”). J M d id n’t file a sep ara te m o tion f or sanc tion s; it arg u ed for sa nc tion s in its b rief a nd S m eig h failed to resp on d to J M ’ s reques t ( Sm ei gh d idn’ t fil e a r eply brief )
. Sm ei gh w as then gi venthe oppor t uni t y to addre s s s anc t i ons duri ng o ra l ar gum en t
. Bec aus e we dec l i ne t o i s s ue m one t ar y s anc t i ons , we do n ot n e e d t o c o n s i d e r wh e th e r n o t i c e t o S me i g h u n d e r th e s e c i r c u msta n ce s is su ffici en t u n d er R u le 38
. i fthe appeal i s fri vol ous, and if w e fi nd i t i s, we have disc re ti on to aw ar d s ancti ons or decl i ne to do so

. In reBagdade, 334 F. 3d 568, 581 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. “An appeal is friv olo u s w h en th e re su lt is o b vio u s or w h en th e a p p ellan t’ s a rgum ent i s wholly without m er i t. ” Grove Fres h Dis t r i b s . , Inc . v. John Lab at t, Lt d. , 29 9 F
. 3d 635, 64 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( quo ta ti o ns om i tt ed)

. “Pur su i nga fr i vo l o us a p p e a li n v i t e s s a n c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n gj u s td a ma g e s , wh i c h we m ay i m pose i n ourco nsi dered di scr eti on. ” Id. “ S an ct i o ns ar e a pp ro pri ate i f the appell ant m er el y re sta tes ar gum ents proper l y rej ecte d by the di str i ct c ourtthatar e unsupp or ted by a r eas oned co l or abl e a rgum ent foral ter i ng the di str i ct c o ur t ’ s j ud g ment. ” P erry v . P o gem iller, 16 F. 3d 138, 14 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. W e hav e held t h at “the com bi nati on o f fr i vo l o us l eg ala r g um en ts
. . . a nd fr i vol ou s fa ctua la r g um en ts ” m ay w a r r a n t s an c tio n s. In reBagdade, 33 4 F
. 3d at 581 (citation om itted ). Sm eig h d id n otad d re ss an y of th e d ist r i c t c ou rt ’s w ellr e a s o n e d e x p l a n a t i o n s f o rdi s mi s s i n gh i s c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m. H i s ar gum ent at the di str i ct c ourtand on a pp ealspans l ess

### 22 No. 10-3388 than o ne page a n d i s wholly undevel oped. Ratherthan re str ucturi ng hi s a rgum ent t o dem onst ra te that the di str i ct c ou rt ’s d ec isio n w as in e rro r, h e ins te ad c u t an d p as te d h is sum m ar y j ud gm ent a rgum ent i nto his appel l ate br i ef

— “a ta c tic w h ich co u ld n oth op e t o s u c c e e d o n ap p ea l.” Se eBagdade, 3 34 F
. 3d at 58 2. The di st r i ct co ur t po i nt ed o ut a s ign ifica n t fla w in Sm e igh ’s c laim

— he di dn’ t m ak e an y ar gum ent that JM could be h el d l i abl e fo r the acti ons ofi ts em p loyee. Th e d istri ct cou rt also not ed th at Sm eigh’s fac tu al a ss e r t i o n th at h e h ad d em an d ed th e re tu rn of h is prop er ty fro m J M was unsup port ed by the r eco rd. Even th ou gh th e d ist ric t c ou rtp oi n te d ou t t h at h is c laim w as h o p e l es s, Sm eig h p er sis te d in p u rs u in g it o n ap p ea l, m aking the sa m e ( ne ar ly verbati m ) fri vol ous a rgum ents. Se ee . g. , Pe rry , 1 6 F. 3d at 140 ( i ssui ng sa ncti ons w hen appell ant “ offer ed no v al i d l ega lsupport f orhi s pos i ti on on a pp eal othe r than thatpro perl y r ej ecte d by the di str i ct cou rt”). S m ei g h’ s co uns elr es po nde d a t o r ala r g um en t th ato ur re vi ew i s de no vo and he can r ai se the s am e a rgum ents to thi s co urt as bel ow and i sn’ t per m i tte d to ra ise new ar gum en ts
. Al th o ugh t r ue , he c er ta i nl y c o ul d ha ve e xpla i ned w hy the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on w as er ro neo us

— f orexam ple , he c oul d h ave expla i ned how S m ei gh can succee d without ass er ti ng vi car i ou s li abi l i ty

— or, i f he has no e xplanat i on, he c oul d have deci ded notto appeal h i s c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m. “Rule 3 8 is per m i ssi ve”; we m ay “decl i ne to i m pose sancti ons eve n i fthe a pp eali s fri vol ous. ” Indep. Lif t Truck Bu ild e rs U ni on v. Nac co M at e r i al s Handl i ng Grou p ,

### No. 10-3388 23 202 F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2000) (qu otations om itted ).

“ Ho w w e ex e r c i s e [ o ur ] di s c r e t i o n maytu r n o n o urp e r c e ptio n of w h et h er an ap p ella n t a c te d in b ad fait h .” Berwick Grai n Co. , Inc. v. Ill
. D ep’tof Agric
. , 217 F. 3d 50 2, 505 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. W e fi nd thatthi s case is too cl ose to th e lin e t o w ar ra n t m on et ar y s an c tio n s. SeeRo ss v. RJM Acq ui s i tio ns Fun di ng LLC, 48 0 F
. 3d 493, 49 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( sanct ion s not i m posed but att or ney warned thathe was “s k at i ngne arthe edg e o fhi s po nd” )
. S m ei g h r ai se d a no nfr i vo l o us ar g um en t ( r et al i at o r y di sc ha r g e) o n a ppea l, a nd J M ha d t o e xpend o nl y min i m ale ff o r t i n r es po ndi ng to Sm ei gh’ s fri vol ous c onver si on cl aim
. W e no nethel ess ad m on ish co u n se l for ap p ella n t, J o el S. P au l, th at th is port i o n o fh i s a pp e a ldo e s n o tme e to urs t a nd a r ds f or p re se n tin g a n d d ev elo p in g a rg u m en ts on ap p ea l.

I I I . Concl usio n F o rthe r ea so ns s etf orth ab o ve , the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

6- 29- 11