## 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. 11

- 2509 V I R GI NI A H UNT, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. D A V IT A, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 10- cv-00602

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 13, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 4, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. Vir gi nia H unt had w or ked f o rde fen dan t DaV i ta, Inc . fo rnine te eny ea r s when sh e had a hear t a tta ck re quir i ng by pas s su rger y a nd went on m edi c a ll e a v e . Whi l e o n l e a v e , s he a l s o r e c e i v e d t r e atm ent forcar pal tunnelsy nd ro m e. A ftersi x m onths of l eave , DaVit a t er m i nated herem plo ym ent purs uant to its e st ab l i sh ed l ea ve po l i cy . Da Vi ta t o l d Hunt th ats he w as el i gibl e forr e- hi re to herposi ti on o nce she w as2 N o. 11

- 2509

me d i c a l l y c l e a r e d t o wo r ka g a i n . Hu n tth e n fi l e d a l a wsui t in sta te cour t all eging tha t s he was fi re d i n re tal i ati on f orherin tenti on t o fi l e a worke rs ’ co m pensati on cl aim r el ate d to her car pal tunnelsy nd ro m e. DaVit a re m ove d the l aw sui t to the U ni ted St ate s Dist rict C ourt, whi chg r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t f o rDa Vi ta o n the r et al i at i o n c l ai m s. W e affi r m . Hu nt ha s no t o ffer ed an y evi dence that the re l evantdeci si on- m ake r eve n knew ofherpote nti alworke rs ’ co m pensati on cl ai m o r w as i nfluenced by anyo ne w h o did know, so H unt cannot sh o w an ac t i n r et al i at i o n. H unt fi rs t r ai ses a j uri sdic ti onaliss u e, ar gui ng tha t the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have r em anded the case to sta te cour t forf ai l ure to sa tisfy the am ount- i n-c ontr over sy re quir em ent forfedera ldi ver si ty j uri sdic ti on unde r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 3 2
. Aft e r the r e mov a l, Hun t di savowed and o ffered to re turn a ny dam age s that m i ght b e a w ar ded i n excess o f$75, 000. The di str i ct cou rt d i d no t er rwheni t f o und, c o ns i st en t wi th LM Ins. Corp. v . S pa u l di n g Ente rpr i s e s Inc. , 5 33 F. 3d 542, 54 7 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ), th at H u n t h ad n otsh ow n it w as “le ga lly cer tain” thatthe am ount in contr ove rs y would notexce ed $75, 000. H unt so ught punit i ve dam age s in herco m pla i nt, and even a m odest pu ni ti ve- to- com pensato rydam age s ra tio of tw o o r t h r e e t o on e c ou ld h av e le d to an aw ar d in ex cess of $75,000. In ad d it io n , as the d istri ct cou rt corre ctl y no ted, H unt’s post
- re m ova ldi scl ai m ero fdam age s exceedi ng $75, 000 coul d not defeatfedera lj urisdi cti on after a proper re m ova l base d o n the com pla i nt . See St
. Paul M e r cu ry Inde m ni ty Co. v . R ed Cab Co. , 303 U
. S. 28 3 , 2 9 2 ( 1 9 3 8 ) ( p o s t
- r e mo v a la me n d me n tt o c o mpl ai ntN o. 11

- 2509 3 or stipu lation l im iti ng da m ages d id n ot requ ire rem an d ); B ack Doc t ors L t d. v . M e t r op ol i t an Prop e r ty an d Cas ualty Ins . Co. , 63 7 F
. 3d 82 7, 83 0 (7 th Ci r. 20 11) ( post- re m ova l d isclai m e r lim iti ng da m ages d id n ot p erm it r em an d ); C hase v. Shop ‘NSave WarehouseFoods, Inc. , 11 0 F
. 3d 424, 42 9 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ) (p os t-r e m o v a l st ip u lat ion to lim it d am ag es d i d n otd efe at d ive rs ity j u ris d ict ion ); In re She l l O i l Co. , 9 70 F
. 2d 35 5, 3 56 ( 7th C ir. 19 92 ) ( g r an ting w ri t o fma nd a mus t o r e s c i nd r e man d o r de rtha th ad b ee n iss u ed ba se d on p os t-r em ov al s tip u lat ion to lim it dam age s)
. The di str i ct c ourthad s u b j ect m att erj uri sdic

ti on her e. Turning to the m er i ts, the re l evant f acts are st ra i ghtf or w ar d and un disputed, and the district c ourtexpl ai ned them car efully. H unt beg an herl eave o n A ugust 1 7, 2009 , and shor tl y a fterthat, she ackno w l ed ge d r ecei pt of a no ti ce c oncern in g DaVi ta’ s l eave pol i ci es. S he was giv en t h re e m on th s of lea ve u n d er D aV ita ’s Fa m ily M ed ica lLe av e Act po l i cy, a nd the n a no th erthr ee months ofl eave under DaVit a’ s s epara te N on- W or k- Rel ated M ed ica l L ea ve of A b se n c e p oli c y . A fte r th e t ot al of s ix m onths had passed, H unt w as sti l lnotcl ear ed by her doctorto r etur n to w or k a nd di d not r etur n. Pursuant to an es tabl i shed com pany pol i cy, DaVit a no ti fi ed herthat her em plo ym ent was t er m i nated effecti ve February28 , 2010
. H un t’s doc t o r c leared her to retu rn to w ork l ater, on M ay 5, 2010
. Du ring t h is e nt ire tim e a tem p orary w o r k e rfi l l e d in f o rHun ta tDa Vi t a , b utthe wo r ker w as n otp er m an en tly as sig n ed to H u n t’s p os itio n u n til A ugust 2 1, 20 10 — a fullye arafterH unt fi rs t w en t o n l eave .4 N o. 11

- 2509 W hile H un t w as on l eave recovering fr om her he art surg er y, she al so soug ht t r eat m ent f or car pal tunnel syndro m e. She fi l ed a w or ker s’ com pensati on cl ai m bas ed on that co nd i ti on, but n ot u nti lM ar ch 19, 2010 — severa l weeks a fterDa V ita had term inated her. H unt tes ti fi ed that she had pre vi ousl y t old her su per vi so r, Be thThompso n, abo uthe rb el i eftha t th e numbne ss i n h er h an ds was wor k

- r el at ed. The r e i s no m or e s peci fi c ev id en ce in the re cor d sugges ti ng tha t Thom pson actual l y knew o fH unt’s i ntenti on to fil e a cl ai m . M osti m port ant, tho ugh, ther e i s n o evi dence that Tho m pso n ha d an y th i ng to do wi th H unt ’ s term in at i o n. T h e t er m in at ion w as effe c te d b y K at h y V ela sq u ez , a se ni o rdi sabi l i tys pec i al i stw ho wo r k ed i n a di ffer en t DaVi ta o ffi ce i n De nv er . Ve l asq uez te st i fi ed th ats he neverm et orspok e w ith Hu nt, di d not co nsul t with a ny o ne e l s e a tDa Vi t a ab o utthe t e r mi na t i o n, a nd ma de the t er m i nati on deci si on base d enti re l y o n the f act that H unt had ex hausted al lo fthe l eave al l owed und erD aV ita ’ s e stabl i shed pol i ci es. H unt did noto ffer ev id en c e c o n tr ad ict in g t h is t es tim on y, as se rt in g on ly he rb el i eftha t th er e was s o m e r et al i at o r y i nt en t. Hunt al so conceded that DaVi ta appli ed the sam e l eave pol i cy, witho ut exce pti on, to t er m i nate m or e than thr ee hund re d otherel i gibl e e m plo yee s who ra n out ofl eave between J anuary1, 20 09 and M ar ch 3, 20 10, r ega rdl ess of w h et h er lea ve w as th e re su lt of a w or k-r ela te d co n d iti on o r not. W e r ev i ew a gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo . O m nicare, Inc. v. U nit ed H ealth Group , Inc. , 62 9 F
. 3d 697, 705 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. H unt i s a n “at

- w i l l ” em plo yee underN o. 11

- 2509 5 I l l i noi s l aw , so DaVit a co uld h ave fi re d her f ora goo d r ea so n, n o re as o n, o ra b ad r ea so n, a s l o nga s th e re as on w as n o t p r o h ibit ed by law . For a n at -w ill em plo yee , f ai l ure to re turn t o w or k afte r m edi call eave e x p i r e s i s n o ta r e a s o n p r o h ib i te d b y I l l i n o i s l a w. Har t l ei n v . Il l i nois PowerCo. , 601 N .E .2d 72 0, 72 8 (Ill. 1992) ( “I l l i noi s l aw does noto bl i gat e a n em plo yerto re tain an at
- w i l lem plo yee w ho i s m edi cal l y unabl e t o re turn t o hi s a ssign ed p osi ti on”)
. A n em plo yerm ay not, h owever, fi re an e m plo yee to r eta l i ate ag ai nst he r f or he rpur su i t ( o ra nt i ci pat ed pur su i t) o fa wor k er s’ c o m pen sa tio n cla im
. Id .; Kel say v. M otorola, Inc. , 38 4 N
. E.2 d 353, 35 7 ( I l l

. 19 78)
. To defeatDaVit a’ s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, H unt needed to r ai se a g en uine i ssue ofm ate ri al f act as to w h et h er deci si on- m ake r Vel asquez i ntended to r et al i at e ag ains t he rf o rc o ns i der i ngs ucha c l ai m . But l o g i c d ic ta te s th ata ny i nfer en ce o fr et al i at o r y i nt en t m ust be bas ed on the al l ege d re tal i ato r’ s know l edge of th e ac tio n alle ge d ly re ta lia t e d for. E.g
. , H i at tv. Rockwe l l Int e r nat i onal Corp. , 26 F. 3d 761, 76 9 (7 th C i r. 19 94) (“E vide nc e tha t thos e resp ons ibl e for an em p loyee’s te rm in at ion kn ew th at h e in te n d ed to f i l e, or, as in th is c a s e h a d filed , a w or ke rs ’ co m p en sa tio n cla im is es se n tia l to a ret alia to ry d isc h ar ge ac tio n u n d er Il lin ois l aw . ”) , ci ti ng M ar i n v . Am e r i ca n M e atPacki ng Co. , 5 62 N
. E.2 d 282, 28 6 ( I l l

. A pp . 199 0). H unt offer s s pecula ti on but no actualev i dence s u gge sting tha t Vel asquez or anyo ne el se i nvol ve d i n the deci si on e ven knew o fher in te nd ed w or ker s’ co m pensati on cl ai m . W i thout such e v i d e n c e , Hu n t ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m f a i l s a s a ma t t e ro fl a w. T o a vo id th e c on se q u en c es of V ela sq u ez ’s lac k of k n ow ledg e ab o uta ny wor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n c l ai m , Hunt6 N o. 11

- 2509

ar gues that DaV i ta’ s l eave pol i cy is r eta l i ato ryo n i ts f ace. DaV i ta’ s pol i cy does not dist i ngui sh be tw een em plo yee s on l eave bec au se ofco m pensabl e work

- re l ate d i l l nesse s and i nj uri es and em plo yee s o n l eave f or o th erm edi cal re as on s. H u n t h as n otex p lain ed h ow a p olic y t h at is a pp l i e d n e ut r a l l y a nd wi tho ute xc e pt i o n t o h un dr e ds of e m plo yee s e ach y ear— an d i n thi s ca se wi th o uta ny knowle dge o fthe ci rcum sta nces ofthe l eave ta ken o r w hetherthe l eave st em m ed fro m an injur y o r i l l ness th at m igh t b e c om p en sa b le — c an be d e s c r i b ed as ret aliato ry . I t is w el les tabl i shed that neutra l l y- appli ed l eave p olic ies ofthi s s or t a re per m i ssibl e. S ee Dot s on v . BRP U
. S. Inc. , 52 0 F
. 3d 703, 70 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “an e m plo yer m ay fire a n em p loy ee for e x c es s a b se n te e i s m , e ve n if th e absen teei s m i s cau sed by a com p en sab le injury”), quoti ng Hartl ei n , 6 0 1 N. E. 2 d a t 7 2 8
. Th i s c o urt has a pp ro ve d p olic ies st ric te r th an D aV ita ’ s . See , e . g. , D ot s on , 520 F. 3d at 707- 08 ( autom ati c t er m i nati on a fterexhaustion of m inim um tw elve-w eek FM L A l eave ). B ec au se em p loy er s a re en tit led to t er m in at e a t-w ill em plo yee s w h o d o not re turn t o w or k a fterthei r l eave expir es, i t cannot be unlawful re tal i ati on to term i nate unif or m l y a ny em plo yee s be cause they did notr etur n to wor ka fte rthe i rl ea ve e xpi r ed. Hunt ca nnot mak e up f o rthe lac ko fe vi den ce o fi ndi vi dualr et al i at o r y i nt en t by all eging (ag ain w ithou t evide nc e) that D aV ita’s e n t i r e l e a v e p o l i c y w a s a d o p t e d t o r e t a l i a t e a g a i n s te mplo ye es wh o tak e l eave . H unt’s o nl y s ugges ted al ternati ve to DaV i ta’s c u rrent l eave pol i cy w oul d be a pol i cy ofi nd efi ni te re tenti on, exte nd i n g lea ve f oras l ong as m edi c a l l y n e c e s s a r y . T he r e i s n o l e g a lb a s i s h e r e toN o. 11

- 2509 7

c o mp e lD a V i t a t o a d o p ts u c h a po l i c y ; i n f a c t, th e c o mpany’s pol i cy al re ady se em s t o be m or e l iber althan r equi r ed bythe Fa m il y a nd M edi ca lLe av e Act. W i th o ut evi dence “that th e ter m i nati on was m oti vate d by a n unlawfuli ntent to re tal i ate ag ai nst the em plo yee f or exer ci si ng a sta tutory r i ght t o w or kers’ co m pensati on benefi ts, ” D ot s on , 52 0 F
. 3d at 707, pl ai nti ffH unt has fai led to raise a genu ine issue of m a t e r ialf act. Sum m ary j ud gm ent was pro perl y e nter ed i n f avo r ofDaVit a. Two o th ermatt er s r ai se d b y the pa r ti es h er e war r an t brief d iscus sion. First, H un t argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt ab u se d its d isc r e t i o n by refu sin g t o s tr ike th e d ep os iti on t est i m ony ofdeci si on- m ake r Vel asquez b ased on o bj ec ti o nabl e co nduc t byDa Vi ta ’ s coun se ldur i ngthe deposi ti on. Duri ng the deposi ti on, DaVit a’ s co u nsel confer re d pri va te ly w i th the witnes s about exhibi ts as th ey wer e pr es en te d, a l l eg edly po i nt i ngo utpo l i cyl an guage thatpl ai nti ff’ s co unselpro perl y a ske d the witness he r se l ft o i den ti fy . Hunt fur th era ss erts thats ubs ta ntive discu ssions of testim ony occu rred i n p rivate con ference s d uri ng br eak s. DaVit a’ s co unselr esponded that he was m er el y a ssi sting and n ot sugge sting te sti m ony, and he c l a i ms no me mory o fwh e the rp r i v a t e c o nfe r e nc es o c c ur r e d. The c o nduc t r efl ec te d i n this r ec o r d, a t a m i ni m um poi nti ng o ut passa ges o fdocum ents as they ar e intro
du ced to the w i tness , was not appropri ate o r pr ofessi onal

. The f act- fi nd i ng purpose o fa deposi ti on r equi re s te sti m o ny fr o m the wi tn es s, no t fr o m c o uns el, a nd wi th

out sugge sti ons fro m co u n sel. Coachi ng and pri vate8 N o. 11

- 2509

H u nt d id no t file a tim e l y o b jection to the m ag istrate 1 j udg e ’ s n on - di s po s i t i ve pr e t r i a l di s c ov e r y or de r a s r e q ui r e d b y 2 8 U .S.C . § 6 3 6 (b ) an d F ed er a l R u le o f C iv il P ro ce d u re 72 (a ). Suc h a f ai l ur e to obj ec tor di nar i l y wai ves the r i ghtt o o bj ec ton a p p e a l. E.g. , U ni t ed Sta t es v. Her nandez- R i vas , 348 F. 3d 595, 598 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , quo t i ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v . B r o wn , 79 F. 3d 1499, 1 5 0 3 (7t h C ir . 19 9 6 ); Vi deo Vi ews, Inc. v. Studi o 21, Lt d. , 797 F .2 d 5 3 8 , 53 9-40 ( 7th C ir. 19 86 ). T his w aiv er ru le is not ju risdicti onal, how ever, s ee Vi d e o Vi e ws , 79 7 F .2d at 54 0, and so is su b ject to a lim ited equ itab le excep tion w he n w aiv er w ou ld otherwise def eat the “ends ofj usti ce, ” B r o wn , 79 F. 3d at 1504, an d m ay itse l f b e w aiv ed b y the p rev ailing p arty
. D aV ita w aiv ed the w aiv er h ere, so w e ad d ress the issu e on its m erits. c on fer en c es (on iss u es oth er t h an p riv ileg e) t h at w ou ld be i napp ro pri ate duri ng t r i a l t e s t i mon y ar e no t excused duri ng a depo sit ion m er el y b ecause the j ud ge i s n o ti n th e r o o m. 1 Di st r i ctc o ur ts ha ve b r o ad di sc r et i o n in s upe r vi sing disc ove ry, i ncl ud in g deci ding w hetherand how to s a nc t i o n s uc h mi s c o nd uc t, f o rthe y a r e muc h c l o s e rto th e m an ag em en t o f th e c a s e a n d th e h os t o f int an gib le an d e q u i t ab l e f a c t o r s th a tma y b e r e l e v a n ti n e x e r c i si ng such dis cre ti on. E.g
. , Park v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 29 7 F
. 3d 606, 61 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( fi nd i ng no a buse o fdi scr eti on in ch oice not to im p ose san ction for discove ry f ail ure ); M e lend ez v. Il l i nois Be l l Te l ephon eCo. , 79 F. 3d 661, 67 0- 71 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 6) ( fi nd i ng no abuse ofdi scr eti on in choi ce to i mpo s e s a nc t i o n f o r di s c o v e r y f a i l ur e )
. W e de fe r to dist ri ct c ourt s’ co ntem pora neous eff or ts to pol i ce di scov e r y, r e v i e wi ngo nly f o rab us e o fdi s c r e t i o n, o fN o. 11

- 2509 9

H u nt a lso co m p lain s that th e d istrict cou rt allow ed D aV ita to 2 fil e a r eply brief

. Southern Dist ri ctofIl li nois Local Ru le 7. 1( c) ( 2) a l l o w s f o r s u c h b r i e f s “ i n e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u ms t a n c e s . ” We have r epe at edl y he l d thatdi s t ri c tc our t s ar e en t i t l ed t o c ons i der abl e defer en c e i n the i nt er pre t at i on and a ppl i c at i on of the ir loca l rule s. E.g. , Ste vo v. Fra so r, 662 F. 3d 8 8 0 , 886- 87 (7 th C ir . 20 1 1 ); Ha r mo n v . OKIS y s t e ms , 11 5 F .3d 4 7 7 , 48 1 (7th Cir. 1997)
. N o abu se ofdisc ret ion occ urred here. w hich there is no hin t here. Th e m agistrate j ud ge d eterm i ne d tha t t he c o nduc t di d no t ac tu al l y i m pede the pu rpos e o fth e deposi ti on. H e di d not abuse hi s di scr eti on byr efusi ng to st ri ke the re lev an t t est i m ony orto apply othe r sancti ons. 2 S e c o nd , Da Vi t a s ug g e s t e d in the conc l us i o n o fi t s a ppel l ate br i efth at H u nt’ s a rgum ents on a pp ealar e s o fr i vo l o us tha t we s ho ul d o r derhe rt o s how c au se why she shoul d no t be sancti oned. S ee G revisk es v. U niv ersi ti es Rese arch Ass ’n, Inc. , 417 F.3d 752 , 7 6 0 -61 ( 7th Cir. 2005 )
. S i nce 19 94, FederalRule o fA pp el l ate Pro cedure 38 has a uthor i zed such s ancti ons onl y a fterei ther“a se p ara tely fi l ed m oti on o r noti ce fro m th e co urt and a r easonab l e o p p or tuni ty to re spond.” DaVit a co uld have filed su c h a m ot ion b u t d id n ot, c h oo sin g in st e a d m er ely t o a s k th i s c o u r t t o l a u n c h th e s a n c t i o n s p r o c e s s . We decl i ne to d o so. W e s ee no nee d to tak e a st ep that DaVi ta i ts el fc o ul d ha ve t ak en, a lbe i t su bj ect to the ca ut i o n tha t a g r o undl es s r eque stf o rRule 38 s an ct i o ns m ay i tse l fbe sancti onabl e. S ee M eeks v . Jewel C o s. , 84 5 F
. 2d 14 21 , 1 42 2 (7th Ci r . 1 98 8) ( den y i ngs an ct i o ns ag ainst appell ant a nd decl i ni ng to award appell ate co sts10 N o. 11

- 2509

as m od est san ction for frivol ou s re q u e s t for san ctions ); se e a l so Fo y v . First Na tio na l B a nkof E lkha rt, 8 6 8 F
. 2d 251, 25 8 ( 7th C ir. 1 989) ( aw ar ding att or ney fees i ncurr ed i n defe nd i ng ag ai nst a fri vol ous re q u estf or sanc tio n s)
. A l so, ther e i s ce rt ai nl y a n equi tabl e e l emen t t o s a nc t i o ns i s s ue s . I n v i e w o f the b e ha vi or o f Da V i t a ’ s c o u n s e ld ur i ng th e V e l a s q u e z d e p o s i t i o n, we w oul d not be in cl i ned to exer ci se our disc re ti on t o im p os e san c tio n s on on ly on e sid e of th is l aw su it. In an y e ve nt, Hunt’ s ar g um en ts o n a ppea lwer e wea kb ut fel lsho rto ffri vol ous. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

5- 4- 12