U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1988

Orval Meeks v. Jewel Companies, Inc., a New York Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Decided June 30, 1988 · Cummings, Posner, Easterbrook

845 F.2d 1421 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Wayne B. Giampietro, Witwer, Burlage, Poltrock & Giampietro, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant., Terrill E. Pierce, Kovar Nelson Brittain & Sledz, Chicago, for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision. The 11 that cite it most often are listed here.

Earle A. Partington v. Joseph M. Gedan Howard T. Chang (9th Cir. 1989)
Cristy Nelson v. MLB Hotel Manager, LLC (11th Cir. 2022)
Hunt v. DaVita, Inc. (7th Cir. 2012)
LifeUSA Insurance v. Green (7th Cir. 2002)
Leoco, S.A. v. Caribe Crown, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)
C. Benjamin Foy v. First National Bank of Elkhart (1st Cir. 1989)
Lewandowski v. Two Rivers Public School District (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1989)
Laurie Connolly D/B/A Brindar Designs v. J.T. Ventures and John Lange (7th Cir. 1988)
Sk Hand Tool Corporation and Corcoran Partners, Ltd. v. Dresser Industries, Inc. (7th Cir. 1988)
Charles W. Leigh & Ervin F. Dusek, and Estate of George Johnson, Intervening Cross-Appellees v. Clyde William Engle, Cross-Appellants (7th Cir. 1988)
Borowski v. DePuy, Inc. (7th Cir. 1988)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The merits of this appeal, which is from the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a Title VII employment discrimination suit, involve no issue of general significance; they are discussed in an unpublished order, issued today, affirming the district court’s judgment. This opinion is limited to the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a rule that empowers us to impose sanctions for frivolous appeals.

The plaintiff’s appeal, although not meritorious, is plainly not frivolous; it is the defendant’s request for Rule 38 sanctions that is frivolous. We are troubled by the frequency with which lawyers in this court, whether representing appellants or appellees, are including in their briefs groundless requests for Rule 38 sanctions. The attitude seems to be, it can’t hurt to ask. It can. Any frivolous motion, pleading, or request is subject to sanctions, including a motion or request for sanctions. In re Central Ice Cream Co., 836 F.2d 1068, 1074 (7th Cir. 1987). We remind the bar that sanctions will be forthcoming if counsel routinely request Rule 38 sanctions without careful investigation to determine that the appeal or defense sought to be sanctioned is indeed frivolous. See also Aircraft Trading & Services, Inc. v. Braniff, Inc., 819 F.2d 1227, 1236 (2d Cir. 1987).

The request for Rule 38 sanctions is DENIED, and, as a modest sanction for the filing of that frivolous request, the defendant shall bear its costs of defending the appeal even though it won.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.