882 F.3d 686
7th Cir.2018Background
- Jaworski and two co-plaintiffs performed construction services for Master Hand and were not paid; they sued under the federal FLSA and three Illinois statutes including the Employee Classification Act (ECA).
- The ECA presumes a worker is an employee unless the contractor proves otherwise and provides double damages for compensation lost "by reason of the violation." 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. §185/20, /60.
- The district court (after two partial summary-judgment rulings and a bench trial) held Master Hand violated the ECA, FLSA, and two Illinois wage statutes, awarded nearly $200,000 in damages plus over $150,000 in attorneys’ fees.
- Master Hand appealed, challenging (a) the misclassification finding, (b) the district court’s treatment of recoverable compensation under the ECA relative to Illinois wage statutes, and (c) the rejection of its insolvency/nonpayment defense.
- On appeal, Master Hand failed to append key district-court opinions and falsely certified compliance with Seventh Circuit Rule 30, prompting the court to summarily affirm as a Rule 30 sanction.
- The Seventh Circuit also found the appeal frivolous under Fed. R. App. P. 38 and ordered Master Hand to pay appellees’ appellate costs and attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Jaworski's Argument | Master Hand's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jaworski was an employee under the Illinois Employee Classification Act | Jaworski argued he was an employee and the ECA’s presumption applies | Master Hand argued Jaworski was engaged in an independently established trade and thus not an employee | Court affirmed district court’s misclassification finding (Master Hand failed to provide the summary-judgment order and record support; appeal forfeited and arguments substantively deficient) |
| Whether ECA claimants must separately prove employee status under Illinois wage-payment statutes to recover compensation | Jaworski recovered under ECA and the district court awarded compensation equivalent to what the wage statutes provide, finding him an employee under those statutes too | Master Hand argued ECA plaintiffs must still prove employee status under the separate wage statutes before recovering under them | Court held appellate challenge cursory and moot in any event because the district court independently found wage-law violations under the wage statutes’ standards |
| Whether Master Hand’s insolvency/nonpayment excuses liability under ECA and wage laws | Jaworski maintained nonpayment did not absolve statutory liability | Master Hand contended nonpayment was due to insolvency, not misclassification, so damages were not "by reason of the violation" | Court rejected insolvency defense as legally irrelevant to statutory liability; Master Hand failed to supply the district-court order rejecting the defense on appeal and offered no substantive legal basis for reversal |
| Whether sanctions are warranted for Rule 30 violations and frivolous appeal | Jaworski sought Fed. R. App. P. 38 sanctions and appellate costs/fees | Master Hand certified compliance with Rule 30 but omitted required orders and gave no response to sanctions motion | Court summarily affirmed as a Rule 30 sanction and awarded appellees costs and attorneys’ fees under Rule 38, finding the appeal frivolous and uncertified omissions inexcusable |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Porter Mem’l Hosp., 90 F.3d 220 (7th Cir.) (failure to supply necessary district-court documents impedes appellate review)
- Avitia v. Metro. Club of Chicago, 49 F.3d 1219 (7th Cir.) (insistence on meticulous compliance with appellate rules)
- Pabst Brewing Co. v. Corrao, 161 F.3d 434 (7th Cir.) (clarity on Rule 30 requirements for appendices)
- Sambrano v. Mabus, 663 F.3d 879 (7th Cir.) (sanctions available for noncompliance with appellate rules)
- Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d 1322 (7th Cir.) (summary affirmance is an appropriate sanction)
- Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir.) (appellate court need not scour the record for appellant’s missing citations)
- Duff v. Cent. Sleep Diagnostics, LLC, 801 F.3d 833 (7th Cir.) (definition of frivolous appeal: cursory arguments)
- Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554 (7th Cir.) (frivolousness when arguments are wholly undeveloped)
- In re Generes, 69 F.3d 821 (7th Cir.) (re-asserting previously rejected factual versions can render appeal frivolous)
- Berwick Grain Co. v. Ill. Dep’t of Agric., 217 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (rehashing rejected positions lacks substance and is foreordained to lose)