Neal Secrease, Jr. v. Western & Southern Life Insura
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15441
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Neil Secrease sued Western & Southern and supervisors under Title VII and state law alleging discrimination and retaliation; suit filed June 2014.
- Western & Southern moved to dismiss as untimely, pointing to EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter timeline showing many claims were time-barred.
- In opposing dismissal, Secrease sought to compel arbitration and submitted an employment contract purporting to contain a mandatory arbitration clause.
- The employer showed Secrease’s actual signed 2006 contract lacked an arbitration clause; the interior pages Secrease submitted came from a 2009/2008 form used by a different employee.
- The district court found Secrease had willfully submitted falsified evidence and lied about it, dismissed the suit with prejudice as a sanction; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secrease fraudulently submitted a falsified contract to force arbitration | He accidentally combined exhibits and intended interior pages only as an example; no intent to defraud | He knowingly substituted interior pages from a different contract form to create an arbitration clause | Court found intentional fraud; factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate sanction for fraud on the court | Sanction was too harsh because there was no intent to deceive | Dismissal was justified to protect the integrity of the proceedings and deter misconduct | Court held dismissal with prejudice was within district court’s discretion |
| Whether some Title VII claims were timely | Secrease argued timely as plead | Employer showed earlier right-to-sue letters made most claims untimely except retaliation claim tied to third charge | Court dismissed untimely Title VII claims except the retaliation claim, which was timely |
| Whether lesser sanctions would suffice | Lesser sanctions would be adequate | Dismissal was necessary given egregiousness, dishonesty, and plaintiff’s inability to pay fines | Court agreed lesser sanctions were unlikely to be effective and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Systems, Inc., 579 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court’s inherent power to sanction bad-faith litigation conduct)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts’ inherent authority to protect integrity of proceedings)
- Greviskes v. Universities Research Ass’n, 417 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2005) (dismissal for abuse of judicial process)
- Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal where party filed false application)
- Philips Medical Systems Int’l, B.V. v. Bruetman, 982 F.2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992) (default judgment as sanction for bad-faith court deception)
- Profile Gear Corp. v. Foundry Allied Industries, Inc., 937 F.2d 351 (7th Cir. 1991) (same)
- Hal Commodity Cycles Mgmt. Co. v. Kirsh, 825 F.2d 1136 (7th Cir. 1987) (same)
- Rivera v. Drake, 767 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal where inmate perjured himself to evade exhaustion defense)