Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc.
643 F.3d 554
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Smeigh, a longtime JM employee and union member, was injured on September 20, 2008, and JM initiated drug testing procedures following the accident.
- JM determined Smeigh breached its substance-abuse policy based on an alleged admission of illegal drug use, leading to a Stipulation of Understanding proposed by JM as a condition to retention.
- Smeigh refused to sign the Stipulation and JM terminated him on September 25, 2008 for refusal to sign.
- Smeigh later contested the termination as retaliatory for his workers' compensation claim, and the union pursued a reinstatement option with less onerous terms.
- At termination, Wilson, a JM employee and union secretary, was responsible for sorting and temporarily retaining Smeigh's personal property; some tools were later reported stolen from her office.
- Smeigh asserted two claims: retaliatory discharge under Indiana law and criminal conversion regarding JM’s retention of his personal property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliatory discharge viability | Smeigh argues timing and pretext show retaliation for workers' comp claim. | JM asserts legitimate, non-retaliatory reason: Smeigh refused to sign stipulation after admission of drug-use concerns; no pretext shown. | No prima facie pretext; JM's reason not shown to be a lie. |
| Criminal conversion viability | Smeigh claims JM (via its agent) exercised unauthorized control over tools. | Wilson's possession was authorized as JM protocol; no mens rea shown; no vicarious liability established. | Conversion claim and vicarious liability rejected; no criminal mens rea shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 412 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2005) (timing alone rarely proves retaliation; requires pretext or stronger evidence)
- Goetzke v. Ferro Corp., 280 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2002) (proximate timing can support but is not conclusive of causation)
- Purdy v. Wright Tree Serv., Inc., 835 N.E.2d 209 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) (pretext analysis focuses on honesty of employer's reason, not its wisdom)
- Powdertech Inc. v. Joganic, 776 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (prima facie case; shifts to employer’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Frampton v. Cent. Ind. Gas Co., 297 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 1973) (retaliation for filing workers' compensation claim recognized as exception to at-will rule)