Walton v. US Steel

Filing 106

OPINION AND ORDER: VACATING 97 Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis and DENIES 96 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Marilyn Walton. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 6/7/2012. (cc: Walton. USCA)(rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
MARILYN WALTON,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. STEEL; UNITED STATES STEEL)
CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendants
)

Case No. 2:07 cv 331

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on remand from the Seventh
Circuit to explain why the court granted appellant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and denied the appellant’s requests for
transcripts as frivolous.

For the reasons set forth below, the

court VACATES the January 17, 2012 Order granting the appellant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 97] and DENIES the appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Background
The plaintiff, Marilyn Walton, filed a pro se complaint
against her former employer, U.S. Steel, on September 21, 2007.
She later amended her complaint to include three counts:

Count I

- Racial Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq.
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); Count II - Race
Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981; and Count III Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29

U.S.C. §215(a)(3). U.S. Steel moved for summary judgment on all
of Walton's claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor
of U.S. Steel on all of Walton's claims except her allegation of
retaliatory discharge. A jury trial was held on December 12-13,
2011, on Walton's surviving claim. At the close of Walton's case,
the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 50. The court determined that Walton did
not meet her burden and that no reasonable jury could find in her
favor. The court entered judgment in favor of U.S. Steel and
dismissed Walton's claim for retaliation.
On January 11, 2012, Walton filed a notice of appeal. Her
notice states that she is appealing the judgment entered on
December 13, 2011, and does not state that she is appealing the
additional claims raised in her amended complaint that were
dismissed in the Opinion and Order on U.S. Steel's motion for
summary judgment.

On January 17, 2012, Walton requested leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, which was granted that same
day.
On February 2, 2012, Walton filed a motion to have the trial
transcripts produced at court expense.

The court entered an

Order on March 8, 2012, denying her request.

In the Order, the

court explained that Walton’s claim was frivolous because she did
not produce sufficient evidence at trial to establish a prima

2

facie case.

Specifically, Walton did not call a single witness

who could show, even circumstantially, that her termination was
based in part on the charge she filed with the EEOC.

Rather, the

evidence unequivocally showed that she was terminated for violating U.S. Steel corporate policy.

Additionally, Walton did not

point to one similarly situated employee who committed a similar
violation and did not face termination.

Evidence was presented

to show that other employees who violated the no tolerance policy
against using racially degrading language were treated in the
same manner.

For these reasons, the record was devoid of evi-

dence to support a prima facie case.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) states:
[A] party to a district-court action who
desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file
a motion in the district court. The party
must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed
by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms
the party's inability to pay or to
give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the
party intends to present on appeal.
The appeal must also be taken in good faith.

Shoenrock v.

Astrue, 2010 WL 987818, *1 (W.D. Wis. 2010).

"To find that an

3

appeal is in good faith, a court need only find that a reasonable
person could suppose the appeal has some merit."

Moore ex rel.

Moore v. Barnhart, 2003 WL 23111614, *1 (W.D. Wis. 2003) (citing
Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631–32 (7th Cir. 2000)).
In the March 8, 2012 Opinion and Order denying Walton’s
request for production of the trial transcripts at court expense,
the court determined that Walton’s appeal is without merit.
Walton is proceeding solely on the claim for retaliation.

At

trial Walton had the burden to prove that "(1) she engaged in
statutorily protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse
employment action; and (3) there was a causal link between the
protected expression and the adverse action." Culver v. Gorman &

Company, 416 F.3d 540, 545 (7th Cir. 2005); Moser v. Indiana
Department of Corrections, 406 F.3d 895, 903 (7th Cir. 2005).
However, as articulated in the March 8 Order, Walton failed to
present any evidence to establish a causal connection.

Walton

did not call one witness who could provide even circumstantial
evidence that her termination was based in part on the charge she
filed with the EEOC.

Walton intends to raise the same issue on

appeal, but she has not pointed to new evidence or complained
that the court failed to consider any evidence that would warrant
reconsideration and may lead to a more favorable outcome.

The

record is devoid of evidence to show a causal connection between

4

Walton’s EEOC charge and her termination, so leave to appeal in
forma pauperis should not have been granted.

The court VACATES

its January 17, 2012 Order and DENIES Walton leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis.
ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2012

s/ ANDREW P. RODOVICH
United States Magistrate Judge

5