Seifert v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc.
Docket: No. 08-2145
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; March 13, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Fred Seifert, a Jewish pharmacist born in 1932, was terminated from Dominick’s Finer Foods following complaints from female pharmacy technicians about his inappropriate sexual jokes and behavior. Seifert believed his dismissal was due to age, gender, and religion, prompting him to file a federal lawsuit. The district court ruled in favor of Dominick’s, granting summary judgment. Seifert’s subsequent appeal raised jurisdictional issues. Dominick’s argued that Seifert's appeal notice was filed late, as it was submitted 52 days after the judgment but within 30 days of the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment. Seifert's initial motion was deemed insufficient as it lacked specific grounds for reconsideration and was filed outside the 10-day limit set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The district court later granted an extension for filing the appeal, citing an intent to toll the appeal period due to the acceptance of the late memorandum. However, the court noted that the district court's reasoning for the extension was weak and emphasized the strict nature of the 10-day filing requirement. Ultimately, the appeal's timeliness was in question due to the flawed Rule 59(e) motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) restricts district courts from extending deadlines for filing appeals. In this case, the district court improperly extended the deadline for filing a Rule 59(e) motion by accepting a late memorandum. Despite the counsel's limited federal experience and his previous state court practices, the court emphasized that delays can be inexcusable regardless of mitigating factors. The appeal was significantly delayed, being filed 52 days after the judgment, contrasting with a precedent where a one-day delay was excused. The dismissal of the appeal is further supported by the meritless nature of Seifert's underlying claim, which involved inappropriate jokes leading to disciplinary action and eventual termination for repeated violations of the sexual harassment policy. Seifert failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of discrimination based on age, religion, or gender, leading to the conclusion that the employer's reasons for termination were not pretextual. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.