NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 30, 2017*
Decided April 3, 2017
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 17-‐‑1069 Appeal from the United
States District Court for
GLORIA E. SWANSON,
the Northern District of
Plaintiff-‐‑Appellant,
Illinois, Eastern Division.
v.
No. 16 C 7890
BAKER & MCKENZIE, LLP, and CHANEL JOHNSON-‐‑ Virginia M. Kendall,
BELL, Judge.
Defendants-‐‑Appellees.
Order
In 2013 this court held that an ex-‐‑employer’s temporary inability to confirm
the employment of someone who worked there more than a decade ago could
* This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b).
We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 17-‐‑1069 Page 2
not reasonably be understood as defamatory, discriminatory, or retaliatory.
Swanson v. Baker & McKenzie, LLP, No. 13-‐‑1740 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013)
(nonprecedential disposition).
Early in 2016 Swanson again had third parties ask Baker & McKenzie to
verify her employment, and history repeated itself. The law firm’s representative
again could not immediately tell the inquirer whether Swanson had worked for
it between 1990 and 1995, but after more searching was able to verify that
employment and confirm it, sending Swanson a letter that she can use in future
searches for employment. Dissatisfied, Swanson again sued, accusing the law
firm of defamation, discrimination, and retaliation. The district court granted
summary judgment against her—largely on the basis of our 2013 decision, but
for other reasons as well, including the fact that Swanson had not filed a new
charge of discrimination with the appropriate state or federal agencies. 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 172979 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2016).
Swanson’s appellate brief contends, as she had in 2013, that a temporary
failure to confirm an ex-‐‑employee’s years of service must be understood as
defamatory, discriminatory, and retaliatory. That contention amounts to
disagreement with our 2013 decision and is blocked by principles of issue
preclusion. We affirm the district court’s judgment for that reason and the others
given by the district judge’s careful opinion.
Swanson has become a frequent litigant, and the district judge observed that
many of her contentions are weak if not frivolous. The judge warned Swanson
that continuation of this campaign of litigation will lead to sanctions. Instead of
taking that warning to heart, Swanson’s appellate brief accuses the district judge
of defamation. Blaming the judge is not a satisfactory response; the judge’s
warning was designed to help Swanson avoid sanctions. She must understand
that further litigation of this kind will be penalized by the district court under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and by this court under Fed. R. App. P. 38.
AFFIRMED