Causation is not inferred merely from evidence that the employee filed for benefits and was fired. Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554, 561-63 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Hamann v. Gates Chevrolet, Inc., 910 F.2d 1417, 1420 (7th Cir. 1990).

The relevance of a lack of a demand is that it may negate the necessary mens rea element of statutory conversion, that is, the defendant's knowing or intentional exertion of unauthorized control over another's property. Id. at 1451; Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554, 563, 2011 WL 2555819 (7th Cir. 2011). This is the case because, without a demand, a party may not "know" that it has exerted unauthorized control of another's property.

Under Indiana law, generally employers may terminate employees "for no cause whatsoever or for any cause at all without incurring liability." Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554, 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). "One exception to this general rule is that an employee who has been discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim may recover damages for wrongful termination."

Unlike tortious conversion, statutory conversion does not require a plaintiff to demand a return. Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc. , 643 F.3d 554, 564 (7th Cir. 2011) ; IND. CODE § 34-24-3-1. Although a demand for return is not required, a plaintiff must present evidence to raise a reasonable inference that the defendant was aware that their possession was unauthorized.

” Fed. R.App. P. 38. “Under Rule 38, we must first determine if the appeal is frivolous, and if we find it is, we have discretion to award sanctions or decline to do so.” Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554, 565 (7th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). “An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious or when the appellant's argument is wholly without merit.”

When an appeal is frivolous, Rule 38 sanctions are not mandatory but are left to the sound discretion of the court of appeals to decide whether sanctions are appropriate. Burlington Northern, 480 U.S. at 4, 107 S.Ct. 967;Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554, 566 (7th Cir.2011) (declining to impose sanctions in close case). We find that this appeal is frivolous.

We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554, 560 (7th Cir.2011). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

And while “an employer's failure to follow its own internal employment procedures can constitute evidence of pretext,” Jajeh v. Cty. of Cook, 678 F.3d 560, 572 (7th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added) (quoting Rudin v. Lincoln Land Cmty. Coll., 420 F.3d 712, 727 (7th Cir. 2005)), not every policy violation suggests pretext, see Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554, 562 (7th Cir. 2011). There must be something about the policy violation to suggest that the deviation was motivated by an intent to discriminate.

Evidence of pretext is "evidence that the employer's proffered reason for the discharge is 'patently inconsistent with the evidence before the court.'" Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-0414, 2010 WL 3781492, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 22, 2010), aff'd, 643 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mack v. Great Dane Trailers, 308 F.3d 776, 784 (7th Cir. 2002) (in turn quoting Markley Enters., Inc. v. Grover, 716 N.E.2d 559, 565 (Ind.Ct.App.1999))). "'Pretext means a dishonest explanation, a lie rather than an oddity or an error.'"

); Movement for Opportunity v. General Motors, 622 F.2d 1235, 1277 (7th Cir. 1980) (“No inference of discrimination can be drawn from statistics that relate solely to the sexual or racial makeup of a job level as a whole.”). Evidence of pretext is “evidence that the employer's proffered reason for the discharge is ‘patently inconsistent with the evidence before the court.'” Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-0414, 2010 WL 3781492, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 22, 2010), aff'd, 643 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mack v. Great Dane Trailers, 308 F.3d 776, 784 (7th Cir. 2002) (in turn quoting Markley Enters., Inc. v. Grover, 716 N.E.2d 559, 565 (Ind.Ct.App.1999))). “‘Pretext means a dishonest explanation, a lie rather than an oddity or an error.