Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.
9 Ill. Dec. 630, 366 N.E.2d 1141, 51 Ill. App. 3d 1016 (1977)
Rule of Law:
An at-will employee discharged for filing a workers' compensation claim does not have a common law tort action for retaliatory discharge if the state's Workmen's Compensation Act provides statutory penalties for such violations but does not explicitly create a private cause of action for damages.
Facts:
- In February 1973, the plaintiff sustained an injury in the course of her employment with the defendant.
- In March 1973, the plaintiff filed an application for injury compensation with the Industrial Commission under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
- On June 6, 1973, after several conversations concerning the dismissal of her pending application before the Industrial Commission, the defendant's personnel manager discharged the plaintiff from her employment.
- The plaintiff's employment with the defendant was for an unspecified duration, making it an at-will employment relationship.
- In November 1973, the plaintiff entered into a settlement contract for $745.50 for her workers' compensation claim, noting that her medical expenses had been paid by her employer.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint in the trial court, alleging wrongful discharge in tort and seeking actual and punitive damages.
- The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff as to liability.
- The jury subsequently awarded the plaintiff $1000 in actual damages and $25,000 in punitive damages.
- The awarded actual damages were remitted to $749.
- Defendant appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Illinois law permit an at-will employee to bring a common law tort action for retaliatory discharge when the employee alleges termination of employment for filing a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the Act itself only provides statutory penalties for violations rather than a private right of action for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP
No, Illinois law does not permit an at-will employee to bring a common law tort action for retaliatory discharge under these circumstances. Justice Trapp, writing for the majority, reaffirmed Illinois' long-standing rule that at-will employment can be terminated by either party at any time, with or without cause, and with no right of action for discharge. The court found that the Workmen's Compensation Act, at the time of the plaintiff's discharge, did not create a private cause of action in tort for retaliatory discharge. Instead, the Act (specifically Section 26) designated such violations as a "petty offense" to be enforced by the State's Attorney or Attorney General, and Section 11 stated that the Act's provisions "shall be the measure of the responsibility of any employer." The court examined other employment-related statutes, noting that the legislature either explicitly provided for a civil action for damages in specific instances (e.g., equal opportunity for the handicapped, civil rights act) or relied on statutory penalties for enforcement (e.g., age discrimination, hours of employment for women, wage assignment violations). The majority concluded that it would constitute "judicial legislation" to superimpose a further cause of action in tort when the legislature had already shown its intention to provide penalties or had specifically provided tort actions in other contexts. The court also noted a 1975 amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act which made such coercive acts unlawful but still did not provide a tort action as part of the relief. The court cited Loucks v. Star City Glass Co. which reached a similar conclusion under Illinois law.
Dissenting - Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN
Yes, Illinois law should permit an at-will employee to bring a common law tort action for retaliatory discharge in such circumstances. Presiding Justice Craven dissented, arguing that the majority's conclusion was erroneous and contrary to public policy. He pointed out that the defendant's conduct was "outrageous" and allowed employers to "chill, if not freeze" an employee's exercise of their rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act with impunity. He noted that a later amendment to the Act (Section 4(h), effective after the discharge in this case) made such conduct a criminal offense, implying that the conduct was clearly against public policy even before the amendment. Justice Craven believed that relying solely on statutory penalties, and denying a common law tort, effectively gave employers "the best of both worlds" by allowing them to avoid both common law liability and workers' compensation claims due to employee intimidation. He referenced an article from the Columbia Law Review supporting the idea of limiting abusive employer power and cited Leach v. Lauhoff Grain Co., a concurrently filed opinion by a different panel of the same court that reached a contrary result on a substantively similar issue (save for the timing relative to the 1975 amendment).
Analysis:
This case highlights the tension between the common law doctrine of at-will employment and evolving public policy concerns. The majority's decision demonstrates judicial deference to legislative intent, emphasizing that courts should not create new common law torts when the legislature has already specified remedies (or chosen not to specify a private right of action) within a statutory scheme. This approach prioritizes statutory interpretation and legislative supremacy, potentially limiting the judiciary's role in expanding employee protections. However, the dissent underscores the potential for employers to exploit this gap, chilling statutorily protected employee rights without fear of civil liability, which could be seen as undermining the very purpose of worker protection laws. This decision sets a precedent for a strict construction of statutory remedies in Illinois, placing the onus on the legislature to explicitly create private rights of action for damages.
