Contact me at markploftus@aol.com

Interesting retaliatory discharge case came down recently from the First Appellate District. In Chicago Commons v. Hancock, the plaintiff was sued by his employer for reimbursement of overpaid wages. Shortly after Hancock filed his appearance in the case he was fired. He promptly turned around and filed a retaliatory discharge counterclaim against his employer. His argument was that it was illegal for his employer to fire him for litigating the overpayment case. The trial court dismissed the retaliatory claim and Hancock appealed that ruling.

The Appellate Court did a thoughtful analysis of the case. It first pointed out that in order to establish a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, the claimant must show: a) he was discharged in retaliation for certain activities and b) the discharge violated public policy. The Court went on to explain that "...a matter must strike at the heart of of a citizen's social rights, duties and responsibilities before the tort[of retaliatory discharge]will be allowed." There are two fact patterns the courts of Illinois recognize. The first is a firing after an employee has filed a Workers' Compensation Claim. The second is where an employee is discharged for reporting illegal or improper conduct by the employer, otherwise known as whistle-blowing.

The Court then considered Hancock's claim. It noted that underlying contest was over a wage dispute. The Court also pointed out there was no authority favoring a person's right to defend a lawsuit over wages - in short, Hancock's right to defend the lawsuit did not strike at the heart of his social rights, duties and responsibilities. The Appellate Court upheld the lower court's decision.

I had just one question - was Hancock suprised when they fired him? He had apparently been overpaid and was fighting their attempts to get the money back. Did he think they would give him a promotion? Not likely.

The case caught my eye because I have been approached by a car salesman about suing his former employee. Yeah, I know, he's a car salesman, maybe one rung above lawyers in the easy to despise category. It appears however, that he was actually an honest car salesman. He told at least one perspective customer not to buy a car because it was a lemon. He ultimately tells his boss he did so and lo and behold, they fire him shortly thereafter. I think he probably has a retaliatory case against the dealership on a whistleblower theory. I am still investigating and will update as developments warrant.