Illinois Employers Take Note: Retaliatory Discharge Claims Are Alive and Well

The Illinois Supreme Court first recognized the tort of retaliatory discharge in 1978 in Kelsay v. Motorola. Importantly, the court found that retaliatory discharge is an exception to the general rule in Illinois that employment is terminable "at will" for any or no cause. One year later, the state legislature passed the Illinois Human Rights Act, thus creating the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Human Rights Commission to investigate and decide civil rights violations.

The Human Rights Act—along with the various rules and regulations put in place by the Department of Human Rights and the Human Rights Commission—establishes a comprehensive administrative procedure governing alleged civil rights violations. Except for a limited exception, a plaintiff's sole source of redress is through the administrative procedures set forth in the act.

Under the act, "retaliation" against a person based on unlawful discrimination or sexual harassment in employment/higher education, or because the individual filed a charge or participated in the related investigation or hearing is considered a violation. However, in Blount v. Stroud, the Illinois Supreme Court recently affirmed that the common law tort of retaliatory discharge can provide a basis for imposing liability independent of the Human Rights Act. As long as the claim is not "inextricably linked" to the alleged civil rights violation, the act will not serve to bar an action filed in circuit court.

In the Blount case, the defendant sought to influence the testimony of its employee in an unrelated pending federal civil rights action. When the plaintiff refused to assist her employer and falsely testify, the employer retaliated and eventually terminated the plaintiff. At trial in the circuit court, the plaintiff successfully argued that in addition to remedies available under the act, the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the case, which was decided in favor of the plaintiff and resulted in a multimillion-dollar judgment. Following a round of appeals, the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately upheld the judgment against the defendant for retaliatory discharge.

What does this decision mean for employers in Illinois? In essence, the Illinois Supreme Court found that a company may be required to litigate claims filed by its employees in multiple forums, rather than solely under the Human Rights Act. Before making personnel decisions that could be very costly and time-consuming to defend, employers should carefully weigh the alternatives with counsel. The attorneys at Much Shelist are available to assist you in reviewing and analyzing your personnel decisions, with the goal of heading off a very costly mistake.

James R. Carroll, a Principal in the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice group, served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Illinois for 15 years. Jim focuses his practice on complex litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both the state and federal court systems, as well as government representation. He can be reached at 312.521.2721 or jcarroll@muchshelist.com.