Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdamageswrongful terminationpunitive damagescompensatory damages
plaintiffdamagespunitive damagescommon law

Related Cases

Wilkins v. Safran, 185 N.C.App. 668, 649 S.E.2d 658, 41 A.L.R.6th 573
View Case »
E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Brown, 305 F.Supp. 371, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,506
View Case »
Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 93 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1519, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1659
View Case »
Weibrecht v. Southern Illinois Transfer, Inc., 241 F.3d 875
View Case »
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, Cal., 480 U.S. 616, 107 S.Ct. 1442, 94 L.Ed.2d 615, 43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 411, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,831, 55 USLW 4379
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 384 N.E.2d 353, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4371

Facts

Marilyn Jo Kelsay suffered a thumb injury while working at Motorola and sought to file a workmen's compensation claim. After notifying her employer, she was informed by the personnel manager that pursuing the claim could lead to her termination, which ultimately occurred after she decided to proceed with the claim. Kelsay then filed a lawsuit against Motorola for retaliatory discharge, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff suffered a cut to her thumb while working at the Motorola factory in Pontiac.

Issue

Whether an employee has a cause of action for retaliatory discharge against an employer for filing a workmen's compensation claim, and if punitive damages can be awarded in such cases.

First, should this State recognize a cause of action for retaliatory discharge?

Rule

The Illinois Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, stating that punitive damages may be awarded to deter employers from discharging employees for filing workmen's compensation claims, but such damages should not be awarded in cases where the law was not clearly established at the time of the discharge.

We are convinced that to uphold and implement this public policy a cause of action should exist for retaliatory discharge.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the public policy underlying the Workmen's Compensation Act necessitated a civil remedy for retaliatory discharge. It emphasized that allowing employers to terminate employees for asserting their rights under the Act would undermine the Act's purpose. However, the court also noted that at the time of Kelsay's discharge, the law regarding retaliatory discharge was not clearly established, which influenced its decision regarding punitive damages.

We cannot ignore the fact that when faced with such a dilemma many employees, whose common law rights have been supplanted by the Act, would choose to retain their jobs, and thus, in effect, would be left without a remedy either common law or statutory.

Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's decision denying Kelsay a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, affirmed the award of $749 in compensatory damages, but reversed the award of $25,000 in punitive damages.

We hold that punitive damages may properly be awarded in cases such as the one under consideration for retaliatory discharge subsequent to the date this opinion is filed.

Who won?

Marilyn Jo Kelsay prevailed in establishing a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, as the court recognized her right to seek damages for her wrongful termination.

Appellate Court reversed and Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

You must be