Lack of Proximity Between Injury and Firing Found to be Fatal to Claim of Retaliatory Discharge
A federal district court in Illinois, construing that state’s law concerning retaliatory discharge claims, held–in relevant part–that a plaintiff’s factual allegations did not give rise to a claim of retaliatory discharge where her complaint indicated that she sustained a work-related injury in August 2014, and yet, she was not terminated until four years later [Strong v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19564 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2021)]. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the federal court dismissed those counts in the plaintiff’s complaint that alleged the retaliation claim.
Background
In August 11, 2014, the plaintiff, a patient services representative for the employer, fell when a chair at her employer’s premises broke. Three days later, she was diagnosed with a consequent lower-back injury as well as carpal tunnel from her routine work. Ten days later, the plaintiff was accidentally punctured with a needle that had been used for a patient’s sexually transmitted disease testing. According to the district court, while the allegations of the complaint were not clear on the point, it appeared that the clinic where the plaintiff was subsequently taken for blood testing performed the wrong test, prolonging the period of uncertainty the plaintiff had to endure with respect to whether she had been infected by the accidental puncture.
The court indicated the plaintiff’s complaint did not allege that she was infected. Nor did it indicate how long it took to confirm the lack of infection. The plaintiff alleged, however, that the anxiety she experienced as a result of the incident caused severe depression that greatly affected her sleep, resulting in medication prescriptions. On August 23, 2014, two days after the incident, a psychiatrist diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and recommended 12 weeks of medical leave. Following her PTSD diagnosis, the employer approved plaintiff’s request to take FMLA leave to recover.
In November 2014, the plaintiff submitted a workers’ compensation claim related to her workplace injuries. The employer denied the claim. The plaintiff eventually returned to work, was transferred to another facility, and took additional FMLA leave due to her mother’s declining health.
Two weeks after her return from leave, on March 28, 2018, plaintiff’s supervisor presented plaintiff with a document listing the latter’s prior discipline due to instances of disruptive behavior in 2016 and 2017. These instances included alleged tardiness for work, use of a cell phone while drawing a patient’s blood, allowing plaintiff’s daughter to run around the laboratory while patients were present, and taking personal calls while patients were waiting to be seen. On May 23, 2018, the supervisor issued a written discipline note after the plaintiff was reportedly seen placing confidential patient information in the trash. On August 7, 2018, the supervisor issued Strong another written discipline note for the same offense. The next day, August 8, 2018, the employer informed the plaintiff that she was being terminated. According to the court, It did not provide any written documentation or formal reason for the termination.
Retaliatory Discharge Claim
The plaintiff filed a civil action in federal court against the former employer, alleging multiple claims, including retaliatory discharge. As to that portion of her complaint, the district court noted that in order to plead a retaliation claim under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, a plaintiff must show:
- She was an employee at the time of the injury;
- She exercised a right under the IWCA; and
- She was discharged and the discharge had a causal connection to her IWCA claim.
The district court indicated that causation presented a problem for the plaintiff. It added:
As the Seventh Circuit has remarked, “[t]he element of causation in retaliatory-discharge law does most of the work of separating lawful discharges from unlawful retaliatory discharges.” Brooks v. Pactiv Corp., 729 F.3d 758, 768 (7th Cir. 2013).
No Plausible Claim
The district court indicated that the plaintiff filed her workers’ compensation claim in November 2014, presumably related to both the fall from her chair and accidental needle puncture. The employer denied all disability claims raised in her claim in December 2014, but did not terminate her until August 2018. These facts did not plausibly show that the employer retaliated against the plaintiff for filing a workers’ compensation claim, three and a half years after the employer had denied it. Further, the plaintiff had other means of challenging the employer’s denial of her workers’ compensation claim, including appealing the denial. As things stood, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged retaliation under the IWCA.