Illinois Employee’s Termination Not Retaliatory Where it Occurred Six Weeks Prior to His Filing Comp Claim

Where an Illinois employee failed to indicate to his employer that his absence from work was due to an alleged work-related injury and he filed his workers’ compensation claim six weeks after he had been terminated for his inability to report for work, his retaliatory discharge action against his former employer was barred as a matter of law, held a state appellate court in Eckerty v. Eastern Ill. Foodbank, 2022 IL App (4th) 210537, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 400 (Sept. 15, 2022). The court acknowledged that had the alleged injury been witnessed by a representative of the employer, the result might have been different, the court stressed that the former employee had come forward with no evidence that the employer knew of the alleged work-relatedness of the injury or that he would eventually file a workers’ compensation claim.

Background

Eckerty began working for EIF in 2001, and aside from a period during 2004-05, when he managed a golf course, he remained employed there in various roles until July 2018. Eckerty suffered three different work injuries that he immediately reported to EIF, pursuant to the company’s policies. He injured his back in 2001, a trash compactor fell on his forearm in 2002, and he accidentally splashed bleach on himself in 2010. He received no negative treatment by anyone at EIF after these injuries, and he remained employed at EIF following each report.

On April 26, 2018, Eckerty left work at EIF without reporting any accident or injury to his supervisor or anyone at EIF. The next day, he texted his immediate supervisor, indicating “Won’t be in today. My hip is hurting.” He continued to communicate via text with EIF and attended a meeting on May 22, 2018, to discuss his leave of absence. He provided a physician’s note that his recovery would likely take 9 months. Eckerty could not, however, provide EIF with a time frame of when he might return to work.

On July 3, 2018, Eckerty appeared for another meeting at EIF. EIF representatives confirmed that his paid time-off had expired and his employment would be terminated effective July 24, 2018. When Eckerty was unable to return to work on that date, his employment was terminated.

Comp Claim Filed as Well as Retaliatory Discharge Action

On August 18, 2018, Eckerty engaged an attorney and filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. Nearly a year later, on July 31, 2019, Eckerty filed his complaint in the instant case, alleging one cause of action for retaliatory discharge. Ultimately, the trial court granted EIF summary judgment in August 2021, indicating that even if Eckerty’s injury was work-related, there was no evidence that EIF discharged him in retaliation for exercising his rights under the Act. The trial court added that there was simply no evidence to suggest that anyone involved in Eckerty’s discharge knew of his intended workers’ compensation claim or that he took any protected activity under the Act. Without such evidence, the trial court said the retaliation claim failed as a matter of law.

Appellate Court Decision

On appeal, the court agreed with the trial court that there was no evidence suggesting Eckerty’s discharge from EIF was causally related to his activity pursuant to the Act. The court stressed that the record indisputably showed that Eckerty filed his claim a full six weeks after he learned on July 3, 2018, that he would be terminated effective July 24 if he could not return to full-duty work. The court added that at first blush, the fact Eckerty filed a claim for workers’ compensation after he was fired belied a causal connection between his claim and his termination. How could EIF retaliate against Eckerty for something that had not yet happened? The court noted, however, that under Illinois law, timing was not necessarily dispositive on causality.

Here, unlike in the cases cited by Eckerty, the alleged work-related injury was unwitnessed. With no reasonable inferences that EIF knew Eckerty suffered a work-related injury or suspected he intended to file a workers’ compensation claim or evidence that EIF offered contradictory reasons for firing Eckerty, logic dictated that EIF could not retaliate against Eckerty for something it knew nothing about.

Knowledge is Key

The court stressed that knowledge is key for causality. There must be evidence the employer knew its injured employee intended to exercise his rights under the Act. Any issue of fact relating to causality here was not genuine because the court said it saw no evidence in the record supporting the position that EIF knew Eckerty suffered a work-related injury. The trial court’s decision was affirmed.