An injured worker’s retaliatory discharge claim isn’t block by governmental immunity
The Illinois Supreme Court held that the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act does not provide a local public entity with immunity from an employee’s claim of retaliatory discharge for exercising his workers’ compensation rights.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision dismissing a worker’s retaliatory discharge claim. The defendant, a park district, was not immune from liability under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.
The local government who retaliates against an injured worker who exercising his workers’ compensation rights does not have immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.
A seasonal park maintenance worker filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained on the job. Upon the worker’s release to return to his job, the park district required that he take a drug and alcohol test. The worker refused because he believed the demand was retaliatory harassment for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The worker was subsequently fired, allegedly for refusing to take the drug and alcohol test. The worker then filed a complaint for retaliatory discharge, contending he was fired for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the park district was immune under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that public entities do not enjoy immunity under the Tort Immunity Act against claims of retaliatory discharge for exercising workers’ compensation rights.
On appeal, the Park District urged this court to adopt the appellate court’s reasoning the holding in Cross v. City of Chicago. The Cross court concluded that discretionary immunity should apply even when an employer discharges an employee for exercising workers’ compensation rights. Cross largely based its holding on “the important policy considerations embodied in the Tort Immunity Act.” Cross determined that decisions by municipal employees about “how to best allocate resources and go about providing services, including the selection of employees who will provide those services for the benefit of the public, should not be unduly controlled by the threat of a tort judgment.” The instant court disagreed and overruled Cross, noting that it could not identify what legitimate competing interests are involved when a public entity decides to violate the clear prohibition of another enactment of the Legislature, namely, Section 4(h) of the WCA. Furthermore, terminating an employee for exercising workers’ compensation rights has nothing to do with “how to best allocate resources” and provide services for the benefit of the public.
