Illinois worker fails to establish case of retaliation
The US district Court, Northern District of Illinois granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff presented no genuine issue of material fact that the stated reason for his termination was pretextual.
Case name: Gacek v. American Airlines Inc., 17 ILWCLB 128 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
Gacek, a fleet service clerk for the defendant-airlines, injured his finger while unloading baggage. He was diagnosed with a sprained finger and released to light dtuy with a splint. The next week. Gacek called in sick with the flu for three consecutive days. He was subsequently terminated for misrepresentign the facts surrounding his sick calls. In October, 2008, Gacek filed a claim for workers' compensaiton benefits. Gacek then filed the instant suit against the defendant, claiming he was fired for exercising his rights under the WCA. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, as Gacek failed to establish that the exercise of his workers' compensation rights caused his termination.
The defendant argued it fired Gacek because he lied in violation of company rules. Gacek admitted he "was not sick in the flu sense" but that he was entitled to progressive discipline. The court disagreed with Gacek, pointing out that the defendant's attendance policy and rules of conduct provide that dishonesty is grounds for immediate dismissal. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Gacek and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Gacek presented no genuie issue of material fact that the basis for his discharge - dishonesty and misrepresentation- was invalid.
The court went on to reject Gacek's contention that the timing of his termination- a month after his finger injury- established retalation. The record did not support an inference of suspicious timing. Gacek was injured many times over the course of his almost 20 year employment with the defendant but was not terminated until 2006.
The court also rejected the contention that the initation of surveillance on Gacek after he called in sick was because he exercised his workers' compensation rights. The supervisor's decision to investigate Gacek was distinct from the decision to terminate him. The supervisor did not participate in that decision. Her decision to initiate surveillance did not establish that Gacek's termination for dishonesty and misrepresentation was pretextual.
