August 16, 2022

Volume XII, Number 228

Advertisement
Advertisement

August 16, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 15, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling Against Illinois Employee Who Refused to Participate in Sale of Product Banned in New York

A recent Seventh Circuit decision interpreting Illinois law affirmed the district court’s ruling that an employee’s refusal to engage in activity illegal in New York, but not in Illinois, was neither protected under the Illinois Whistleblower Act (“IWA”) nor under a common-law retaliatory discharge theory.

In Perez v. Staples Contract & Commercial, LLC, Perez, a sales representative with a documented history of poor performance, worked on an account that involved the sale of laundry detergent in New York.    The supplier recommended a product, but later warned that its sale in New York was illegal due to its chemical makeup.  Perez advised his supervisor that he did not feel comfortable selling an illegal product, and his supervisor told him he would “take care of it.”  Perez was terminated a few months later for poor sales production.

Perez then sued, alleging various claims including: (1) retaliation under the IWA; and (2) common-law retaliatory discharge.  The district court ruled that the New York regulation prohibiting the sale of products containing the chemical did not trigger an IWA retaliatory discharge claim.  Rather, such a claim arises only when a “clearly established policy of Illinois” is at issue.  Further, the district court found no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Perez had participated in any protected activity under the IWA, as well as insufficient evidence of retaliatory motive to defeat summary judgment.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling, holding that Perez did not engage in a protected activity.  First, under the IWA, “an employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.”  740 ILCS 174/20.  There are two aspects to such a claim: (1) the refusal to participate; and (2) the violation of a statute, rule, or regulation.  There was no dispute that the detergent’s sale in New York violated a New York state regulation.  However, Perez’s whistleblower claim did not involve “Illinois” law, as required by the use of the term “State” in the IWA, which refers to Illinois, not any other state such as New York.  Since the sale of the product did not violate Illinois law, Perez’s actions were not protected.

Second, Illinois common law prohibits an employer from terminating an employee if the termination violates a clear mandate of public policy.  A clear mandate is something that “strikes at the heart of a citizen’s social rights, duties, and responsibilities.”  Palmateer v. Int’l Harvester Co., 421 N.E.2d 876, 878-79 (Ill. 1981).  Perez argued that Illinois environmental law also regulates the sale of detergents, so it is a matter of public policy in Illinois.  However, the Seventh Circuit rejected this contention, because “there is no analog to the New York regulation within the Illinois statutory and regulatory regime.”  Consequently, Perez’s termination did not violate a clear mandate of public policy, because refusing to violate New York environmental law “did not implicate any interest related to ‘a social duty or responsibility’ or the ‘health and welfare’ of Illinois citizens.”  And, the Seventh Circuit noted, that even if the district court’s reasoning was not correct, there was still insufficient evidence to support an inference of a retaliatory motive given that Perez had a track record of failing to meet performance expectations.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 164
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Alison Crane, Jackson Lewis, workplace management attorney, labor regulation lawyer, administrative agencies legal counsel, litigation law
Principal

Alison B. Crane is a Principal in the Chicago, Illinois, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. With an exclusive focus on representing management in workplace law and related litigation, Ms. Crane defends employers before federal and state courts, and administrative agencies, throughout the Midwest.

Ms. Crane has significant experience in employment litigation, including matters involving federal, state, and local employment laws, such as Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act...

312-787-4949
Associate

James Hager is an associate in the Chicago, Illinois, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. His practice focuses on representing employers in workplace law matters, including preventive advice and counseling.

Education

University of Michigan Law School
J.D., 2021

Loyola University of Chicago
B.A., 2017
summa cum laude

Admitted to Practice

Illinois, 2021

312-442-6114
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement