Coffey v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc.
145 F. Supp. 3d 771
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Coffey was hired as an assistant store manager at DSW (May 2009). DSW had a written "Shoplifting and No-Apprehension Policy" forbidding store employees from calling law enforcement without regional manager authorization.
- On Aug. 28, 2009, based on an associate's report of a prior shoplifting and suspicious customer behavior (and a running car outside), Coffey told staff over a walkie-talkie that she intended to call police; an associate (Torres) called 911 and a police officer conducted a walk-through.
- DSW terminated Coffey three days later for violating the Policy. Coffey then filed this suit under the Illinois Whistleblower Act (IWA), 740 ILCS 174/15, alleging retaliatory discharge.
- DSW moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) the IWA does not cover reports about third parties, Coffey did not personally dial 911, Coffey’s belief was unreasonable, and she failed to mitigate damages. Coffey moved for partial summary judgment on liability.
- The court found the IWA’s plain language covers disclosures of any violation (not limited to employer misconduct), Coffey had reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred, and DSW failed to rebut Coffey’s evidence of diligent job-search efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IWA cover reporting third‑party misconduct (not employer wrongdoing)? | IWA protects employees who disclose information they reasonably believe shows any legal violation to law enforcement. | IWA intended to protect whistleblowers who report employer wrongdoing only. | IWA language is unambiguous; covers disclosures of any violation. Legislative statements don’t override plain text. Plaintiff wins. |
| Must the plaintiff personally make the disclosure to law enforcement? | Coffey need not have dialed 911 herself; she relayed information and the police were informed. | Only the actual caller should be protected. | Who placed the call is immaterial; Coffey disclosed information to police and was terminated for that conduct. |
| Was Coffey’s belief that a violation occurred reasonable? | Observations plus coworker report and suspicious circumstances gave Coffey reasonable cause to believe shoplifting had occurred/would recur. | No actual shoplifting occurred that night; Coffey had no specific reason to suspect Richards. | Reasonableness is judged objectively; Coffey’s belief was reasonable under the circumstances. |
| Did Coffey fail to mitigate damages by not diligently seeking comparable employment? | Coffey applied to many jobs, spent substantial time searching, accepted lesser paid work and later positions; DSW offered no rebuttal. | Coffey limited search methods and geography; could have done more. | Mitigation is a factual issue; DSW failed to meet its burden to show lack of diligence or lost opportunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rosenbohm, 564 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2009) (plain-meaning rule for statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1981) (statutory construction principles)
- Brame v. City of N. Chicago, 955 N.E.2d 1269 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (IWA permits disclosures to employer when employer is law enforcement)
- Michael v. Precision Alliance Group, LLC, 952 N.E.2d 682 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (relay of report through another person does not defeat retaliatory‑motivation analysis)
- Stebbings v. Univ. of Chicago, 726 N.E.2d 1136 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (reasonableness of belief, not correctness, controls under whistleblower protections)
- Donlin v. Philips Lighting N. Am. Corp., 581 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. 2009) (mitigation need not demand onerous conditions; comparable employment standard)