Collins v. Town of Normal
2011 IL App (4th) 100694
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Mary Collins, injured May 30, 2007 as a Town of Normal employee, received Workers’ Compensation benefits.
- She remained employed with weight restrictions; position non-renewed effective April 1, 2008.
- She reported injuries to supervisor (May 30) and HR (June 14) and was instructed to see a doctor.
- She was verbally counseled (June 27) for sick-leave procedures.
- She filed a complaint September 22, 2009 alleging retaliatory discharge under the Workers’ Compensation Act; trial court dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 8-101(a) applies given 2-101(c) exclusions. | Collins argues 8-101(a) barred by 2-101(c) exclusions. | Town asserts 8-101(a) controls and bars the claim. | 8-101 does not apply; action falls under 2-101(c) (Workers’ Compensation Act). |
| Whether retaliatory-discharge claim is based on the Workers’ Compensation Act. | Collins’ claim is protected under Workers’ Compensation Act. | Town contends it is not so limited. | Action is based on the Workers’ Compensation Act for purposes of section 2-101(c). |
| Standard of review or procedural posture—statute-of-limitations dismissal correct? | De novo standard for 2-619 dismissal; limitations error. | Dismissal proper if limitations applied. | Trial court erred; statute-of-limitations not applicable to plaintiff’s amended complaint; reverse and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248 (2004) (holds 2-101 excludes actions from 8-101 where applicable, and supports non-application of 8-101.)
- Harvest Church of Our Lord v. City of East St. Louis, 407 Ill. App. 3d 649 (2011) (recognizes 2-101 exclusions apply to 8-101 limitations.)
- Paszkowski v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 1 (2004) (discusses 8-101 vs. 2-101 interplay; majority view controls 8-101 application.)
- Halleck v. County of Cook, 264 Ill. App. 3d 887 (1994) (retaliatory-discharge action treated as tort; contract exclusion not controlling here.)
- Slaughter v. Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District, 275 Ill. App. 3d 873 (1995) (applies 8-101 to certain actions but distinguished common-carrier context.)
- Cooper v. Bi-State Development Agency, 158 Ill. App. 3d 19 (1987) (applies one-year limitation to common-carrier context; distinguishable.)
- Smith v. Waukegan Park District, 231 Ill. 2d 111 (2008) (acknowledges Workers’ Compensation Act exclusion and public policy.)