Corah v. The Bruss Co.
2017 IL App (1st) 161030
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Corah was a production supervisor at The Bruss Company; he investigated a coworker Albea’s band-saw injury and completed an Accident Investigation Report (AIR) that blamed management decisions.
- Corah’s supervisors rejected his AIR and instructed him to rewrite the AIR to emphasize the technical/root cause rather than management fault; Corah refused and was fired for insubordination.
- After Corah refused, another supervisor completed the AIR; the company’s safety manager said AIRs were internal and not submitted to OSHA; a separate workers’ compensation report was prepared and Albea’s claim was approved.
- Corah sued under section 20 of the Whistleblower Act, alleging he was terminated for refusing to participate in falsifying records and that the requested rewrite would have violated the Workers’ Compensation Act and OSHA rules.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant on Corah’s Whistleblower Act claim (and earlier dismissed claims for emotional distress and punitive damages); Corah appealed the April 7, 2016 order granting summary judgment on the whistleblower claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corah’s refusal was to participate in activity that would violate a law, rule, or regulation under the Whistleblower Act (740 ILCS 174/20) | Corah says he was asked to falsify the AIR and thereby violate the Workers’ Compensation Act and OSHA, so his refusal was protected | Bruss says it only asked Corah to add the technical/root cause to the AIR (an internal document) and did not request falsification or any action that violated law | Court held Corah failed to identify any specific law, rule, or regulation violated by refusing to complete the AIR; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether defendant interfered with Albea’s workers’ compensation rights (820 ILCS 305 provisions) | Corah contends instructions to Albea and the AIR rewrite effort interfered with her benefits and rights | Bruss produced evidence that workers’ compensation report was prepared and Bolinger (Tyson administrator) approved benefits; Albea did not recall interference | Court held record showed no interference with Albea’s workers’ comp rights; this did not establish protected activity under the Whistleblower Act |
| Whether OSHA-related allegations should remain in the complaint | Corah claimed AIR rewrite could produce false information to OSHA | Bruss argued AIRs were internal and not submitted to OSHA; court orders required removal of OSHA references in amended complaint | Appellate court declined to reach most earlier orders for lack of jurisdiction but found OSHA argument undeveloped and unpersuasive; plaintiff waived that issue |
| Jurisdiction to review earlier orders dismissing emotional distress and punitive damages | Corah sought review of trial-court rulings on damages and OSHA references | Bruss argued those orders weren’t included in the notice of appeal so are not before the appellate court | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the September 10 and December 18, 2014 orders because they were not specified in the notice of appeal; OSHA issue arguably inferred but was waived for lack of development |
Key Cases Cited
- Ioerger v. Halverson Constr. Co., 232 Ill. 2d 196 (standards for summary judgment)
- Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404 (summary judgment construing pleadings against movant)
- Weather-Tite, Inc. v. Univ. of St. Francis, 233 Ill. 2d 385 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Sardiga v. Northern Trust Co., 409 Ill. App. 3d 56 (plaintiff must actually refuse to participate in unlawful activity under Whistleblower Act)
- Michael v. Precision Alliance Group, LLC, 2014 IL 117376 (plaintiff bears burden to prove retaliatory cause of discharge)
- Alpha Gamma Rho Alumni v. People ex rel. Boylan, 322 Ill. App. 3d 310 (limitations on appellate jurisdiction when notice of appeal is deficient)
- General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163 (notice of appeal confines appellate jurisdiction)
- Heupel v. Jenkins, 379 Ill. App. 3d 893 (failure to develop argument results in waiver)