Glasgow v. Associated Banc-Corp
980 N.E.2d 785
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Takeisha Glasgow appeals from dismissal of Count I in a two-count complaint against Associated Banc-Corp and its Lindenhurst Branch.
- Plaintiff alleged injuries from a December 2, 2009 bank robbery while working as a teller at the Lindenhurst Branch.
- Plaintiff claimed prior robberies and security deficiencies should have prompted changes and that defendants failed to provide adequate security.
- Plaintiff had filed a workers’ compensation claim on December 10, 2009, and was receiving benefits at the time of appeal.
- The trial court dismissed Count I under section 2-619.1; the appeal focuses on the amended complaint against the bank entities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act’s exclusivity bars the claim | Glasgow argues Act exclusivity does not bar her common-law action. | Defendants contend Act 5(a) bars the claim once compensation is sought/paid. | Yes; exclusivity bars the claim once compensation is accepted. |
| Whether pleaded facts state a viable common-law claim | Glasgow asserts outrageous conduct and security negligence support a claim. | Defendants contend pleadings fail to show specific intent or other exception to exclusivity. | No; pleadings fail to plead specific intent or unlawful non-employment injury. |
| Whether legislature intended immunity from intentional inactions under the Act | Glasgow argues intentional inactions were not protected by exclusivity. | Defendants maintain exclusivity extends to intentional inactions or not specifically authorized injuries. | No; immunity found under exclusivity; intentional-injury exception not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill. 2d 229 (1980) (exclusivity bars dual recovery after accepting compensation)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455 (1990) (exclusivity permitted when employer did not trigger intentional-injury exception)
- Copass v. Illinois Power Co., 211 Ill. App. 3d 205 (1991) (explanation of Act’s balance and exclusivity rationale)
- Bercaw v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 258 Ill. App. 3d 211 (1994) (exceptional non-employment or non-accidental injuries may permit common-law action)