Lawrence Hess v. Kanoski & Associates, 784 F.3d 1154

Hess, an attorney, worked for Kanoski & Associates (K&A) on medical-malpractice cases for ~6 years before being terminated on February 14, 2007 for economic reasons.
Hess seeks post-termination compensation under his employment agreement and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), plus various tort and unjust-enrichment claims.
The district court granted summary judgment against Hess on all claims; on appeal we remanded to address whether Hess could recover for post-termination settlements.
Two contract provisions govern compensation: Section 4 sets 15% bonus of fees generated/received; a 25% bonus applies on fees received over $750,000 annually; a June 2002 modification lowers base salary and provides a 40% bonus of all fee revenue generated, with specific exclusions.
The key dispute is whether the terms “generated” and “received” are interchangeable and whether post-termination settlements qualify Hess for bonuses.
The court ultimately affirms the district court, holding that Hess is not entitled to post-termination fees under the contract and that Hess’s IWPCA claim fails.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Contract interpretation of generate vs received	Hess argues generate means create regardless of receipt.	K&A argues generate and received are interchangeable; bonuses accrue only when fees are received.	Terms are interchangeable; no post-termination fees if not received.
Effect of the 2002 modification	Modification supports Hess’s broader generate meaning.	Modification does not override the original, which uses received similarly to generate.	Modification does not change the interchangeable reading; Hess not entitled.
IWPCA entitlement for post-termination bonuses	Unequivocal promise of a bonus entitles Hess to a pro rata share under IWPCA.	No unequivocal promise and no earned bonus since fees were not received before termination.	IWPCA claim fails for lack of unequivocal promise and non-receipt of fees.

Hess v. Kanoski & Associates, 668 F.3d 446, 668 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2012) (remanding IWPCA and breach issues; contract interpretation later addressed)
Hess v. Kanoski & Associates, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42854, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42854 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (district court decision on contract interpretation (not official reporter; cited for analysis))
Allen v. Cedar Real Estate Grp., LLP, 236 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2001) (contract interpretation under Illinois law; subsidiarity of state law in diversity)
Camillo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 729 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (IWPCA earned bonuses; interpretation of earned bonuses)
McLaughlin v. Sternberg Lanterns, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (IWPCA earned bonuses; unequivocal promise requirement)