Schroeder v. RGIS, Inc.
992 N.E.2d 509
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Schroeder sued RGIS for intentional infliction of emotional distress after alleged harassment over his sexual orientation.
- RGIS moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1, arguing HR Act preemption and WC Act exclusivity.
- Circuit court dismissed, finding HR Act preempts and WC Act bars the claim; allowed repleading.
- Second amended complaint alleged supervisor abuse, long commutes, heavy workload, and retaliation after reporting conduct.
- Plaintiff alleged extreme and outrageous conduct by management and a pattern culminating in resignation.
- Appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding IIED inextricably linked to civil rights violation and compensable under WC Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IIED is preempted by the HR Act | Schroeder independent IIED elements without HR Act duties | Claims are inextricably linked to civil rights violation | Preempted by HR Act |
| Whether WC Act exclusivity bars the claim | Injury not non-physical; not compensable under WC Act | Injury physical-mental is compensable and barred | Barred by WC Act |
| Whether plaintiff stated an independent IIED claim | Allegations show extreme, outrageous conduct beyond ordinary workplace stress | Allegations rely on HR duties; insufficient to prove extreme conduct | Insufficient independent IIED claim |
| Whether conduct constitutes extreme and outrageous behavior | Long hours, isolation, derogatory remarks, and unsafe conditions | Work stress and discipline do not reach extreme and outrageous level | Not extreme and outrageous |
Key Cases Cited
- Maksimovic v. Tsogalis, 177 Ill. 2d 511 (1997) (whether tort is inextricably linked to civil rights violation)
- Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp., 154 Ill. 2d 1 (1992) (extreme and outrageous standard for IIED)
- Geise v. Phoenix Co. of Chicago, Inc., 159 Ill. 2d 507 (1994) (independent basis for tort to avoid HR Act linkage)
- Public Finance Corp. v. Davis, 66 Ill. 2d 85 (1976) (mindful of outrageous conduct standard)
- City of Springfield v. Industrial Comm'n, 291 Ill. App. 3d 734 (1997) (psychological injuries can be WC-compensable when physical trauma present)
- Pathfinder Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 62 Ill.2d 556 (1976) (physical-mental injury concept under WC Act)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455 (1990) (exclusivity and injury not meeting WC criteria)
- Veazey v. LaSalle Telecommunications, Inc., 334 Ill. App. 3d 926 (2002) (HR Act remedies; jurisdictional limits)
- Doyle v. Rhodes, 101 Ill. 2d 1 (1984) (exclusive remedy principle under WC Act)