Vlupitta v. Walsh Construction Company
2016 IL App (1st) 152203
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Vulpitta, an at-will carpenter/foreman employed by Walsh since ~2000, was laid off from the Spring Grove project on May 24, 2012, because carpentry work was complete and he received no pay or benefits after that date.
- He had prior work-related injuries (2008 biceps/wrist; Aug. 15, 2011 hip) and a workers’ compensation claim filed in Aug. 2009 (related to the 2008 injury); defendants accommodated restrictions and continued employing him on multiple projects through May 2012.
- On July 2, 2012 Vulpitta sought medical records and on July 6, 2012 he filed a workers’ compensation claim for the Aug. 2011 hip injury; on July 11, 2012 he met Easterday for lunch and recounts being told he was being let go then.
- Vulpitta filed charges with the Illinois Department of Human Rights on Dec. 28, 2012 (alleging disability discrimination and retaliation) and later sued in circuit court; the Department dismissed the administrative charge as untimely (finding a May 24, 2012 discharge), which would make the Dec. 28 filing beyond the 180-day statutory deadline.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants: (1) disability-discrimination claims under the Illinois Human Rights Act were time-barred because the termination date was May 24, 2012, and (2) the retaliatory-discharge claim failed for lack of causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the operative termination date was May 24, 2012 (layoff) or July 11, 2012 (lunch) for purposes of timeliness under the Illinois Human Rights Act | Vulpitta: July 11 is the effective termination (final discharge), so his Dec. 28 administrative charge was within 180 days | Walsh: May 24 was the layoff/termination (no pay/benefits after that date); July lunch was not a new termination date | Court: May 24 was the termination date; discrimination charges untimely under the Act |
| Whether Vulpitta is judicially estopped from asserting July 11 as the termination date because he reported May 24 on his unemployment application | Vulpitta: He can explain/withdraw the unemployment-date statement | Walsh: Sworn unemployment statement supports May 24 and precludes later inconsistent position | Court: Did not base ruling solely on estoppel but noted he had sworn to May 24; affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether a temporary layoff can be treated as a termination for Act and Workers’ Compensation Act purposes | Vulpitta: Layoff was temporary; employer’s comments suggested rehiring; therefore July date controls | Walsh: No promise to rehire, no pay/benefits after May 24, and project work was complete — final decision to end employment occurred May 24 | Court: Layoff was a termination for these purposes; plaintiff’s own testimony showed re-sign-up rules and loss of status after 30 days |
| Whether summary judgment on retaliatory-discharge claim was improper because of temporal proximity between workers’ comp filing and alleged July discharge | Vulpitta: Filed workers’ comp claim July 6; five days later he was permanently discharged — temporal proximity supports causation | Walsh: Layoff was May 24 for lack of work and not retaliatory; employer accommodated prior injuries and continued to employ plaintiff on many projects | Court: No genuine issue on causation; employer had nonpretextual reason (lack of work); summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (1992) (summary-judgment standard and construing evidence against the movant)
- Leonardi v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83 (1995) (appellate review may be affirmed on any rationale supported by the record)
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172 (1978) (recognition of retaliatory-discharge claim for employees fired for seeking workers’ compensation)
- Baker v. Miller, 159 Ill. 2d 249 (1994) (Illinois Human Rights Act is the exclusive remedy for covered employment discrimination)
- Raintree Health Care Ctr. v. Ill. Human Rights Comm’n, 173 Ill. 2d 469 (1996) (scope of Act and related jurisdictional principles)
- Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co., 184 Ill. 2d 328 (1998) (employer’s nonpretextual reason defeats causation in retaliatory-discharge claims)
- Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc., 164 Ill. 2d 29 (1994) (at-will employment general rule)
- Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432 (2015) (elements of judicial estoppel)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984) (appellant’s burden to provide complete record on appeal)