Wynn v. Illinois Department of Human Services
2017 IL App (1st) 160344
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jerry Wynn was a long‑time DHS contract employee (successive one‑year personal service contracts) who administered the Chicago Healthy Start federal grant program; his contracts were not guaranteed to renew.
- In Nov. 2009 Wynn told an internal auditor that a nearly $100,000 payment to the Springfield Urban League was unauthorized; he also emailed supervisors about the issue during an ongoing audit.
- DHS was simultaneously implementing a mediated resolution (the “Fletcher process”) with AFSCME to convert certain contractor/vendor positions into union positions; DHS compiled a fluid “grid” of contractors under review.
- After the audit concluded, DHS informed Wynn in April 2010 his contract would not be renewed and his position would be given to a union member; he received a final 6‑month contract through Dec. 31, 2010 and later sued.
- Wynn sued under the Ethics Act’s whistleblower/anti‑retaliation provisions (5 ILCS 430/15‑10 et seq.), claiming his reporting of the improper payment was protected activity and a contributing factor in DHS’s decision not to renew his contract.
- Following a one‑day bench trial the trial court found Wynn’s audit report was protected activity, that it was a contributing factor in nonrenewal, discredited key DHS witnesses (notably Dan Blair), awarded doubled back pay and fees; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonrenewal of a fixed‑term contract constitutes "retaliatory action" under the Ethics Act | Wynn: nonrenewal is a "change in the terms or conditions of employment" and thus retaliation | DHS: the statute lists specific acts and nonrenewal is not among them; analogies to retaliatory discharge cases bar claims based on nonrenewal | Court: Nonrenewal can constitute retaliatory action under Ethics Act (includes change in terms/conditions) |
| Whether Wynn’s report to the auditor was a "contributing factor" in nonrenewal | Wynn: his protected audit report, contemporaneous supervisory reactions, and timing show contribution | DHS: Fletcher process/AFSCME negotiations explain nonrenewal; decision was independent of Wynn’s report | Court: Evidence (motive, opportunity, timing, role of Blair) supports finding that protected activity was a contributing factor |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Wynn: credibility findings and circumstantial evidence support verdict | DHS: points to pre‑audit actions, neutral classification process, and temporal gap to rebut causation | Court: Deferential to trial judge credibility findings; judgment not against manifest weight; affirmed |
| Whether DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence it would have taken same action absent protected activity | Wynn: DHS did not meet clear and convincing standard; other contractors were retained via vendor transfers | DHS: PSA Option 6 classification and Fletcher process made loss inevitable | Court: DHS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that nonrenewal would have occurred regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 202 Ill. 2d 36 (statutory construction and plain meaning)
- Hines v. Department of Public Aid, 221 Ill. 2d 222 (courts may not read unexpressed exceptions into statutes)
- Krum v. Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc., 365 Ill. App. 3d 785 (contract employee nonrenewal and retaliatory discharge tort limitations)
- Bajalo v. Northwestern University, 369 Ill. App. 3d 576 (refusal to extend retaliatory discharge tort to nonrenewal of fixed‑term contract)
- Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 530 (deference to factfinder on credibility)
- Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207 (definition of clear and convincing standard)
- Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968 (timing between protected activity and retaliation; months can support inference)
- Leibowitz v. Cornell University, 584 F.3d 487 (nonrenewal of a contract can be an adverse employment action)