Wynn v. The Illinois Department of Human Services
81 N.E.3d 28
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jerry Wynn was a long-term DHS contract employee (program administrator for Healthy Start) who worked on successive one-year personal service contracts; his duties and supervisors remained constant.
- In 2009–2010 DHS implemented the “Fletcher process” under a mediated agreement with AFSCME to replace certain contractors with union employees; a large, fluid grid tracked affected contractors, including Wynn.
- In November 2009 Wynn told an internal auditor that a nearly $100,000 payment to Springfield Urban League was unauthorized; he emailed supervisors and participated in the audit process.
- DHS supervisors (especially fiscal manager Dan Blair) expressed frustration about Wynn’s responses to the auditor; contemporaneous emails and testimony show tension after Wynn’s disclosures.
- Wynn was informed in April 2010 that his contract would not be renewed and would end December 31, 2010; DHS cited the Fletcher/union-conversion process. Wynn sued under the Ethics Act’s whistleblower/anti-retaliation provisions.
- After a one-day bench trial the court found Wynn’s report was protected activity and a contributing factor in nonrenewal; the court rejected DHS’s defense that nonrenewal is not retaliation and awarded doubled back pay, interest, and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonrenewal of a fixed-term contract can constitute "retaliatory action" under the Ethics Act | Wynn: nonrenewal is a change in terms/conditions of employment and so qualifies as retaliatory action; Ethics Act covers contract employees | DHS: the statute’s list is exhaustive and Illinois law refusing to treat nonrenewal as retaliatory discharge (tort) controls, so nonrenewal is not covered | Court: Nonrenewal can be retaliation — "change in the terms or conditions of employment" includes nonrenewal; Ethics Act’s purpose supports coverage |
| Whether Wynn’s disclosure to the auditor was protected activity | Wynn: telling the auditor about the unauthorized payment reasonably believed to be a violation — qualifies under §15-10 | DHS: does not dispute protected activity but challenges causation | Court: Disclosure was protected activity under the Ethics Act |
| Whether Wynn proved the disclosure was a "contributing factor" in nonrenewal | Wynn: circumstantial evidence (timing, witnesses saying Blair upset, emails, Fletcher process subjectivity, similarly situated contractors retained via vendor transfers) supports inference | DHS: Fletcher negotiations and job reclassification would have eliminated position regardless; Blair was neutral and had no motive; temporal gap too long | Court: Evidence supported that Wynn’s disclosure was a contributing factor; DHS failed to show by clear and convincing evidence the same action would have occurred absent disclosure |
| Sufficiency of evidence / manifest weight challenge | Wynn: trial court credibility findings and circumstantial record support verdict | DHS: trial court’s findings unreasonable given documentation of union conversion and other testimony | Court: Affirmed — trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings were not against manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 202 Ill. 2d 36 (Illinois 2002) (statutory construction: use plain meaning to determine legislative intent)
- Hines v. Department of Public Aid, 221 Ill. 2d 222 (Illinois 2006) (court must not read into a statute limitations or exceptions not expressed)
- Krum v. Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc., 365 Ill. App. 3d 785 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (Illinois appellate refusal to treat nonrenewal of fixed-term contract as tort retaliatory discharge)
- Bajalo v. Northwestern University, 369 Ill. App. 3d 576 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (refusing to extend retaliatory discharge tort to nonrenewal of a contract employee)
- Leibowitz v. Cornell University, 584 F.3d 487 (2d Cir. 2009) (nonrenewal of an employment contract may be an adverse action under federal employment law)
- Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2003) (timing windows: several months can support inference of retaliation)