Schoenberger v. Chicago Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 05 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-366,79-366
• Citation: 39 Ill.Dec. 941,405 N.E.2d 1076,84 Ill.App.3d 1132
• Parties: , 39 Ill.Dec. 941 James A. SCHOENBERGER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1076

405 N.E.2d 1076

84 Ill.App.3d 1132, 39 Ill.Dec. 941

James A. SCHOENBERGER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79-366.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

May 5, 1980.

James A. Schoenberger, pro se.

Edward J. Egan, Chicago, for defendant-appellee.

CAMPBELL, Justice:

The plaintiff, James Schoenberger, brought a small claims action pro se in the Municipal Department of the circuit court of Cook County against the defendant, Chicago Transit Authority (hereinafter C.T.A.) to recover contract damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals from this judgment. At issue is whether the C.T.A. may be held liable under agency principles for a promise allegedly made by an employee of the C.T.A. to the plaintiff at the time that he was hired to the effect that he would receive a $500 increase in salary within a specified period of time. We affirm.

Schoenberger was employed by the C.T.A. from August 16, 1976, to October, 1976, at a salary of $19,300. The facts surrounding his employment with the C.T.A. are controverted. The plaintiff's position at the trial was that he took the job with the C.T.A. at a salary of $19,300 upon the condition that he would receive a $500 salary increase, above and beyond any merit raises, within a year. Schoenberger testified at trial that, after filling out a job application and undergoing an initial interview with a C.T.A. Placement Department interviewer, he met several times with Frank ZuChristian, who was in charge of recruiting for the Data Center. At one of the meetings with ZuChristian, the Director of Data Center Operations, John Bonner, was present. At the third meeting held between ZuChristian and the plaintiff, ZuChristian informed the plaintiff that he desired to employ him at $19,800 and that he was making a recommendation to this effect. Schoenberger told ZuChristian that he would accept the offer. ZuChristian informed him that a formal offer would come from the Placement Department within a few days. However, when the offer was made, the salary was stated as $19,300. Schoenberger did not accept the offer immediately. Rather, he called ZuChristian for an explanation of the salary difference. After making inquiries, ZuChristian informed Schoenberger that a clerical error had been made and that it would take a number of weeks to have the necessary paperwork reapproved because several people were on vacation. To expedite matters, ZuChristian suggested Schoenberger take the job at the $19,300 figure and that he would see that the $500 would be made up to him at the April, 1976, October, 1976, or at the latest, the April, 1977 performance and salary review. The $500 increase was to be prospective and not retroactive in nature. John Hogan, the head of the Data Center, was aware of this promise ZuChristian informed Schoenberger. Because the defendant was found to be ineligible for the October, 1976 performance evaluation and the April, 1976 review was cancelled, the April, 1977 evaluation was the first evaluation at which the issue of the salary increase was raised. When the increase was not given at that time, the plaintiff resigned and filed this suit.

On cross-examination, Schoenberger admitted that he never inquired into ZuChristian's authority to discuss salary with him. However, he stated that he believed that ZuChristian's authority overrode the authority of the Placement Department, which he believed had only a "perfunctory" role in hiring. He further stated that the inconsistent offers from the Data Center management and the Placement Department were only indicative of the conflict which generally seems to exist between Placement Departments and the management of Data Centers. Schoenberger also stated that he regarded the $500 salary increase promise by the Data Center management to be a commitment by them on behalf of the C.T.A ZuChristian's testimony as to the events giving rise to Schoenberger's employment with the C.T.A. paralleled that of Schoenberger's except for a few key points. ZuChristian outlined the general procedures utilized by the Data Center in hiring new personnel. He stated that a recommendation is processed by the Department Manager after someone in the department had interviewed the applicant. The recommendation is forwarded to the Employee Relations Department for review and then to the Placement Department. Under this procedure, he is not allowed to make an offer. He could, however, discuss the job with a prospective employee and tell him what salary he would recommend. ZuChristian testified that his supervisor had told him to make informal offers to prospective employees so the long placement procedure would not discourage applicants. He was to make it clear that the formal offer would come from the Placement Department. Schoenberger's application and employment with the C.T.A. followed the general hiring procedure. However, ZuChristian stated that when he told Schoenberger of his desire to hire him he intended him to consider this as an offer. He also stated that he lied to Schoenberger when he told him that the $19,300 salary offer was a clerical error. This story, he stated, was agreed upon by his superior, John Hogan, and was to insure that Schoenberger would accept the lower salary approved by the Employee Relations Department as the recommended salary for Schoenberger's position had been rejected. ZuChristian stated that the department occasionally negotiated with prospective employees for compensation above and beyond that which has been approved by the Personnel Department and stated that he was promised $200 above the formal salary offer made by the Placement Department when he was hired. This often occurred because the Data Center management tried to keep the salaries at a competitive level with the outside market while the Placement Department tried to keep salaries consistent within the Authority. ZuChristian also stated that he informed Bonner, his new immediate supervisor, about the $500 promised to Schoenberger in the fall of 1976 when ZuChristian's group was placed under Bonner's authority.

The C.T.A., on the other hand, contends that Schoenberger unconditionally accepted the job offer at $19,300 and that if ZuChristian made any promise to the plaintiff, he was without the authority to do so, and, therefore, the C.T.A. was not bound by the promise. Don Reece, the Placement Department interviewer who processed Schoenberger's application, stated that at the interview of the plaintiff that he conducted he made no offer of a particular salary. He did testify that Schoenberger told him at that time that he wanted $20,000 in salary. Reece stated that when he notified Schoenberger that the C.T.A. was offering him a position in the Data Center at $19,300 that Schoenberger accepted without objection.

John Hogan, the head of the C.T.A. Data Center testified that salary is determined at a meeting between the Department head of the prospective employee, the Executive Director, and a representative of the Employee Relations Department. Hogan testified that he was unaware of any promise of additional compensation to Schoenberger until the issue was raised subsequent to Schoenberger's resignation. He denied having agreed to the "clerical error story" testified to by ZuChristian. He did state that he had recommended the $19,800 figure to the salary committee but that the recommendation was rejected. Hogan also testified that ZuChristian was not in a management position in the Data Center. He also stated that sometime after Schoenberger resigned, ZuChristian was asked to leave because his work had become unacceptable.

John Bonner, the Director of Systems Development, stated that in September, 1976, ZuChristian's department was transferred to his authority. At this time ZuChristian told him of the promise to increase Schoenberger's salary. He informed ZuChristian that he had possessed no authority to make such a promise and that it would not be honored. In October, Schoenberger informed Bonner of the promise. At this time Bonner told him that there had been no clerical error and that no raise would be forthcoming. Bonner confirmed Hogan's testimony that ZuChristian had no authority to make offers to prospective employees.

The trial court, after hearing the evidence and reviewing the exhibits, ruled in favor of the defendant. The trial court ruled: (1) that it was inconceivable that the plaintiff thought ZuChristian had final authority in regard to employment contracts; and (2) that it was not shown that a commitment or promise was made to the plaintiff by an authorized agent of the C.T.A.

A trial court's judgment in a bench trial will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is palpably contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Getzoff v. Paris (1979), 77 Ill.App.3d 401, 33 Ill.Dec. 35, 396 N.E.2d 260; Wroclawski v. Waszczyk (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 408, 342 N.E.2d 261; Fisher v. City of Aledo (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 190, 318 N.E.2d 305.) For a judgment to be found to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellant must present evidence that is so strong and convincing as to completely overcome the evidence, and presumptions, if any, existing in the appellee's favor. (Wroclawski v. Waszczyk.) Moreover, the trial judge in a trial, without a jury acts as trier of fact and, therefore, determines the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, where the testimony is contradictory, the weight of the evidence is for the trial court. Hill v. Hill (1979), 79 Ill.App.3d 809, 35 Ill.Dec. 98, 398 N.E.2d 1048; Crawford v. Anagnostopoulos (1979), 69 Ill.App.3d 954, 26 Ill.Dec. 234, 387 N.E.2d 1064; Wroclawski v. Waszczyk ; Fisher v. City of Aledo.

The main question before us is whether ZuChristian, acting as an agent of the C.T.A., orally contracted with Schoenberger for $500 in compensation in...