Hongsermeier v. Cooper B-Line, Inc.

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: CATES PRESIDING JUSTICE
• Citation: Hongsermeier v. Cooper B-Line, Inc., 2026 IL App (5th) 240790U, 5-24-0790 (Ill. App. Jan 13, 2026)
• Docket Number: 5-24-0790
• Decision Date: 13 January 2026
• Parties: LYNETTE HONGSERMEIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COOPER B-LINE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

1

2026 IL App (5th) 240790-U

LYNETTE HONGSERMEIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COOPER B-LINE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 5-24-0790

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fifth District

January 13, 2026

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County. No. 20-L-1411 Honorable Sarah D. Smith, Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Boie concurred in the judgment. Justice Vaughan dissented.

ORDER

CATES PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court's judgment is affirmed where the defendant was found to have violated the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003 and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The award of damages pursuant to the Illinois Equal Pay Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act is affirmed.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, the defendant, Cooper B-Line, Inc. (B-Line), was found to have violated the Equal Pay Act of 2003 (Equal Pay Act) (820 ILCS 112/1 et seq. (West 2022)) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2022)) for paying Lynette Hongsermeier (Lynette), a female employee, less than a male employee for substantially similar work. B-Line was ordered to pay Lynette "diminished earnings" damages in the amount of $2,067.26, including interest, from March 10, 2019, to March 22, 2020, and the amount of $32,882.28 for damages from March 22, 2023, to June 30, 2025. The circuit court also awarded $10,000 in special damages for emotional distress and for interfering with Lynette's rights under the Equal Pay Act and attorney fees and costs. B-Line now appeals, asking that the judgment be reversed as there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court's findings and conclusions and Lynette's causes of action were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA) (29 U.S.C. § 185 (2018)). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 B-Line, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eaton corporation, which operates a manufacturing plant in Troy Illinois. Lynette has been a long-time employee at B-Line working 24 years in the shipping department. At all times relevant to the proceedings, B-Line designated certain employees as "leads" who were responsible for managerial duties as identified by a job description. From March 10, 2019, to March 22, 2020, Lynette worked as the first shift shipping lead in the shipping department. During this same time period, Eddie Enriquez (Eddie), a coworker, was employed as the second shift shipping lead. Lynette alleged she was paid less than her male co-employee, Eddie, for performing substantially similar job duties. On October 6, 2020, Lynette filed her complaint in the circuit court of Madison County against B-Line. ^[1] In count I, Lynette alleged gender discrimination in violation of section 2-105 of the Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/2-105 (West 2018)). Count II alleged a violation of "the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (820 ILCS 115 [(West 2018))]." Count III alleged a violation of "the Illinois Equal Pay Act (820 ILCS 11[2] [(West 2018))]." All of the allegations in Lynette's complaint related to her claim that because she was female, she was paid less than Eddie for performing substantially similar work for the job designated as a lead. Lynette sought compensatory damages and special damages pursuant to the allegations in her complaint.

¶ 5 B-Line answered Lynette's complaint and admitted that:

"At all times it was the policy of Defendant Cooper B-Line, Inc. to designate 'leads' for each department. The leads were responsible for supporting the daily operations of their department and ensuring that the Defendant's performance standards were met for matters including safety, quality, and delivery. In addition, shipping leads were responsible for some managerial duties including assisting workers in their department with their general needs including personal protective equipment, receiving materials, and packing and crating goods manufactured by Defendant. Shipping leads also were expected to maintain key customer relationships with outsider vendors and drivers receiving goods to be shipped."

B-Line denied that it was liable for discriminating against Lynette and for the other acts claimed in her complaint.^[2] B-Line further raised affirmative defenses. B-Line claimed that Lynette was paid according to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Therefore, the CBA dictated the payment to employees and thus B-Line had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the difference in pay alleged. Further, because of the CBA, Lynette's claims were preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. Additionally, any claim that B-Line violated the Equal Pay Act more than five years before Lynette filed her complaint was time-barred. B-Line further argued that any claims relating to count I that were not raised in the administrative charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (Department) or that arose more than 300 days prior to the filing of the administrative charge with the "EEOC/IDHR" were time barred, and finally, that Lynette failed to mitigate her damages when she failed to accept training that would have resulted in a pay increase.

¶ 6 Subsequently, B-Line moved for summary judgment in its favor on all claims asserted by Lynette. B-Line claimed that Lynette worked as a "shipping coordinator lead in the shipping department on the first shift from 2015-2020." B-Line further argued that because Lynette was paid pursuant to a CBA, resolution of the claims in her complaint required interpretation of the contract. Therefore, section 301 of the LMRA preempted Lynette's claims. B-Line also claimed that Lynette did not follow the grievance procedure under the CBA, and therefore no claim under the LMRA could proceed because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

¶ 7 Lynette responded to the preemption defense, and conceded that count II, the Wage Payment and Collection Act claim, required interpretation of the contract and was preempted by the LMRA. She withdrew this count prior to trial. As to counts I and III, Lynette argued that these claims did not require interpretation of the CBA and were thus not preempted. In addition, Lynette argued that her claims arose outside of the CBA, and therefore she did not have to follow the grievance procedure under the CBA. On January 19, 2023, the motion for summary judgment was heard by the circuit court and denied.

¶ 8 On March 21, 2023, and April 11, 2023, the circuit court conducted a bench trial on the merits. Nicholas Knouse was the plaintiff's first witness. Knouse testified that from 2019 to 2020, he was the operations manager for B-Line's Troy, Illinois, plant. Between March of 2019 and March 2020 the only women working as leads at the Troy plant were in the shipping department. Knouse explained that in 2019, B-Line completed a reevaluation process of the required number of leads for particular departments as a result of an unrelated union grievance where "multiple people in the plant [were] being paid lead pay that were not doing the lead role." The shipping department employed approximately ten leads. In March 2019 the union and the company reviewed the payments being made to employees and an attempt at equity in payment for the lead role was put into effect. At the conclusion of the reevaluation, B-Line prepared and posted job descriptions to employ only one lead for the first shift and one lead for the second shift. The job descriptions were identical for the first shift and the second shift.

¶ 9 Knouse testified that Lynette was awarded a bid in 2019 for the first shift lead. The job posting for "Shipping Lead, Shift:1," Lynette's job, included a description of "responsibilities and expectations," and the job posting was introduced into evidence. Knouse explained that Lynette was chosen because she "demonstrated the skill set to be lead over the shipping coordinators" and she "performed very well at her role." Knouse further testified that Lynette had been meeting his reasonable expectations for the job.

¶ 10 Knouse also identified the job posting for the "Shipping Lead, Shift: 2" that was in effect in March of 2019. Knouse testified that this was the posting under which Eddie performed his job. Knouse indicated that the job description for the shipping lead on the second shift set forth the essential functions of the job, but it was "not all inclusive." He testified that the second shift had "additional responsibilities." Knouse indicated that the responsibilities between the first and second shift differed because the second shift often had to step up and do the "dual" position, or train the duals, whereas the first shift shipping lead did not have that responsibility.

¶ 11 Knouse conceded that when the two job descriptions were compared with one another, they were identical and with an identical pay rate, which was posted as "Shipping Coordinator rate + $1 (19.96 + $1 for 2019)." He noted that Lynette and Eddie reported to the same plant manager, that they worked in the same shipping department, that the trucks came into the same docks, and that the same freight was always shipped out. In addition, while in the office, Lynette and Eddie used similar computers and the same software and forms. They both put in a high degree of effort.

¶ 12 Knouse testified that he was not aware that Eddie got paid $0.40 more per hour until Lynette walked into his office in September of 2019, to bring the pay disparity to his attention. Knouse began investigating and asked the Human Resources Department of B-Line (HR) to get involved. Ultimately, a meeting was held on December 9, 2019,...