Leach v. Lauhoff Grain Co.

Decision Date31 August 1977
Docket NumberNo. 13873,13873
Citation9 Ill.Dec. 634,51 Ill.App.3d 1022,366 N.E.2d 1145
Parties, 9 Ill.Dec. 634, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4770 Daniel E. LEACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAUHOFF GRAIN COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Manion, Janov & Edgar, Ltd., Hoopeston, Rick E. Janov, Hoopeston, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant.

Acton, Acton, Meyer & Smith, Danville, Thomas B. Meyer, Danville, of counsel, for defendant-appellee.

CRAVEN, Presiding Justice:

Does an employee discharged solely because he files a workmen's compensation claim have a cause of action for such retaliatory discharge? We hold that he does.

Retaliatory discharge by an employer is contrary to the expressly stated public policy of this state and gives rise to a cause of action in tort for compensatory and punitive damages. The ruling of the circuit court dismissing a complaint and holding there to be no such cause of action is reversed and the case is remanded to the circuit court with directions to deny the motion and for further proceedings.

The first Workmen's Compensation Act was enacted in Illinois in 1911, and reenacted in 1913. It was taken substantially from a like enactment of Great Britain. (See Chicago Dry Kiln Co. v. Industrial Board (1916), 276 Ill. 556, 114 N.E. 1009.) The object and purpose of the enactment of the workmen's compensation law in this and other states was to eliminate the common law of liability for personal injuries based upon the negligence of the employer with its attendant and complex defenses of contributory negligence, fellow servant negligence and assumption of the risk. The difficulty of proof and delay in the courts often provided no remedy, subjected the injured employee to deprivation of livelihood, reduced him to poverty, and produced antagonisms between employers and employees to the point that under the police power, something had to be done. That which was done we now refer to as workmen's compensation. That legislation amounted to a tradeoff, liability became absolute, the various defenses disappeared, and the employee could receive compensation for his injuries without reference to fault. The employer had to pay, but the amount he had to pay was not left to the vagary of delayed jury verdicts but for the most part was dependent upon a statutory scheme, and the amount recovered would be less, but recovery would be certain. (See 81 Am.Jur.2d, Workmen's Compensation, § 1 et seq.) As we have indicated, the enactment of workmen's compensation legislation was pursuant to the police power and was done in furtherance of sound public policy. (Deibeikis v. Link-Belt Co. (1914), 261 Ill. 454, 104 N.E. 211.) We turn now to the specifics of this case.

On December 2, 1975 plaintiff Daniel E. Leach filed a complaint against defendant Lauhoff Grain Company, his former employer, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The complaint alleged that plaintiff, an employee at will, was discharged by defendant on November 1, 1975, in retaliation for having filed a workmen's compensation claim against the defendant on October 14, 1975. Plaintiff alleged his firing was due to no reason other than his filing of the claim. Also, he alleged that defendant's conduct in firing him was in violation of section 4(h) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 48, par. 138.4(h)) which makes it "unlawful for any employer * * * to discharge or threaten to discharge * * * an employee because of the exercise of his rights or remedies granted to him by this Act." The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordinarily, an employee at will may be terminated by the employer for any cause or no cause at all. However, this principle is not absolute.

Broadly stated, "Public policy is that principle of the law which holds, that no subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public, or against the public good." (People ex rel. Peabody v. Chicago Gas Trust Co. (1889), 130 Ill. 268, 294, 22 N.E. 798, 803.) It "relates to good morals, natural justice and matters affecting the citizens of the State generally." (Chicago & E. I. R. R. Co. v. Rouse (1898), 78 Ill.App. 286, 290.) "The public policy of a State is to be found embodied in its constitution and its statutes. When these are silent upon the subject, then in the decisions of its courts." People ex rel. Nelson v. Wiersema State Bank (1935), 361 Ill. 75, 86, 197 N.E. 537, 542.

In Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Durkin (1942), 380 Ill. 11, 42 N.E.2d 541, the supreme court held that the preamble of the Unemployment Compensation Act constitutes a declaration of the legislature of the public policy of this state. So too the public policy of Illinois is established by subsection (h) of section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This section was added to the Act on July 1, 1975. It was clearly the public policy of this state at the time of plaintiff's discharge in November 1975. It is a fair interpretation of that subsection to say that our public policy is the prevention of discharges for an employee's filing of a workmen's compensation claim because such actions subvert the operation of the Act.

We recognize the employer's interest in having freedom to discharge his at will employees, yet we cannot overlook the fact that the effect of the substitution of workmen's compensation for the common law was to eliminate a cause of action by an employee against the employer for work-related injuries. The Act took away from the employee the right to sue in tort in exchange for his right under the Act. To accept defendant's argument here would be to say to the employee, "Although you have no right to a tort action, you have a right to a workmen's compensation claim which, while it may mean less money, is a sure thing. However, if you exercise that right, we will fire you."

The theory of a tort action arising from a wrongful discharge is not new. In Nees v. Hocks (1975 Or.), 536 P.2d 512, an employee's tort action was sustained where she was fired for serving on jury duty against her employer's wishes. Recovery was granted to plaintiffs in Petermann v. Teamsters Local 396 (1959), 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 344 P.2d 25, where they were discharged from an employment at will for their failure to give perjured testimony in their employer's behalf. In Glenn v. Clearman's Golden Cock Inn, Inc. (1961), 192 Cal.App.2d 793, 13 Cal.Rptr. 769, employees at will were discharged for promoting unionism. The court gave recognition to their cause of action for wrongful discharge holding that the public policy in favor of freedom to unionize overrode the employer's right to discharge employees at will. See cases collected at 62 A.L.R.3d 271; Blades, Employment At Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power, 67 Colum.L.Rev. 1404 (1967).

Courts in several states have addressed the precise issue before us here. A split of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 5 Noviembre 1985
    ... ... right to fire workers at will in cases 'where no clear mandate of public policy is involved' (Leach v. Lauhoff Grain Co., (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 1022, 1026, 9 Ill.Dec. 634, 366 N.E.2d 1145)." The ... ...
  • Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 21 Agosto 1981
    ...claim. See, e. g., Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1979); Leach v. Lauhoff Grain Co., 51 Ill.App.3d 1022, 9 Ill.Dec. 634, 366 N.E.2d 1145 (1977); Frampton v. Central Ind. Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973); Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.A......
  • Trosper v. Bag `N Save
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 6 Julio 2007
    ...Corp., supra note 1, 265 Neb. at 431, 657 N.W.2d at 640. 16. Id. at 432, 657 N.W.2d at 640, quoting Leach v. Lauhoff Grain Co., 51 Ill.App.3d 1022, 366 N.E.2d 1145, 9 Ill.Dec. 634 (1977). 17. Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc., 164 Ill.2d 29, 645 N.E.2d 877, 206 Ill.Dec. 625 (1994). 18. ......
  • Zientara v. Long Creek Tp., 4-90-0492
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 4 Abril 1991
    ...the right to fire workers at will in cases 'where no clear mandate of public policy is involved' (Leach v. Lauhoff Grain Co. (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 1022, 1026[, 9 Ill.Dec. 634, 366 N.E.2d 1145, 1148] ). But what constitutes clearly mandated public There is no precise definition of the term. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT