A recent Seventh Circuit decision interpreting Illinois law affirmed the district court’s ruling that an employee’s refusal to engage in activity illegal in New York, but not in Illinois, was neither protected under the Illinois Whistleblower Act (“IWA”) nor under a common-law retaliatory discharge theory.
In Perez v. Staples Contract & Commercial, LLC, Perez, a sales representative with a documented history of poor performance, worked on an account that involved the sale of laundry detergent in New York. The supplier recommended a product, but later warned that its sale in New York was illegal due to its chemical makeup. Perez advised his supervisor that he did not feel comfortable selling an illegal product, and his supervisor told him he would “take care of it.” Perez was terminated a few months later for poor sales production.
Perez then sued, alleging various claims including: (1) retaliation under the IWA; and (2) common-law retaliatory discharge. The district court ruled that the New York regulation prohibiting the sale of products containing the chemical did not trigger an IWA retaliatory discharge claim. Rather, such a claim arises only when a “clearly established policy of Illinois” is at issue. Further, the district court found no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Perez had participated in any protected activity under the IWA, as well as insufficient evidence of retaliatory motive to defeat summary judgment.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the...
PHOTO: RSPCA VIA AFP LONDON - An animal welfare charity has revealed it rescued more than 250 dogs from one UK home, with a photo of the scene prompting “disbelief” and false claims that the image...