The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mills, District Judge:
Plaintiff's complaint is totally without merit.
Summary judgment for Defendant is allowed.
Richard Newby, a disgruntled employee, brings this diversity
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 against his former employer,
Wal-Mart Stores, alleging the company violated Illinois public
policy when it discharged him after several garnishments were
entered against his wages.
Wal-Mart does not deny the complaint's factual basis; rather,
Defendant supplements it with affidavits and moves for summary
judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
Although Plaintiff notably fails to submit counter-affidavits
or cite any applicable authority, he nevertheless insists that
a jury must declare the State's public policy.
Newby's argument is frivolous.
The Court decides this cause in favor of his employer as a
matter of law.
In October 1980, Wal-Mart employed Plaintiff at will in its
Carlinville, Illinois, store. During his service, Defendant
counseled Newby on various dates regarding its receipt of his
creditors' wage deduction summonses. Yet, over a three-year
period immediately prior to Plaintiff's termination, multiple
garnishments from eight different creditors of Newby were
served upon and processed by his employer. See Ill.Rev. Stat.
ch. 110, ¶¶ 12-801 to 819 (1985).
Finally, on February 1, 1985, Wal-Mart instructed Newby that if
it received any further wage deduction orders, he would be
discharged. At that time, the store was processing garnishments
from the Bank of Commerce, Dr. Sally DeGrano, and Household
Finance Company. When the Defendant received another
garnishment on February 4, 1985, from the Springfield Pediatric
Clinic, it informed Newby of his termination due to multiple
garnishments on multiple debts.
Despite his recurring indebtedness, however, Plaintiff contends
that he could not have possibly prevented the February 4
garnishment since it followed so closely to his employer's
ultimatum of February 1. Moreover, he asserts the final wage
deduction order was simply a renewal of an earlier garnishment
served upon his employer, and not an additional one for which
he could be terminated. See Ill.Rev.Stat.ch. 110, ¶ 12-808(b)
(1985). But even though the Court accepts Newby's factual
allegations as true, his legal conclusions nevertheless fail.
Plaintiff does not hold a cognizable claim against the
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment should be "rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact." See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ___
U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511-12, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Such
is the case here. Viewing the ...