The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation's ("Smurfit-Stone") motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20). Plaintiff Albert Varel ("Varel") filed a response (Doc. 22) to which Smurfit-Stone replied (Doc. 25). For the following reasons, the Court denies Smurfit-Stone's motion for summary judgment.
1.Facts and Procedural History
Varel worked for Smurfit-Stone*fn1 for over 43 years from October 7, 1965, until the day he was terminated on February 20, 2009. Varel suffered an on-the-job injury on December 5, 2000, when he tripped and fell over a hose. At the time of this accident, Varel's supervisor employed a policy wherein he discouraged employees from filing workers' compensation claims for their onthe-job injuries. Rather, that supervisor encouraged employees to submit their on-the-job injuries as claims to Boston Mutual for non-employment accident and sickness claims. Varel, however, filed a workers' compensation claim on November 13, 2003. He also notified Smurfit- Stone's corporate office of his supervisor's policy that discouraged the filing of workers' compensation claims.*fn2
Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations with regard to Varel's workers' compensation claim. On March 31, 2008, Smurfit-Stone, through its attorney, offered to settle Varel's workers' compensation claim "as long as it was tied to a resignation." (Doc. 2-1, p. 2). Varel refused this offer, and a settlement that was not contingent on Varel's resignation was finally reached on July 2, 2008.
On January 26, 2009, approximately six months after the workers' compensation settlement, Varel was involved in an on-the-job accident while unloading rolls off of another driver's truck. While removing a roll, Varel scraped a wall with his forklift causing damage to company property. Varel noted in his deposition that the wall had obviously been damaged previously on multiple occasions. On February 9, 2009, as a result of the January 26, 2009 accident, Smurfit-Stone required Varel to sign a "Last Chance Agreement" wherein Varel was warned that any further damage to company property would result in his immediate termination.
Shortly thereafter, on February 17, 2009, Varel was involved in another accident while operating a Powered Industrial Truck that was following a transfer car. According to Varel, the transfer car malfunctioned and abruptly stopped, resulting in a collision between the truck he was operating and the transfer car. Varel alleges that the collision was not his fault because the transfer cart had malfunctioned. The transfer car at issue had previously malfunctioned by stopping abruptly, and work orders for repairs dated September 9, 2008, and December 10, 2008, were left unanswered by Smurfit-Stone. Further, Varel suggests that other employees had collided with the malfunctioning transfer car and were not given Last Chance Agreements.
Smurfit-Stone, however, chose to terminate Varel on February 20, 2009, purportedly as a result of the February 17, 2009 collision that violated the Last Chance Agreement.
On December 5, 2012, Varel filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, alleging retaliatory discharge against Smurfit-Stone for two reasons: (1) filing a workers' compensation claim; and (2) informing Smurfit-Stone's corporate office of its policy discouraging employees from filing workers' compensation claims. Smurfit-Stone filed its notice of removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The instant motion contends that Smurfit-Stone is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Varel has failed to show his termination was causally related to the filing of his workers' compensation claim or his report of the local office's policy. Accordingly, the Court will now turn to consider whether Varel has produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment with respect to the causation element of his claim.
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels Int'l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2000). The reviewing court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Chelios v. Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2008); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396.Where the moving party fails to meet its strict burden of proof, a court cannot enter summary judgment for the moving party even if the opposing party fails to present relevant evidence in response to the motion. Cooper v. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992).
In responding to a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not simply rest upon the allegations contained in the pleadings but must present specific facts to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-26; Johnson v. City of Fort Wayne, 91 F.3d 922, 931 (7th Cir. 1996). A genuine issue of material fact is not demonstrated by the mere existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties," Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247, or by "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, a genuine issue of material fact exists only if "a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the evidence presented." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
If the moving party is defending the claim at trial, he need not provide evidence affirmatively negating the plaintiff's claim. It is enough that he point to the absence of evidence to support an essential element of the plaintiff's claim for which she carries the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 325. Where the defendant has pointed to a lack of evidence for one of the essential elements of a plaintiff's claim, if the plaintiff fails to provide evidence sufficient to establish that element, there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.
Now, the Court will recite the relevant law with respect to Varel's Illinois retaliatory discharge claim. As a general matter, an employer may terminate an at-will employee for any reason or no reason at all. Sweat v. Peabody Coal Co., 94 F.3d 301, 304 (7th Cir. 1996). Illinois, however, recognizes the tort of retaliatory discharge as an exception to this general rule. Id. To succeed on a retaliatory discharge claim the employee must establish that (1) the employee was discharged; (2) "the discharge was in retaliation for the employee's activities"; and (3) "the discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy." Dotson v. BRP U.S. Inc., 520 F.3d 703, 707 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co., 601 N.E. 2d 720, 728 (Ill. 1992)). The Illinois Supreme Court has already determined that the discharge of an employee in retaliation for the exercise of an employee's workers' compensation rights violates the clear mandate of Illinois public policy. Dotson, 520 F.3d at 171 (citing Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 384 N.E.2d 353, 357-58 (Ill. 1978)). An employee may establish retaliation for exercising his workers' compensation rights if he shows "(1) that he was the defendant's ...