Articles Posted in Workers’ Rights

by

An Illinois worker sued his employer for negligent spoliation of evidence, claiming that it had breached its duty to preserve evidence from a work site forklift accident in Gerard v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 06 C 6163 (April 28, 2010). The plaintiff’s lawsuit was based on his claim that his employer’s negligence in preserving evidence from the accident prevented him from winning an Illinois product defect lawsuit against the forklift manufacturer. Based on its review of the case facts and relevant case law, the court held that plaintiff did not demonstrate that ConAgra Foods had breached its supposed duty to preserve evidence.

While working at one of ConAgra’s warehouses a forklift hit the plaintiff from behind. The force of the impact knocked the plaintiff to the ground, where the forklift ran over his right leg. The forklift in question was one of four machines that ConAgra had rented for use at its St. Charles, Illinois warehouse.

In order to make a viable Illinois product defect case against the forklift manufacturer the plaintiff needed to know which of the four forklifts had hit him. Without being sure which forklift was involved in the accident it would be difficult for the plaintiff to claim that the accident was caused by the forklift’s malfunction as a result of a product defect.

However, while ConAgra did make an investigation into the accident it never document which forklift was responsible. Furthermore, ConAgra had already returned at least on of the forklifts to the leasing company by the time the plaintiff began to investigate the workplace accident on his own. Therefore, the plaintiff was never able to discover which forklift ran him over and consequently was unable to prove his product defect case against the forklift manufacturer.

The plaintiff sought restitution from his employer on spoliation of evidence claims. In response, the defendant ConAgra filed a motion for summary judgment stating that given the relevant facts that it owed no duty the plaintiff on the spoliation issue.

Continue reading

by

A recent Illinois Appellate Court case has clarified the duty an employer owes to not only its employees, but also to the employee’s family. Simpkins v. CSX Corp, et al., No. 5-07-0346, involves a claim brought by the ex-wife of a former railroad worker regarding asbestos exposure she experienced as a result of her ex-husband’s employment.

The plaintiff’s ex-husband had worked at B&O Railroad as a steelworker, welder, railroad firefighter and laborer from 1951 to 1965. During the majority of his employment he was exposed to asbestos in his work environment. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that she had contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos on her husband’s work clothes and asserted that the railroad had negligently failed to take proper precautions to protect its employees’ families from “take-home” asbestos.

The railroad filed a motion to dismiss that stated that there no Illinois case set out that an employer owed a duty to its employee’s family members who had been exposed to asbestos. Therefore, any ruling on the employer’s duty would create a new cause of action. The railroad then went on to state that this was not an issue for the trial court, but should be decided by either the legislature or an appellate court. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case, leaving the burden on the plaintiff to appeal if she felt there was reason to create a new cause of action.

Continue reading

by

A recent Illinois workers’ compensation decision, Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, No. 107852, 2010 WL 199914 (Ill.Sup.Ct.), examined whether a worker was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits following his termination. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision, thus siding with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission’s assessment.

The facts of the case involved a union carpenter who suffered serious injuries to his head, neck, and back when he fell on his head en route to the hospital after suffering heatstroke on the job. Over the next two years, the Illinois carpenter was unable to return to his normal duties at Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. During this period he fluctuated between not working at all and times of working light duty per his doctor’s instructions.

Under Illinois workers’ compensation law, the injured worker received TTD workers’ compensation benefits from Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. when he was not working at all. Yet when he was working light-duty, the employee was eligible for an Illinois workers’ compensation maintenance benefit to account for the difference in his pay as a carpenter and his light-duty wage.

Continue reading

by

In a case before the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Chicago, it was held that a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to an employee of a sub-contractor where it is shown that the general contractor has assumed a degree of the responsibility for his safety with which sub-contractors do their work. Jose Aguirre v. Turner Construction Company, et al., No. 08-3999.

The Illinois construction site accident occurred when the worker fell from a scaffold while working on the renovation of Soldier Field in Chicago. The Appellate Court reversed the decision for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The lower court had ruled that the defendant did not owe any duty to the plaintiff because he was an employee of the subcontractor and that any negligence by the defendant was not relevant because it did not have exclusive control of the scaffold from which plaintiff fell.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois worker was crushed by a tractor-trailer at a loading dock while working for his employer. He collected Illinois workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, Ensign, and then he and his wife sued three companies in strict tort liability. Baltzell v. R&R Trucking Co..

The three defendants were R&R Trucking Company, owner of the tractor-trailer; Freightliner Corp., the tractor manufacturer, and Lufkin Industries, which was the trailer manufacturer. All of the defendants in the Illinois liability case filed third party contribution claims against the employer, Ensign, which means that Ensign could be held liable for the injury, too.

Ensign became involved because the other defendants were acting on the theory of joint and several liability, which states that a defendant who has paid more than its share of damages may seek contribution from other parties. The idea behind joint and several liability is that those parties who are most at fault should pay their share, regardless of whether they had settled prior to the verdict, or if they were not named in the lawsuit.

After a Chicago federal district court jury trial, a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was entered in the total sum of $13,980,120. The jury apportioned fault as follows: The plaintiff was not at fault; Freightliner was liable for 20% of the fault; Lufkin 10%; R&R 40%; and Ensign 30%. Under this verdict Ensign would be liable for $4,194,036.

However, Ensign attempted to reduce this amount by presenting evidence that its cap as set out according to a precedent set in Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp. was $4,085,571.21 and that it had paid $873,953.31 already under the Illinois worker’s compensation claim. Under Illinois law an employer’s contribution liability is capped to an amount not greater than the employer’s workers’ compensation liability. This value which is generally referred to as the ‘Kotecki cap’ represents the maximum amount that an employer has to pay in contribution.

Ensign moved to waive its workers’ compensation lien seeking dismissal of the third-party contribution claims. The district court denied Ensign’s motion. The district court then reduced the judgment by Ensign’s Kotecki cap of $4,085,471.21 which left $9,894,548 shared by the liability defendants according to their percentages at fault.

Continue reading

by

Chicago area Metra worker Leonard Brzinski was denied recovery for injuries he suffered after falling into a sinkhole while working. Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a train company employee can bring suit for injuries suffered on the job due to the employer’s negligence.

Brzinski arrived at work in Orland Park, Illinois, to investigate an accident. He was walking along the service road that ran parallel to the railroad tracks for the purpose of taking photographs. While he was walking, the ground gave way and Mr. Brzinski stepped into an 18-inch sinkhole with his left foot and injured himself.

Brzinski filed suit against Metra seeking recovery for his injuries. The defendant, Metra, filed a motion for summary judgment stating (1) Leonard was not one of the employees statutorily allowed to recover under FELA and (2) that Metra had no actual or constructive notice of the sinkhole that caused the injury.

The trial court granted Metra’s motion on the second argument- that Leonard failed to establish that Metra was or should have been on notice of the sinkhole defect. Therefore Metra was not responsible for Brzinski’s injuries.

Brzinski appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, who affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appeals court further stated that their decision was partly because of the consequences that would occur if they did side with the plaintiff despite his lack of proof. Namely, that every railroad would be liable for damages to an employee who was injured while working for them whether it was due to the railroad’s negligence or not. The court did not feel this was the intention of the FELA statute.

Continue reading

by

In a turn by the Supreme Court of the United States, the court handed down its ruling June 19, 2008 in favor of workers suing Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory for age discrimination. Notable in this decision is the fact that under Chief Justice John Roberts the Supreme Court repeatedly sided with business. Some critics even voiced concerns that the Roberts court went out of its way to side with big business, particularly in employment cases. This decision stands as a kind of reversal of that implied policy.

In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the National Government ordered its contractor, Knolls, to reduce its work force. As a result Knolls had its managers score their subordinates on “performance”, “flexibility”, and “critical skills”. These scores, along with points for years of service, were to used to determine who would be laid off.

30 of the 31 employees let go were at least 40-years-old. Meacham was one of those 30. The lawsuit was initiated claiming disparate-impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Disparate-impact is when an employment practice has a greater impact on one group over another. These “employment practices” can be anything from written tests, height and weight requirements, educational requirements, and subjective procedures, such as interviews. Under disparate-impact one doesn’t have to prove that there was an intent to discriminate against a certain group, but just that the result is discrimination.

In this case the key issue was whether or not Knolls’s basis for lay-offs was skewed according to age. The managers all scored these employees and thus used their own discretion to come up with their decisions.

Continue reading