Five Employment Law Case Analyses: Rights and Protections

Palmateer v. International Harvester: Whistleblower Protection and Retaliatory Discharge

Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, 85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981)

Parties: In this case, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company, International Harvester.

Facts: The plaintiff claimed he had been wrongfully terminated for helping law enforcement — essentially acting as a whistleblower — by reporting criminal activity within the company to the police.

Issue: The issue at stake was whether the defendant company had acted within the bounds of the law with respect to at-will termination.

Applicable Law: The case involves the tort of retaliatory discharge in Illinois. Under this doctrine, termination is not justified when it undermines public policy — that is, the common good.

Holding: The court held that the plaintiff had indeed been wrongfully terminated and awarded him damages accordingly.

Reasoning: The defendant had undermined public policy by engaging in retaliatory discharge. Because the plaintiff had been assisting police, he was protected from termination for that activity.

Case Questions:

Is there a difference between the court's protection of an employee who reports a rape by a coworker or the theft of a car, and an employee who is constantly reporting the theft of the company's paper clips and pens?

It is well established that an employee who reports criminal activity by a coworker is protected from retaliation by their employer. This protection stems from the public policy interest in encouraging the reporting of illegal activity. However, it is less clear whether an employee who makes frequent complaints about relatively minor incidents of workplace misconduct is similarly protected. Some courts have held that such employees are not entitled to the same level of protection, on the grounds that their complaints are not in furtherance of a public policy interest. Other courts have taken a more expansive view, holding that any complaint made in good faith is entitled to protection.

Should the latter employee in the above question be protected? Consider that the court in Palmateer remarked that "the magnitude of the crime is not the issue here. It was the General Assembly who decided that the theft of a $2 screwdriver was a problem that should be resolved by resort to the criminal justice system."

Yes, the employee described above should be protected.

What are other areas of public policy that might offer protection to terminated workers?

Discrimination clauses in Title VII under the Civil Rights Act could offer protection to terminated workers.

Conclusion: As noted in the case materials, "the foundation of the tort of retaliatory discharge lies in the protection of public policy, and there is a clear public policy favoring investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses" (p. 99). My recommendation aligns with the court's: the plaintiff was protected under public policy from being terminated for providing law enforcement with useful information that would ultimately serve the common good of the community by bringing criminal actors within the company to justice.

Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi: Non-Compete Agreements and Trade Secrets

Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi, 2017 WL (M.D. Fla. 2017)

Parties: The plaintiff is Generations Salon (Osborne Associates), and the defendants are Cangemi et al., proprietors of Silver Salon, who were formerly employees of the plaintiff.

Facts: Generations Salon accused Cangemi and Calianno of breaching the terms of their non-compete agreements, breaching their fiduciary duties, violating the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, and violating Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. § 688.001. The defendants claimed they learned nothing new from their employer. Nonetheless, the defendants did violate their non-compete agreements after leaving Osborne by opening their own salon and marketing to Osborne's customers.

Issue: The protection of trade secrets was at issue, justifying enforcement of the non-compete clause. Also at issue was the solicitation and diversion of clients to the defendants' Silver Salon. Cangemi et al. claimed they did not learn anything from Generations that they did not already know.

Applicable Law: The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (FDTSA) and Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), as noted above.

Holding: An injunction was granted to the plaintiffs, barring the defendants from soliciting Generations Salon customers or marketing in a manner that competed against Generations.

Reasoning: The judge reasoned that it was in the public interest to award an injunction to the plaintiff based on case precedent (N. Am. Prods. Corp. v. Moore). The defendants had violated their non-compete agreement, placing them in violation of the law.

Case Questions:

What alternative fact pattern might change the court's decision on whether Cangemi and Calianno breached their non-compete agreements?

If Cangemi and Calianno had been employed in different cities, it is possible that the court would have found their non-compete agreements were not breached. The geographic scope of the agreements would have been much smaller, making it less likely the parties would have come into competition with each other. As a result, this alternative fact pattern could have produced a different outcome.

If Generations Salon did not have its proprietary Stanglware database, would this case be resolved differently?

It very likely may have been resolved differently, as part of the suit focused on the loss of intellectual property.

Is it fair to restrict Cangemi and Calianno from using their knowledge to begin their own business in this industry?

No, that would not be fair — but that is not the focal point of the case.

Conclusion: The defendants had all worked at Generations Salon and each signed a non-compete agreement prohibiting them from working for a competing salon within a certain distance of Generations Salon. The court found this agreement enforceable, among other torts. Personally, I recommend against the injunction, as the grounds are relatively tenuous.

Herawi v. State of Alabama: Title VII National Origin Discrimination

Herawi v. State of Alabama, Department of Forensic Sciences, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Ala. 2004)

Parties: The plaintiff, Ms. Herawi, accuses the defendant, the State of Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Facts: The plaintiff, Ms. Herawi, is an Iranian woman who was employed by the State of Alabama as a forensic scientist. She was harassed multiple times during her employment. After she filed complaints, the Department terminated her. She subsequently sued, alleging retaliation for her complaints and harassment during employment based on her race and national origin.

Issue: The issue is whether the State of Alabama violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Ms. Herawi on the basis of her national origin. The Act prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In its defense, the State of Alabama argued that Ms. Herawi had not been treated differently from other employees and that there was no evidence of discrimination.

Applicable Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Holding: Judgment was granted to the plaintiff based on evidence presented at the hearing, which supported her allegations against the state and the Department.

Reasoning: Prejudice and discrimination constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Her termination violated her civil rights.

Case Questions:

Are you persuaded by the state's evidence that it had an individual of a different national origin who was treated similarly to Herawi? If Ward (or other managers) treated everyone equally poorly, perhaps there is no national origin claim. What if Ward's defense is simply that her poor treatment of Herawi had nothing to do with national origin but that she simply did not like Herawi personally? Would that be an acceptable defense, and could it have saved the state's case?

No, that is not persuasive evidence — harassment is harassment. Such a claim of personal dislike would not be an acceptable defense because it could stem from unconscious bias or prejudice.

The court explains that pretext may be based on comments depending on "whether their substance, context, and timing could permit a finding that the comments are causally related to the adverse employment action at issue." What elements would you look to in order to find pretext if you were on a jury?

When looking for pretext, jurors would typically look for inconsistencies in the defendant's case. This might include evidence that does not add up, contradictions in witness testimony, or anything else that casts doubt on the defendant's version of events. In some cases, there may also be evidence that an alleged nondiscriminatory motive does not fit the surrounding circumstances — for example, if similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff's protected class were treated more favorably under identical conditions.

The court explains that timing alone would not be enough to satisfy the causality requirement of retaliatory discharge. Given the facts of this case, if you were in charge of the department and Herawi truly was not performing at an acceptable level and you wished to terminate her after all of these circumstances, how might you have better protected the department from a retaliatory discharge claim?

Termination would have had to be based on documented performance reviews, with clear opportunities given to the employee to improve. If no improvement were shown within a defined period of time, termination would then be triggered by objective criteria rather than by proximity to the employee's complaints.

Conclusion: The plaintiff won judgment based on evidence supporting allegations of racial and national origin discrimination. My recommendation aligns with the court's finding.

References

Herawi v. State of Alabama, Department of Forensic Sciences, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Ala. 2004).

Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986).

National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989).

Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi, 2017 WL (M.D. Fla. 2017).

Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, 85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981).