February 12, 2010

HUGE WIN FOR ILLINOIS WORKERS!!!!

470477_craftsmen.jpg

The Illinois Supreme Court recently released an opinion - Interstate Scaffolding v. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission - that provides some much needed protection to Illinois workers. Jeff Urban was an Interstate union carpenter. On July 2, 2003 he suffered a work-related injury to his head, neck and back. After he was injured, Urban underwent a significant amount of medical treatment that sometimes required him to remain off work. At other times, he was allowed to work "light duty".

On May 25, 2005, Urban was working "light duty" at Interstate's Hazel Crest facility. At some point that day he went to the office and advised payroll that that there was an error in his check. Additionally, he advised that a recent check had actually overpaid him. The information regarding the overpayment was relayed to the Jan Coffey, the assistant to the company president. Coffey became irate when she learned the news about the overpayment. A couple of weeks earlier Urban had drawn some religious symbols in a company storage room. Coffey felt that Urban, as a professed religious man, should not have accepted the overpayment. She confronted Urban and accused him of being a "hypocrite". Not surprisingly, Urban was angered by the confrontation and there was a brief heated argument. The local police were called but no arrests made.

After the police left, Coffey phoned Ron Fowler, the company president and advised him of what had occurred. Fowler then contacted Urban's supervisor and instructed him to fire Urban. Urban was fired that day. After the termination, the company refused to pay Urban temporary total disability [TTD] benefits to Urban. Under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, TTD [a percentage of the worker's average weekly wage] is to be paid until a worker's condition has stabilized. As of May 25, 2005, Urban's condition had not stabilized.

Urban then filed his a Workers' Compensation case with the Illinois Industrial Commission. On June 25, 2005, the arbitrator found that Urban was not entitled to TTD after his termination. Urban appealed and the Commission modified the arbitrator's ruling, extending TTD to June 28, 2005, the date of the hearing. Interstate appealed that decision to the Circuit Court, who confirmed the Commission decision. Interstate then took the case to the Appellate Court who ruled that Urban was not entitled to TTD. Urban then took the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decision is brief and well-written. The Court noted that when a worker is seeking TTD, the critical inquiry is whether the condition had stablized. Urban's condition on the date of discharge HAD NOT stabilized. Consequently the employer's duty to pay TTD did not stop because Urban had been fired for cause. The Court established an important principle -when an employee entitled to TTD is terminated for conduct unrelated to the injury, the employer remains obligated to pay TTD until the employee's condition is stabilized.

Bookmark and Share

February 8, 2010

AN OVERVIEW: THE ILLINOIS HOME REPAIR ACT

482020_renovations.jpg


The Illinois Home Repair Act [815 ILCS 513/25] is getting a lot of attention these days because of some conflicting Appellate Court opinions interpreting the Act's requirements. If you are an Illinois contractor engaged in home repair and remodeling, here is a very basic primer on what you need to do in order to comply with the Act:

1) If the project is going to cost more than $1000, there is to be a written contract, setting forth the total cost. Additionally, the business name and address of the person[s] engaged in the work is to be provided. 815 ILCS 513/15.

2) Notify the client if the contract is going to impact the client's right to recovery. Specifically if the contract provides that disputes are to be resolved via arbitration or the right to a jury trial is waived, the contractor is to specifically notify the prospective client of those provisions. Although it is not set forth in the statute, it would be prudent to have a separate document spelling out the arbitration and jury waiver rights. 815 ILCS 513/15.1[a].

3) Document the client's decisions as to the arbitration provision or jury waiver in writing. The statute suggest having the client simply write "accept" or "reject" in the margins wherever the provisions appear in the contract. 815 ILCS 513/15.1[b]. That's a little informal. You might want to have a separate document formally demonstrating the client's election as to those issues.

4) Give the client a copy of the "Home Repair: Know Your Consumer Rights" pamphlet provided by the Attorney General. And, have the client sign and date a "Consumer Rights Acknowledgement Form" also provided by the Attorney General. 815 ILCS 513/20 [a].

5) Last, but not least, be sure that you are properly insured. The Act requires contactors to carry certain levels of public liability and property damage insurance.815 ILCS 513/25.

Please note: the above list is NOT comprensive, and is only meant to be a general discussion of what the Act requires. Be sure to check with an experienced attorney before undertaking any remodeling projects

Bookmark and Share

February 1, 2010

CHICAGO AREA WOMAN STRIKES BLOW FOR WORKING MOMS

imgc%3Bjsessionid%3D5B3BC8ACB1FE7BBC9013.jpg


Last week the Chicago Tribune ran an article by Ameet Sachdev on a sizable verdict recently handed down by the Chicago Commission on Human Relations. The case involved Dena Lockwood[pictured above] a working mom, who took a job with Professional Neurological Services in 2004. She paid a price because she was a parent. Lockwood's commission rate was lower than other sales personnel who did not have children. She had a tougher time getting time off than her single counterparts. And Lockwood felt ignored in sales meetings. Then in 2006, she had to take a day off because her 4 year old was sick. Her manager fired her.

Lockwood elected not to go to court, but to file a discrimination claim against Professional Neurological with the Commission And she won - in a big way. In July the Commission ruled awarded her over $213,000, including $100,000 in punitive damages. In addition, the hearing officer has recommended that Lockwood's legal team receive $87,000 in legal fees. Professional Neurological has indicated it intends to appeal the award.

Congrats to Lockwood and her attorney, Ruth Major.

Bookmark and Share