A split Illinois appeals panel has ruled a temporary worker, injured while working at a suburban candy plant, can sidestep the state's worker's comp system and sue his temporary employer because the temp worker may have believed he waived his eligibility for workers' compensation, even though he cannot do so under Illinois law.
A dissenting justice, however, called the ruling "unreasonable" and said it "leads to an absurd result."
The late July decision was penned by Justice Mary McDade, with concurrence from Justice Vicki Wright, of Illinois Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa. Justice William Holdridge dissented. The ruling favored plaintiff Jaime Quintana in a lawsuit he lodged in 2017 in Will County Circuit Court against Ferrara Candy Company, which is based in Oakbrook Terrace.
Illiniois Third District Justice Mary McDade
| Illinoiscourts.gov
Quintana was employed by a staffing agency, Elite Staffing, which assigned him to work at a Ferrara candy packaging plant in Bolingbrook. In November 2015, wooden pallets fell from a forklift, operated by a Ferrara employee, onto Quintana, according to his suit.
Quintana sued Ferrara, alleging the forklift operator was negligent.
Ferrara moved to dismiss, contending that under the Illlinois Workers' Compensation Act, Quintana was a "borrowed employee" and was barred from suing his "borrowing employer." Rather, Quintana would have to seek workers' compensation for any injuries suffered at the Ferrara plant, Ferrara maintained.
Quintana argued a contractual relationship did not exist because he signed a waiver, prepared by Ferrara, disclaiming any employer-employee relationship. The waiver stated Quintana was “solely an employee of (the) staffing firm," according to court papers.
Circuit Judge Raymond Rossi agreed with Ferrara, tossing the case. Quintana appealed.
Justice McDade said the question at hand was whether Quintana was a "borrowed employee."
McDade found Elite and Ferrara controlled Quintana, with a Ferrara employee supervising Quintana and training him in his duties. This, she said, satisfied the first requirement for borrowed employee status. McDade said it was also necessary for an "express or implied contract of hire" to exist between Quintana and Ferrara. However, the two parties dispute whether such a contract existed. In McDade's eyes, that means the suit should be reinstated to hash out this question.
McDade noted the waiver referred to “any benefit plan, policy or practice offered by Ferrara," with "policy or practice" potentially understood by Quintana to mean Ferrara was not offering him workers' compensation.
"The issue before us is not, however, what the members of this panel with many years of cumulative legal knowledge and experience would understand from the waiver. It is rather whether this plaintiff knew or should have known that, despite the seemingly definitive contrary language of the waiver he had been compelled to sign, he had nonetheless entered an employer-employee relationship with Ferrara," McDade said.
McDade continued: "The majority finding is that the existence of that relationship is not so clear to an average worker reading that specific waiver language that the question should be taken from the finder of fact and resolved by the court as a matter of law."
Dissenting Justice Holdridge, however, found this view to be rubbish.
"Workers’ compensation is not some type of elective program that an employer may voluntarily offer at its discretion — it is statutorily required by state law. Therefore, I fail to see how workers’ compensation is encompassed within this language" and was waived by Quintana, Holdridge said.
Holdridge pointed out workers' compensation eligibility is determined by law and eligibility "cannot be waived pre-accident," adding the majority's interpretation is "unreasonable" and "leads to an absurd result."
Quintana has been represented by the Chicago firm of Harman Fedick.
Ferrara has been defended by Best, Vanderlaan & Harrington, of Chicago.