An Illinois appeals panel has ruled a nurse, who won a lawsuit accusing Winnebago County of violating her religions conscience rights when her supervisors forced from her government health care job because she would not help women get abortions, did not deserve a larger payout from the county, because she could have taken a similar county post that did not involve abortion referrals.
The Feb. 22 decision was penned by Justice James Knecht, with concurrence from Justices Robert Steigmann and Peter Cavanagh, of Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court, which sits in Springfield.The decision favored Winnebago County; Winnebago County Public Health Administrator Dr. Sandra Martell; and County Board of Health Chair James Powers in their dispute with licensed practical nurse Sandra Rojas, of Rockford.
Rojas has been an LPN since 1990 and joined the Winnebago County Health Department in 1996. As of 2015, she focused on pediatrics at a county clinic. But her duties changed that year, when the health department ordered her to start referring females for abortions and furnishing birth control information. Rojas refused on religious grounds, turned down an offer to instead work at the county nursing home, and resigned, according to court papers.
Illinois Fourth District Appellate Justice James Knecht
| Ballotpedia
Rojas then sued, alleging the county violated the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act.
Rojas contended she was not out of line in rejecting the nursing home job, because it was not equivalent to the clinic post. She claimed the differences involved "client population, nature of the facilities, hours of work, job responsibilities, and being subjected to a probationary period."
In January 2021, Judge Eugene Doherty ruled the county breached the Conscience Act in the way it had treated Rojas, ignoring her religious rights. But the judge said, on the other hand, Rojas had not "mitigated her damages" by taking the nursing home job. The judge found the two jobs to be substantially equivalent in compensation, qualifications and hours.
Doherty awarded Rojas the minimum amount permitted by the Act of $2,500, but ordered the county to pay her attorneys $367,737 in fees and $7,890 for legal costs.
Rojas appealed the $2,500 award, arguing Doherty did not properly compare the nursing home job with the clinic post.
Justice Knecht disagreed with Rojas.
"Both parties submitted written argument addressing multiple relevant factors for consideration when evaluating whether the positions were sufficiently similar. The court, in its memorandum opinion, indicated it considered 'the excellent legal arguments of counsel.' While the court only explicitly addressed a few of the relevant factors in its memorandum opinion, that does not show the court failed to consider other relevant factors," Knecht said.
Knecht added that Judge Doherty did not see the nursing home position as a demotion.
In Knecht's view, the jobs were much more similar than dissimilar, with both posts in the same field, with comparable pay, benefits, hours, pensions and qualifications. The responsibilities were also comparable, chiefly that they both involved patient care.
Knecht noted that one of the jobs Rojas took after leaving the county, was as a nurse at a home for handicapped children, which was similar to a nursing home, in that they both involved "institutionalized populations."
Also, the probationary period of which Rojas complained, would not have affected Rojas' employment status, Knecht said.
Rojas was represented before the appellate court by attorney Whitman Brisky, of Mauck & Baker, of Chicago.
Winnebago County and the two health officials were represented by Michael Atkus, of Knight, Hoppe, Kurnik & Knight, of Rosemont.