A state appeals panel will allow a man to continue suing UL, which fired him after guns were stolen from his vehicle while parked in a company lot.
Steven Levine sued UL in Cook County Circuit Court concerning his termination in October 2021. He said the company fired him after two pistols and ammunition were stolen from his locked vehicle Sept. 9. Levine said UL claimed the reason was his obstruction of its investigation into car burglaries in its lot. But Levine has alleged the termination “was merely pretextual” because UL was upset he had the guns in his car in the first place.
After Cook County Judge Patrick Sherlock dismissed Levine’s complaint with prejudice, Levine brought the issue to the Illinois First District Appellate Court. Justice Nathaniel Howse wrote the panel’s opinion, issued June 20; Justices James Fitzgerald Smith and Cynthia Cobbs concurred.
Howse said there is no dispute Levine was an at-will employee, meaning UL could fire him for any reason or no reason. However, the panel noted state law still prohibits employers from executing a retaliatory discharge, which requires the displaced worker to show both retaliation and that the termination clearly violates established public policy.
The policy in question is the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Levine maintains he had a valid license under that law when UL hired him in September 2009 and said the manner he locked his guns and ammunition complied with its regulations.
The panel pointed to a 2009 Illinois Supreme Court opinion, Turner v. Memorial Medical Center, and noted the opinion didn’t “limit the scope of the meaning of ‘clearly mandated public policy’ to only those implicating protections under the Workers’ Compensation Act or for whistleblowing.” But it also said “the mere citation of a constitutional or statutory provision in a complaint will not, by itself, be sufficient to state a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. Rather, an employee must show that the discharge violated the public policy that the cited provision clearly mandates.”
The panel agreed the FCCA establishes the type of public policy that can be the basis of a retaliatory discharge claim and noted it specifically “mandates that employers who prohibit firearms on their property must post signs to that effect and permit concealed carry licensees to keep firearms in their vehicles in compliance with the statute.”
Since Levine alleged he legally secured his guns and that his termination was directly related to him abiding by the state law, Howse said, the complaint could survive dismissal. However, the panel continued, because Judge Sherlock dismissed the complaint on “the erroneous belief” an FCCA dispute wasn’t grounds for a retaliatory discharge claim, he didn’t evaluate whether Levine sufficiently alleged retaliation.
“We agree with (UL) that (Levine) has pled no specific facts to support that claim but states it only as a conclusion,” Howse wrote. “(Levine) tacitly admits the defect by asking this court to remand so that plaintiff may conduct discovery on the issue.”
The panel granted that request, reversing Judge Sherlock’s dismissal only “to the extent it is based on failure to allege a ‘clearly mandated public policy,’ ” but affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim while reversing the limitation on Levine’s rights to amend his complaint.
Levine is represented by attorney David G. Sigale, of Wheaton.
UL is represented by attorneys Sara Eber Fowler and Danielle M. Kays, of the firm of Seyfarth Shaw, of Chicago.