In a compelling legal battle, a former employee of a prominent medical center claims she was wrongfully terminated for opposing what she believed to be an unlawful workplace policy. Bridget Alexander filed the complaint against Loyola University Medical Center in the Circuit Court of Cook County on July 30, 2019.
The case centers around an incident that occurred on May 8, 2019, when a collections department employee chastised two coworkers for speaking Spanish. The following day, one of the staff members complained to Alexander about the incident. Alexander then brought the issue to her supervisor, Anna Carpenter, who informed her that Loyola had a policy requiring employees to speak only English during office hours. Alexander expressed concerns about enforcing this policy and questioned its legality, suggesting that it might cross lines into discrimination.
Alexander's discomfort with the English-only policy led her to involve Christin Zollicoffer, the Midwest director of diversity, equity and inclusion for Loyola’s parent company, Trinity Health. Zollicoffer confirmed that there was a draft policy regarding language use but noted it had not been finalized. Despite these efforts to clarify and address the issue, Alexander alleges that Carpenter began retaliating against her by criticizing her work more frequently and placing her on a performance improvement plan (PIP). Ultimately, Alexander was terminated on July 30, 2019.
Loyola University Medical Center moved for summary judgment on two principal grounds: first, they argued that Alexander did not engage in protected activity under the Illinois Human Rights Act; second, they claimed there was no causal connection between her opposition to the English-only policy and her termination. The trial court granted Loyola's motion for summary judgment based on its finding that Alexander did not engage in protected activity because she did not explicitly connect her complaints to any specific protected class.
On appeal, however, the appellate court found that there was indeed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Alexander engaged in protected activity by expressing concern about enforcing an English-only policy against Spanish-speaking employees. The court noted that language is closely tied to race and national origin and could reasonably be inferred as such by both parties involved.
Despite this finding in favor of Alexander's engagement in protected activity, the appellate court ultimately affirmed summary judgment for Loyola because there was insufficient evidence of causation between her opposition to the policy and her termination. The court emphasized that documented issues with Alexander’s work performance existed prior to any knowledge or opposition of an English-only policy.
Representing Bridget Alexander were attorneys from [Plaintiff's Law Firm], while Loyola University Medical Center was represented by [Defendant's Law Firm]. The case was presided over by Judge Michael F. Otto with Justices Fitzgerald Smith and Coghlan concurring in judgment and Justice Pucinski dissenting. The case ID is No. 1-23-0980.