A state appeals panel will allow a former White Sox trainer to continue his lawsuit alleging the team fired him based on his sexual orientation.
Brian Ball spent two decades with the South Side ballclub, but then-General Manager Rick Hahn fired him from his head trainer position in October 2020. According to court records, Ball accepted severance and health insurance benefits in exchange for a broad release agreement, which included waiving protections of the Illinois Human Rights Act.
After the severance agreement expired, Ball sued the Sox and Hahn. He said a team employee told him two months after the firing that the root cause was his sexual orientation.
When the Sox moved to dismiss, Ball voluntarily dismissed all his claims with the exception of discrimination against the team.
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Donnelly granted the team’s motion to dismiss, finding the severance agreement refuted the discrimination allegations.
Ball asked the Illinois First District Appellate Court to reverse the ruling, arguing Donnelly should’ve accepted the truth of his allegations while also alleging the Sox relied on deception to get his signature on the severance agreement. Justice Michael Hyman wrote the panel’s opinion, filed Feb. 14; Justices Carl Walker and Celia Gamrath concurred.
“Ball was the victim of a violent carjacking in July 2020,” Hyman wrote, at a time where he was assigned to the team’s Arizona training facility. “After taking an injured player to the hospital, Ball went to his nearby apartment to pick up some work notes. As he got back into his car, two men attacked and severely beat Ball before stealing the car. Ball intended to return to work the next day, but Hahn and the assistant general manager placed him on medical leave and directed that he see a psychologist as a condition for returning to work. Ball says Hahn assured him that his position as head trainer would be waiting. He also alleges that while on leave, the White Sox discussed his mental health with his psychologist without his consent.”
After a psychologist approved Ball’s return in August, he said Hahn told him to take off more time for recovery, reiterating his job was safe. When Hahn called to fire Ball in October, he said Ball didn’t “fit in” with the team’s plans. Although Ball had 21 days to sign the termination agreement and an additional week to change his mind, he said the Sox told him it would pull the offer after seven days.
The panel agreed Judge Donnelly should’ve construed the allegations in Ball’s favor in his ruling on the team’s motion to dismiss.
Instead, Hyman wrote, Donnelly found the severance contract controlling without “clear and convincing evidence” from Ball to set aside that document. Hyman said the panel commended Donnelly for “his thorough analysis during the hearing” but still found it was wrong to threat the agreement as dispositive.
“The allegations in Ball’s complaint directly challenge the validity of the termination agreement,” Hyman wrote. “If, as he alleges, the White Sox procured his signature by concealing the truth, it would not constitute a valid agreement or affirmative matter sufficient to defeat Ball’s claims. This raises a genuine issue of material fact that cannot be disposed of through” a motion to dismiss.
Other factors weigh in Ball’s favor, the panel continued, such as Covid-19, a 14.8% unemployment rate, uncertainty about health insurance while recovering from the carjacking, the likelihood Ball lacked the business experience or legal knowledge to fully understand the consequences of signing and the team’s alleged seven-day deadline. But most notably, neither in an affidavit from Hahn nor during oral arguments did anyone from the White Sox refute Ball’s allegations they fired him for his sexual orientation.
Instead, Hyman wrote, the Sox contended they weren’t obligated to tell Ball why they were firing him, and even if they did, he shouldn’t be allowed to sue because he accepted the full term of the severance package.
“The law does not condone deception,” Hyman wrote. “Ball has pleaded that by withholding the actual reason, the White Sox deprived him of the ability to make an informed decision. Fraudulent concealment violates the principles of good faith and fair dealing and jeopardizes the integrity of the employment relationship.”
Regarding whether Ball’s continued acceptance of severance, lasting about 10 months after he allegedly learned of the true reason for being fired, the appellate panel said Judge Donnelly didn’t address that issue while dismissing the matter. Since that also is a factual dispute, Hyman wrote, the Cook County court should consider it along with the remainder of the complaint when it returns to the lower court for further proceedings.
Ball is represented by Winters Salzetta O’Brien & Richardson, of Chicago.
The White Sox are represented by Laner Muchin, of Chicago.
The White Sox did not respond to a request for comment.