¶ 55 Illinois courts have found that "medical inability to work was a ‘legitimate nondiscriminatory reason’ for discharge." La Porte v. Jostens, Inc. , 213 Ill. App. 3d 1089, 1093, 157 Ill.Dec. 745, 572 N.E.2d 1209 (1991) (quoting Horton v. Miller Chemical Co. , 776 F.2d 1351, 1359 n.11 (7th Cir. 1985) ). "Illinois law does not obligate an employer to retain an at-will employee who is medically unable to return to his assigned position." Hartlein , 151 Ill. 2d at 159–60, 176 Ill.Dec. 22, 601 N.E.2d 720 (citing Horton , 776 F.2d 1351 ). Also, an employer is not obligated to reassign a disabled employee to another position rather than terminate his or her employment.
Indeed, River Bend appears to bolster the defendant's position that the Illinois Human Rights Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over Talley's claim. Talley also relies on LaPorte v. Jostens, Inc., 213 Ill. App.3d 1089, 1092, 157 Ill.Dec. 745, 572 N.E.2d 1209 (3d Dist. 1991), for the position that her claim does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Illinois Human Rights Commission. There, the plaintiff sued after she was terminated from her employment because a work-related injury precluded her from performing the duties associated with her position. The defendant contended that the trial court should have dismissed her complaint as falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Illinois Human Right Commission in that the plaintiff sought recovery for employment discrimination based on a physical handicap.
Id.; Hartlein, 151 Ill. 2d at 160. ¶ 64 A medical inability to work is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharge. Brummel v. Grossman, 2018 IL App (1st) 170516, ¶ 55; LaPorte v. Jostens, Inc., 213 Ill. App. 3d 1089, 1093 (1991); Horton v. Miller Chemical Co., 776 F.2d 1351, 1359 n.11 (7th Cir. 1985); see Hartlein, 151 Ill. 2d at 159-60 ("Illinois law does not obligate an employer to retain an at-will employee who is medically unable to return to his assigned position"). While an employer's motive in terminating an employee is generally a fact issue, summary judgment in favor of the employer in a retaliatory discharge cases is proper when the employee cannot show causation.
Another exception to the exclusive remedy rule is recognized if an employer takes retaliatory action against employees for availing themselves of benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. To illustrate, in La Porte v. Jostens, Inc. (1991), 213 Ill. App.3d 1089, 572 N.E.2d 1209, a former at-will employee filed suit against her employer alleging that she was discharged because of her work-related injury. The court rejected the defendant's claim that plaintiff's suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Act. Relying on Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill.2d 172, 384 N.E.2d 353, the court reasoned:
) An employer is not proscribed from discharging an employee who is physically unable to perform his work. ( Wright v. St. John's Hospital (1992), 229 Ill. App.3d 680, 688; LaPorte v. Jostens, Inc. (1991), 213 Ill. App.3d 1089, 1093.) Furthermore, the employer is not required to find a new job for an employee who is physically unable to do his original job. Carter v. G C Electronics (1992), 233 Ill. App.3d 237, 244; Wright, 229 Ill. App.3d at 688; LaPorte, 213 Ill. App.3d at 1093.
"Illinois law does not obligate an employer to retain an at-will employee who is medically unable to return to [her] assigned position." ( LaPorte v. Jostens, Inc. (1991), 213 Ill. App.3d 1089, 1093, 572 N.E.2d 1209, 1212.) The court in LaPorte, relying on Horton v. Miller Chemical Co. (7th Cir. 1985), 776 F.2d 1351 (applying Illinois law), concluded that "medical inability to work was a `legitimate nondiscriminatory reason' for discharge and the defendant's failure to reassign plaintiff was immaterial to whether plaintiff was wrongfully discharged."
( Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (1986), 140 Ill. App.3d 857, 860, 489 N.E.2d 474, 476; Hugo, 155 Ill. App.3d at 909, 508 N.E.2d at 1141.) Summary judgment for the employer was granted, however, in a case where the employee's on-the-job injury made it impractical and unsafe to continue in her present position, despite the employee's argument that the employer had a duty to transfer her to another position. ( LaPorte v. Jostens, Inc. (1991), 213 Ill. App.3d 1089, 1093, 572 N.E.2d 1209, 1211-12.) In Austin v. St. Joseph Hospital (1989), 187 Ill. App.3d 891, 897, 543 N.E.2d 932, 935, summary judgment for the employer was affirmed despite testimony the employee was told that if she left St. Joseph Hospital (the employer) as a patient, she would lose her "workers' [compensation]."
Specifically, Bunge argues that Jackson failed to show that Bunge's motive for discharging him was to retaliate against his filing of a workers' compensation claim. Bunge claims that its reason for discharging Jackson was because of medical concerns regarding his low back problem, and it relies on the decisions of Horton, 776 F.2d at 1359; Slover, 94 Ill.Dec. at 858, 488 N.E.2d at 1105; and La Porte v. Jostens, Inc., 213 Ill.App.3d 1089, 157 Ill.Dec. 745, 748, 572 N.E.2d 1209, 1212, appeal denied, 141 Ill.2d 543, 162 Ill.Dec. 491, 580 N.E.2d 117 (1991) for the proposition that termination of employment based on a plaintiff's physical condition is a valid basis for discharge and does not constitute retaliatory discharge under Illinois law. Jackson concedes that he is unable to present any direct, "smoking gun" evidence to prove Bunge's retaliatory motive, and he suggests that this is because employers have become more sophisticated and more aware of potential liability based on a retaliatory discharge action.
Carter, 383 F.3d at 677 (quoting Hartlein v. Ill. Power Co., 141 Ill. 2d 142, 160, 601 N.E.2d 720, 728 (1992). Under Illinois law, an employee's physical inability to perform his or her job is a "legitimate nondiscriminatory reason" for discharge. La Porte v. Jostens, Inc., 213 Ill. App. 3d 1089, 1093, 572 N.E.2d 1209, 1212 (3d Dist. 1991) (quoting Horton v. Miller Chemical Co., 776 F.2d 1351, 1359 (7th Cir. 1985); see also Hartlein, 601 N.E.2d at 728 ("Illinois law does not obligate an employer to retain an at-will employee who is medically unable to return to his assigned position"). Signature concedes that it would generally be inappropriate to make a determination regarding whether an employer has such a valid reason for terminating an employee at the pleading stage.
There is no requirement, however, that defendant displace another worker in order to give permanent work to an employee who has permanent restrictions. Hartlein, 601 N.E.2d at 728 ("Illinois law does not obligate an employer to retain an at-will employee who is medically unable to return to his assigned position) ( citing Horton v. Miller Chemical Co., 776 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir. 1985); ("nor is an employer obligated to reassign such an employee to another position rather than terminate the employment") ( citing LaPorte v. Jostens, Inc., 572 N.E.2d 1209 (1991)). Finally, with regard to plaintiff's allegations that she was singled out for this treatment, defendant has submitted an affidavit from Marie Brasher stating that defendant has identified five other employees who are being placed in the program (Doc. 40, Att. 2, p. 2). For these reasons, plaintiff's arguments in this regard are to no avail.