Grabs v. Safeway, Inc.
N/AOUTCOME: Summary Judgment Upheld on Appeal
Clients are two employees who worked for Dominick's for many years. They both were hurt at work, and their doctors ordered them to remain off work to prevent further injury. Dominick's hired its own ... "expert" doctors who declared that the employees could return to work. Dominick's decided that the employees were no longer considered to have "work related injuries." Dominicks' then secretly changed the employees' attendance coding on the basis of these "expert" doctors' respective opinions, causing the employees to be fired when they didn't call in their absences, which was now required by this new attendance coding. The employees filed suit for retaliatory discharge, and were awarded summary judgment in the Circuit Court. The court held that as a matter of law, Dominick's conduct in terminating them violated the rights granted to the employees by the Workers Compensation Act, and that the termination was therefore unlawful. The defendants appealed, and the Appellate Court upheld the grant of judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, stating: "Consequently, if the change of plaintiffs' attendance coding was made based solely on the IME opinions, and defendants terminated plaintiffs for failing to return to work or for failing to call in their absences, entry of summary judgment for plaintiffs would be appropriate.” Grabs v. Safeway, Inc., 395 Ill.App.3d 286, 395 (1st Dist., 2009). This case's precedent will help ensure that in the future, employers will think twice before forcing their employees to choose between their jobs and their rights as granted under the Workers Compensation Act.
