Karin Williams worked as a full-time nurse reviewer for
Keystone Peer Review Organization. KEPRO
is a private organization contracted by the State of Illinois to provide
quality assurance and fee-for-service utilization review in inpatient hospital
settings for the State’s medical assistance program.
Williams was responsible for helping to determine if
children were eligible for a medical waiver for nursing services provided at
home. Williams had to gather factual information in order to answer an
interactive online questionnaire. The completed questionnaire would then go to
a medical director for a determination of waiver eligibility. Williams’ duties
included reviewing the patient’s individual medical records and then conducting
a face-to-face interview with the patient’s caregivers. Williams was paid by
the hour and was able to work remotely using online data management tools
provided by KEPRO. Williams accrued paid time off (“PTO”) as a full-time
employee working for the organization.
Williams believed she would be compensated for all her time
as long as she was logged on to the system and was available for work. That
impression changed. Williams participated in a conference call with KEPRO
Director of Operations, Denise Rinell. During the call, Rinell told Williams
and other nurse reviewers that from that day on they were to only enter time
for “active productivity,” which meant time spent reviewing files or otherwise
working on their assigned caseload. Rinell also said the nurse reviewers would be
required to complete a minimum of five assessments per week in order to be paid
for a full 40-hour week.
In an audit performed by the State of Illinois, it was
discovered that in April 2015 Williams had entered twenty-four (24) hours of
time she did not work, but for which she was paid. KEPRO asked Williams to use
her accrued PTO or work unpaid overtime to make up for the twenty-four-hour
deficit from April 2015. Williams refused to work unpaid overtime and
complained to KEPRO that it was illegal to require an hourly employee to work
unpaid overtime to make up for the hours for which she was mistakenly paid. However, Williams did tell KEPRO she “would
feel more comfortable having [her] next paycheck docked if that is an option”
instead. Williams also offered to use PTO to make up for the 24-hour deficit.
KEPRO docked Williams’ timesheet by approximately seventeen
and a half hours and failed to compensate her for another three hours of
overtime. KEPRO also stopped assigning work to Williams and required her to
attend an additional training session. Williams interpreted the tone of her
individual training session, and the fact that KEPRO removed her active cases
and failed to assign her new ones, among other events, as constructive
discharge of her employment.
Williams filed suit against KEPRO in the circuit court. KEPRO removed the case to federal court based
on diversity jurisdiction.
There were three outstanding claims against KEPRO, but its
summary judgment motion only addressed Williams’ retaliation claim under the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“IWPCA”). Williams’ claim failed.
In Illinois, an at-will employee may be terminated at any
time for any or no reason. Illinois courts, however, have recognized the tort
of retaliatory discharge as a limited and narrow exception to the at-will
employment rule. Under Illinois law, a valid retaliatory discharge claim
requires a showing that (1) an employee has been discharged; (2) in retaliation
for her activities; and (3) the discharge violates a clear mandate of public
policy. Tullis v. Townley Engineering
& Mfg. Co., Inc., 243 F.3d 1058, 1062 (7th Cir. 2001).
While there was evidence for a reasonable jury to infer
Williams was constructively discharged, Williams failed to produce sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that she was discharged because of any complaint
relating to the docking of her time. Additionally, even if Williams was discharged
for complaining about KEPRO’s request that she work unpaid overtime to make up
for a billing error, the IWPCA, in and of itself, does not offer a cause of
action for unpaid overtime requests. Williams’
claim lacked a basis for relief.
Williams’ employer’s request that she work unpaid overtime
was not prohibited under the IWPCA, unless a pre-existing agreement between the
parties stated otherwise.
Here, Williams offered no proof of an existing employment
agreement that restricted the use of unpaid overtime. Additionally, she failed
to provide any argument as to how KFPRO’s request to work unpaid overtime to
make up for a billing imbalance fell within the express language of the IWPCA. Finally, Williams failed to adduce any
evidence that she actually complained to KEPRO about her wages being unlawfully
docked, and that this complaint was the cause of her constructive discharge.
Accordingly, there was no genuine issue of material fact and KEPRO’s motion for
summary judgment on the issue of retaliatory discharge was granted.
Karin Williams v
Keystone Peer Review Organization, Inc., and Denise Rinell, 2019 WL 1177951
(C.D. Ill., Mar. 13, 2019).
Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
One Technology Plaza, 211 Fulton Street, Suite
600, Peoria, IL 61602