Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D, a manufacturer of soft drink dispensing machines, hired P as a human resources administrator in 1996. In March 1999 the Social Security Administration informed D that 10% of the W-2 forms filed by its employees showed names or numbers that did not agree with federal records. After cross-checking, P found that the fault lay with the workers rather than with D. She believed that persons who would furnish bogus Social Security numbers must be aliens who lack visas that authorize work within the United States. P recommended to both her immediate supervisor, Dan Weinick, and Weinick's supervisor, Mike Long, that P immediately fire these employees. According to P, D's longstanding practice had been to discharge persons who furnished fraudulent information. At Long's direction, Weinick informed P that he would handle the situation. After consulting with the Social Security Administration and one of D's attorneys, Weinick decided to send letters to the employees asking them to correct any errors. Arres believed that approach to be unlawful, and she refused to process the information employees submitted in response. P was fired. P claims that D fired her because of this refusal. P claims this was a retaliatory discharge in violation of Illinois law. At trial, P was required to show: (1) that she had been discharged; (2) that her discharge was in retaliation for her activities; and (3) that her discharge violated a clearly mandated public policy of the state of Illinois. D moved for summary judgment. D argued that the existence of a federal anti-retaliation rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(5), forecloses any state remedy and that the real cause of P's discharge was poor performance. The court concluded that because § 1324b(a)(5) . . . unequivocally sets forth a remedy for individuals who have filed a charge or complaint with the INS and then were consequently retaliated against, a claim for retaliatory discharge in Illinois is not actionable. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.