thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to correct an injustice that has been done at the appellate court the nature of this case is one in which a wealthy and powerful businessm perjury he asked an employee to lie she said no and for that she was terminated had she complied misapply out would not be sitting here today as an employee protected under the public policy at the state of illinois but rather under the criminal code she could be in a penitentiary and that she refused to do and that the law protects we have before you today defendants who retaliated and they got caught at trial with writings in their own hand offering to people power for former public officials to get jerry indicted for refusing to lie and they said at trial quote i want to make her suffer for refusing to do as we say they paid witnesses with lavish gifts and salaries after that having them file criminal charges against her which the chief of police of tele park  judge with patience and discipline who issued over ten memorandum decisions who after three weeks of trial were jury was out for four hours he came back with a memorandum opinion in our record it plaintiff's pilate brief it a twenty five with a chain over a decision finding significant testimony at trial demonstrated actual malice violence and oppression on the part of defendants with the element of outrage the evidence submitted to this jury could be enough to support charges of assault and battery perjury bribery and other criminal conduct other than perjury though there's nothing before us is correct your honor the sub a cooler by her employer who tried to take advantage of her but the illinois human rights act is not create the basis of the cause of action even though there were some overlapping facts because the torque stooges on its own in the question there presented as  paul material in the long line of cases before this quote was was there a violation of public policy and was the employee destruction and we have met that burden so although maxim over it is a good law the controlling law the appe court did not apply it and they should have because this case is not inextricably intertwined with the human rights act as creating the cause of action for the on lawful discharge we don't need it perjury stands on its own it does we hear why the illinois had to hold court went astray and substituted its judgment for this trial court and this jury what one of the facts that it can not supplement some plant to not side against i want i will not make any claims that bonny's allegations were not true defendant you need to know who you are up against i can make you cease to exist i told him i rule not my own per myself get the f out of my office there is no place here for independent thoughts let her suffer i am standing up for a friend coworker here's a picture of myself with if you look at our reply preferred and the appendix to the reply i prefer we add the dialogue these defendants have been well represented for six years by some of the largest law firms in this country and it was defendant's request f court on that end and we agreed that we have she claims and only for the purposes of the instruction would claim be presented to the jury in the instruction it was at defendant's request they wrote the verdict  and they wrote that instruction and will know you are on notice that issue is waived it was never raised by the defendants in the jane ovi or in the appeal to the appellate court that was created out of whole cloth yes assuming that we find that the trial court and subject matter jurisdiction over the retaliatory discharge claim based upon plaintiff's unwillingness to commit perjury and not based upon her support of her coworker what should be the disposition of this because at the same rate problem with the with the with the joint construction and that i would think it might be argued you don't know what the basis of the on friday was from the curies following the joining strict basis of the joint instruction your honor because it was defendant's instruction and because as judge goldberg read to the jury it includes both at defense request and never appealed in weight which is i fast claim of discrimination and or opposing defendants treatment we stated that that both issues were presented to the jury the verdict form is attached here and they could have said no but they didn't because they found both as they were asked to do the significance of the diff if the instruction being the defendant's instruction guests with the defendant's instruction to the couple who took his yesterday and we we cited for your  complete unadulterated waiver this defendant never challenge the instruction in the j n o v or to the appellate court they claim that they filed twelve different motions not a one challenging their instruction nor could they because general moment to a sister on a so it's a complete waiver and the jury heard all the evidence they heard the evidence that she was retaliated against under section one thousand nine hundred eighty one of the civil war amendments because she testified and agreed to testify on behalf of all white coworker in her federal discrimination claim that issue was presented they had an opportunity to project and sign on the verdict form no but they said yes and they appointed damages for that we will say judge justices that it is very clear that we all know that nine hundred eighty one is a different remedy when the in the public policy to work remedy when the jurors came back and a preempted by the illinois human rights act and two is that a cognize will claim because the courts do not recognize the right of a coworker to stand for i'm not a coworker who is a victim of discrimination to implement the thirteenth amendment is so serious of a statute that it covers retaliation from brave coworkers like jerry pournelle who say i will testify for others who are victims that was defense only appeal that it didn't cover the rights of others to testify for other think terms that issue is over and in fear the issue of preemption is over by virtue of the a supplement but on the other reason we here is under the federal supremacy clause the illinois appellate court cannot say and after humphreys it's over cannot say that a state statute can cut the right of victims to bring nine hundred eighty one claims in the state or federal courts and i read to you there what is compels reverso also why we were here on that limited jury and they substituted their opinion in facts to find that there was no evidence of the attempt to support not on this record not in this trial mr dolan and i have been there since the beginning with judge go just jurisdictional question be decided on the proofs in the case or decided on i think both i think we have really the record is as a whole when you look at the record as a whole and i pleadings are very clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record if i'm following your question i think you're saying that both you find it both of the facts and in the correct and i think when you grab a j n o v you have to look at the facts but the appe court cannot substitute its opinion for the fact finding mission of a circuit court judge or the jury that heard the evidence for three weeks we all know they had the standard is extraordinary to gr that's why we're here because appellate courts cannot do that you must look in response to your question further at the all the evidence and all the reasonable inferences most favorable to the non movement movement how could one ever say that telling an employee who says i will testify for our white woman in a federal discrimination case and i will support her and i will not lie in any manner respect or proceeding and the response of the employer is i can make you cease to exist you will not testify against me that is not one the principle or nation of perjury and two retaliation within the meaning of forty two at the very least it's an inference when when you see one defendant said do not side against me you will not testify for miss out and response said i will testify for her i will tell the truth i will not lie i will not lie and that's in this record over and over again and it is not just the spouse testimony in the trial record john it's it is the testimony of kathy hired another witness and the trial record in this case was found to they cannot substitute their judgment as what they'd like the facts to have been it is in this record i would also like to note for your honesty on page three of my reply brief the exchange that we were asked to be out where is the defense lawyers who wrote the instruction that judge fitzgerald justice for cheryl asked about earlier and why this is still a from verdict to be affirmed on section one thousand nine hundred one and why the verdict does not have to be parsed out claim she was terminated by defendants in whole or in part in retaliation for protected activity including a refusal to agree to perjury and or her support of misspells his claims of discrimination and for opposing defendants treatment of must stop so we ask this verdict honest it is indeed a long haul for both sides we would say that the injustice that's been done in this case is injustice this been done to my client for the last six years he's been illegally wiretap their he she legally wiretap congressman this case had a number of issues that were involved with respect are we are we in the record somewhere with the illegal wiretap yes yes judges there but judge i don't want to go right to the heart of where you start unlawful to retaliate against a person because she is opposed to that which she reasonably and in good faith believes to be had lawful discrimination not just your eyes let me tell you what she did in this case if you take a look at both of her eighty one count that count five of course was her protected rights count they'd both hit two interdependent thoughts perjury and the support those are intertwined with the human rights there is a specifically defined term and let me just tell you the quote here one of the three d one dish one of the three d of the act queenly states when you used in the end it idiot civil rights violation includes and shall be limited to only those pacific acts set forth in the sections and then they go through a variety of sections in other words the human rights act commission's jurisdiction extends only to civil rights violations said or in the illinois human rights yeah so my question really is under that limited as a specifically defined term is a claim brought under section nine hundred eighty one a claim under the illinois civil rights violation is the five six one zero one that's where that and it would fall under that section it's the same civil rights violation as the retaliatory tort part and when you take a look at all the case law for the last twenty years whether it's nine hundred eighty one thousand nine hundred eighty three they are all for the last twenty years every court that's ever looked at this file whether it's age discrimination they all fall sense or whether it was using it as a specific and specifically defined in one dish one or three d what i just read you as to what civil rights violation whether it would fall or not so i think that isn't the whole point they've never done that we still have the same stature and it's it's you know we would say that both these arguments but they would have us change the law and give us no basis for doing it in over twenty years and the legislature has decided not to do it in over twenty years and their arguments on a preemption fall into the same category you know what they don't cite the jackson case with you before you get to the case argument as used in the human rights era under the specifically defined defined term analysis of one zero three d you are saying that nineteen eighty one claim falls under that neutral application of the law as long as it's neutral as long as it's not outcome determinative as it wills infeld it as this illinois human rights act has always been administrated neutral if it is not jurisdiction to the commands of the human rights isn't it correct that is correct or a right if in fact the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the retaliatory discharge claim based can't see that anything but that it would be sent back to have those issues resolved is it is this was counsel correct when she she suggested that the combined in the case or do we look to the complaint in the games i think we have to look at that at the pleadings of the case the world has put i think that that that really what this case really comes down to is in order to be able to find an extra couple the jury of struction that her protected white clay was soley perjury then we'd be at the power to you but that is not what she did she always and look at what she argued to the jury look which she said i opening statement look what the jury instruction is she always said it was to interdependent acts that there was perjury and support of misfile skying that takes us right back to thoughts when she says first of all the stuff in the record but you were never testified against me that is absolutely not that's not the record the only thing is the court of appeals pointed out was he said from time to tab you know absolutely that that that's not it that's when jackson talks about outcome determined if they're talking about with the result be different with the state statute as far as outcome and jackson makes that very clear and they talk about whether that was a great case where the state it said no you're not going to be able to do in a lot of tory appeals which was a key thing if you were a federal official and jackson says just because they would let you do that a locker jory appeals or these other legislature has put considerable resources in ever since before the decision that you made and mine they have chosen that as the vehicle for certain civil rights acts that even acts  that within that which clearly we have one here falls within that and that's what was done in this case it is to let that's why she had tips in her pleadings both in the response and the reply she doesn't want do you have your fingertips under the act what section one nine hundred eighty one would fall under with respect to the definition of civil rights violation no launch on ok now i don't have it  without looking at to see what various ones have been passed but i'm confident by looking at five what the courts have done for over twenty years whether it was age discrimination where there was nine hundred eighty three that would fall under these defendants challenge whether there was a nineteen eighty one case in the jury instruction conference they didn't challenge that in the appellate brief they didn't challenge it it's only in this court it is weighed it is and at age twenty three and it's in the record it c four ninety eight one these were agreed to the nineteen eighty one issue was try it is not an issue that was not before this jury we put on in eighteen sixty six we're dealing with one hundred fifty years of law to implement the thirteenth amendment that provision very carefully covers the right of blacks a distance to enter into that's actually means is as you were at this point cited mine was claims brought under the civil rights claims brought under the human rights act and secondly the united states supreme court says and humphrys it doesn't matter as a matter of constitutional law in the supremacy clause because the states cannot stop serious sense from bringing nineteen eighty one claims in state court not one of the cases in these  being by the human rights act then we will have a constitutional problem which this court can now correct and judge thomas aptly pointed out say we didn't mean that in mind as the amicus has argue with the fact that outside of the southern poverty law center there is justice should flow free like the waters and that's why we're here to ask you to mean state that verdict so their citizens of the state of illinois and employees like jerry enforce the rights of herself fellow employees and citizens under forty two u s c and under the public policy of the state of illinois in our state court