frankly terminated from his employment as a truck driver he had to employers in t n people vs the employee leasing company and he was fired from both because he refused his supervisors order to drive his eighteen wheel truck when it wouldn't have been safe to do so the whistle blower act prohibits an employer for me tell you a thing against an employee for refusing to do something that would result in violation of the law the torrent of retaliatory just charged similarly makes an employer liable for fact terminate mr trimble based on this incident where he refused to drive and now people lease is basing its disclaimer of liability soley on the claim that mr trimble failed to  evidence that people these had direct knowledge not just of determination not just of the refusal to drive but of the reason for the refusal to drive so mr trimble has presented two arguments for review first that people least is subject to liability based on its status as an employer he was mr it was trip mr trimble joint employer both under the plain language of the act and under the tone of retaliatory discharge and basic agency principles that apply to that tort so it really doesn't matter if people lease had direct involvement or not in the just secondly even if it didn't happen or in even if mr trimble were required to show direct participation he did present evidence sufficient at least to give rise to an issue of fact regarding whether people easter actually participated so i want to talk about the first point first since it's undisputed for purposes of this appeal that mr trimble did suffer retaliatory discharge he was wrongfully fired the only question is was people least mr trimble's a lawyer under the plain language of the whistleblower act employer is broadly defined basically as any entity that has employees and says the statute any person acting within the scope of his or her authority so under that plain language it obviously contemplates that there could be more than one employer know the evidence that was presented on the motion to reconsider was not newly it was not newly discovered it was evidence that they could have him and then and they maintain that adamantly even on in their reply it's only worley presented to the court it's not on the record or the test for a joint employer but first of all creates liability on to employers courts in a court in the way you know a court has held that by virtue of being an employer that joint employer is subject to liability that's illinois state they were relations for it and now makes clear that we're a statute prohibits retaliatory determination and there's more than one employer a joint employer can be subject to liability even without direct involvement and the dissent emphasizes there was no direct involvement whatsoever furthermore there's a test for determining so being subject to liability for a joint employer the joint employer and that also operates regardless of direct involvement the joint employer task incorporates agency principles to hold that where a joint employer reserves control over essential terms of employment particularly the right to terminate that employer can be held liable  retaliatory termination even without direct involvement even if it's not exercising that power in this case people lease and you had a service agreement that in that agreement sad employees  of a client company are employees of people lease quote in all respects it reserved to people lease the right to hire be assigned discipline terminate it gave people lease the right to investigate compliance with anti discrimination and similar  and it gave him t only the right to seek terminations but it gave people these clearly the final say whether an employee was true so we stayed in our brief a number of cases where the court help holds that that kind of preservation of power over those terms and conditions of employment make a joint employer liable regardless of direct involvement i do want to highlight one of those cases  the defendant is the same defendant as in this case and the service agreement from all the courts quoted provisions is exactly the same the same service agreement that was between the parties in this case and based on that agreement the court rejected the very same claim that's made by people least in this case there was no direct involvement we didn't know what was going on they even made the claim in full time that the employee you failed to call and the court said people lease has potential liability under the joint employer test because it retained control over the essential terms and conditions of the assignment to the borrowing employer in that in that case including court should follow that persuasive reasoning because the service agreement in this case establishes the requisite control to find people lease liable for eighty's terminations the rule that an employer that  exercises this kind of control can be held liable makes sense because given the remedial purpose of the whistleblower act and the toward a retaliatory discharge we're trying to protect employees who are at fear of losing their job an employer who retains that kind of control over term a nation that is that is the power that these tours and these protections for workers are is trying to temper the rule also makes sense because it's knowledge for purposes of a retaliatory discharge can be imputed to an employer even when it's only the individual agent that has retaliatory mode it's just like english on where it's only the sheriff that had the retaliatory motive just like there is the whistleblower act defines an employer that it was the court was looking at that definition so i don't think there's anything about this statute that really distinguishes time from our case because what the court was doing was saying do we need a definition of employer that's all we need to know if we need the definition of the i'm sorry no no no go ahead if we meet the definition of employer and there's a retaliatory discharge it's the employer that discharges that's who can get that's who has that power that's who can do that and so they're the court's attention but there were two things your first during the hearing on the result most recently judgment the judge invited us to bring another motion to clarify the record regarding this employee discharge for because the judge invited us to do it we supplied supplemental affidavits however to address the procedural question so we just wasn't granted the limits on a motion to reconsider deal with when summary judgment is granted and you need to present new evidence before the time expires there's no questions about this form and said i'm not sure who created this where did it come from and you know ask for clarification about that in response we filed these affidavits but you know briefs below on the motion reconsider we also addressed that issue and we a new paperwork that was submitted regarding determination or revise the court early that in fact we realized based upon the doctors that we produced to counsel in the original production request that in fact she was fired a separately from both a ploy because they didn't follow the fine print of the contracts and we've cited cases similar to that were going to other states with film which cited cases like the general decision from florida which says even though there is a contract and that was very similar they retained the same rights relationship now here there's no the evidence in the record suggests that p l c had a hand in the day to day operations whatsoever they're based on south carolina n t is based out of illinois did they fire him as well they did fire him as evidence in the unemployment documents which is in the record explains people lisa's basis for firing the plane a few days later he was fired for misconduct because he refused to follow the order of his supervisor which was a rest of the terms of employee a contract which the pla the plaintiff at that time he'll see was waiting for the choice of employment for the plaintiff to come back to resign if the planet did that he never would have been fired from jail sleeze given a copy of the service agreement between the two ye regarding the service agreements neither party follow the church so what we're asking is to look at a test regarding the actual relationship and what evidence did the plaintiff produce that shows there was a joining player relationship under the factors of the people see before they fire one of their employees in this case mr turmel have some kind of obligation to call the person t n c why did your fire poor mr trump is there any evidence and case and regarding their actual knowledge they did speak for the rest a thermos five minutes afterwards arista through and told them that you refused to go back out and that was that there was no reason for p l c to insinuate there must be something wrong reason idea why she'd be fired on the misconduct they're under no obligation to ask why did you fire our employee they did ask around and they were explained that they were fired for insubordination now every time an employee arrest the reason they fired him for misconduct because i was the only explanation they ever had since he never returned so it was both a beddings right to remain silent because they understood that misconduct was the only reason if there were something that shouldn't have happened that went on the plaintiff had a real gripe about the way that he was fired why would he not call p l c why would he not tell them complain and say ain't you fired me wrongfully i said i couldn't do this this wasn't safe you know this isn't right he never did that he never spoke up that p s even knew of an alleged conduct to retaliate for this is not a breach of contract case at issue is not whether he'll see fulfilled its duties to live up to the terms of the service agreement that's at issue is whether p l c retaliated for him reassignment then they would understand what happened and then they can have an investigation or inquiry regarding the alleged misconduct they're now the player what they want to do there but it doesn't need to start from another job if there were a do there why would they investigate and t v the theory being are trying to feel see for whatever reason they don't get along with the boss insubordination as there was here for some reason the plaintiff and i was the third and didn't get along that doesn't mean that agency can recommend that worker for a job at another facility another trucking company can't place him with another company to have a relationship with now the plaintiff to seeking to get liability not even discussing the it is your vicarious liability through joining players no illinois case has extended liability to join tour or tallit or discharge there they tried to use agency to add a new defendant they said the individual who actually fired me plus the company should be defendants in the course said no this is a narrow tort there's a past president against extending t if you look at the history the only police conclude that if you look at history the only times the threat was expanded was for new wrongs here they're looking to expand it wrongly to add a new party without producing any evidence that that party did anything wrong complaint does say the at and t was acting within the scope of its authority when it terminated mr turmel from people lease but i don't know the answer to your question directly without looking at the complaint but this argument is the first time it's been raised he can't we this is a two dash six one five issue whether the complaint is appropriately pleaded this is the first time that people these has raised any issue whatsoever about the the complaint being inadequately led thank you all of these arguments were made in the context of the evidence that we make in this court we've made in the trial court as well i also want to say that argument that you know we didn't follow the fine print in the complaint that is wholly unsupported by the record people has had the opportunity to bill below to say oh yeah there is this is this contract but nobody followed it and here's an affidavit that says that was the case there is no evidence whatsoever in the record to support a claim that the contract was not reality and in fact thurman touched by i called the people  this business of fired him at a later date that is also not reported that that is not supported in the record whatsoever there's no support in the record that there's any reason for the term a nation by people these other than the same exact incident that a m t terminated him and in fact there is no support in the record for any reading of the facts other than the minute that thurman called up people lease and said i just fired this guy as far as people lease was concerned he was fired from both companies at that point there's no affidavit nothing in the record that said you know we we waited for his call after a while he which we cited in our brief but never said what we want is to focus on the employer it's the employer head that has the power to terminate that who has that's who has to be a defendant that's all we want is for the employer to be the defendant here we're not expecting