SECOND DIVISION March 15, 2011

No. 1-09- 2930 DARR EN SARD IG A, ) Appeal from the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l an t, ) Coo k C oun ty ) v. ) No. 05 L 8856 ) THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, ) Ho no r ab le ) Al le n S. Goldb erg, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judg e Pres i di ng.
JUS TI CE HARR IS deliver ed t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Ju sti ce s K ar n ez i s a n d C on n orscon cu rre d i n th e j udgm

en t. OPINION A f ter l es s th an a y ea r on the j ob, Da rrre n S ard i ga , th e p l ai

nti f f -ap pe l l an t, wa s f i red f rom hi s position as vi

ce-presi dent of def

endan t Nor thern Trust’s Fi

nan ci al Consul ting group. He fi

le d a two- count compl ai

nt all egi ng retali ator y di scharge an

d a vi olation of the Ill in ois W hi stleb lower Act (740 ILCS 174/1 et seq. (West 2004)). He clai ms that he was f

ired as a resul t o f h is repeated compl ai nts and questions to supervi sors which ex pressed hi

s bel ie f that Northern Trust was enga ged in dece pt ive ill

ega l pra ct ices. Sar diga a ppe als fro m the t rial co ur t ’s su mmary judgment to Nort hern Trust o n the Ill in ois Wh istl eblower Act count . The cou rt held that t he Act requires a “ref usal to partici pate” and Sardi ga fai

le d to ple ad fac

ts showin g hi s refus al

to partici pate in an al le ged i ll egal activ ity . Further, the court found that no m aterial is sue of f act exi sted de m ons trati ng Sar di ga ’s ref us al to pa rti ci pa te. W e a re n ow c al l ed upon to res ol ve a m atte r ofNo. 1-09- 2930

2

sta tutor y i n ter pr eta ti on an d d ete rm i n e w h eth er Sa rdi ga ’s repe ate d c om

pl ai n ts a n d q ue sti on s to his supervisors abo ut what he believed to be il legal practices ar e suffi

cient to meet t he Act’s
r eq uir eme nt o f “r efu sa l t o pa r t icip at e. ” F o rt he fo llo win g r ea so ns, we find Sa r dig a’ s a ct io ns f ail to me et the Act’s requi

red refusal

to partici pate. Because Sardiga

has f ai le d to establ

is h an is sue of mat er ial fact r ega rd ing whet her he r efuse d t o p ar t icipat e in an ac t ivity tha t wo uld r esu lt in a violat ion o f a st at e o r fed er al law, ru le, o r r egu latio n, w e affirm the summary judg ment o f the cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. JURISDICTION The tr i al cou rt e n tered su m mar y j udgm en t i n f av or of Nor th er n Tru st w i th re sp ec t to count II o f Sardi

ga’s com pla in t o n March

12, 2009, and deni

ed Sardiga’ s m

ot ion to reconsi der th at j udgm

en t on Septem b er 1, 2 00 9. T

h e tr i al cou rt sub se qu en

tl y i ss ue d a Ru l e 3 04 (a) (I l l . S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff

. Jan. 1, 2006)) fi

ndi ng on October 15, 2009, and Sardiga f il ed hi s notice of

appeal on October 21 , 2009. A

ccordi ngl y , thi s court h

as j uri sdi cti on pur sua

nt to Il l i noi s Suprem

e Court Rul es 301 and 304(a) govern in g appeal s f

rom f in al judgm ents entered bel

ow. Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 (ef f . Feb . 1, 1994 ); R . 304(a

) (ef f . Jan . 1, 2006 ). BACK GROUND Sardi ga b egan worki ng as a v i ce-pr esi den t and sen i or fi na nc i al cons ul tant i n N orthern Trust’s fi nan ci al consul ting group on Feb

ruary 28, 2004, and h

e was f ired l ess than a y ear la ter o n Ja nu ar y 3, 20 05
. Du r ing his t en ur e a t No r t he rn T rus t , Sa r dig a r ep ea t ed ly co mpla ine d t o his supe rvisor, Thoma s Hi

ne s, ab out wha

t he b el i ev ed to be

i l l egal or im proper pr actices there
.No. 1-09- 2930

3

Sardiga’s concerns to uched upon several di ff erent aspect s of Nort hern Trust’s business pra cti ce s. F i rs t, Sa rdi ga que sti one d w he the r f i na nc i al pl an ne rs such ashi m se l f , wh o were n ot li censed to sell s ecurities, should be presen ting cl ie nts wi th in vestm ent sales l iterature. Sardiga approa ch ed Hi ne s on m ul ti ple oc ca si ons to raise hi s c onc ern s a bou t se cu ri ti esl i cens i

ng f or f i na nc i al pl an ners at Northern

Trust. Sec ond , S ar diga c omp lained t o H ines t hat members o f the wea lth st ra t egy de par t ment were sometimes present during m eetings between f

in anci al pl anners and thei

r clients. Because fi nan ci al pla nne rs’ role is to give obj ective i nve stmen t advic e and weal

th strategists in

stead seek to sell v arious securi

ties, upon whi

ch sal e they would earn a

comm is si on, Sardiga b el ie

ved that the presence of

both a fi nan ci al pla nne r and a weal

th strategist at a client me eting posed a
co nflic t o f int er es t . Sa r dig a c o mpla ine d t o Hin es t ha t t he pr es en ce o f we alt h st r at eg ist s a t his meet ings wit h clients inter fere d wit h his abili t y to pr ovid e indep ende nt , o bject ive advice t o t he cl i en ts. Thi rd, Sardiga requested that Hin es di sclose to fi

nan ci al consul ting cl ie nts that fi nan ci al pla nne rs recei ved b onuses deri

ved f rom sal es of Northern Trust fi

nan ci al product s. Al

though Nort hern Trust’s b onus poli cy did n ot state t hat this

was the case, Sardi

ga bel ie ved that fi nan ci al pla nne rs such as hi ms el f h ad thei r bonuses ca

lc ula ted in pa rt based on how m

uch sal es reven ue t he y ge ne r at ed fo rNo r t he rn T rus t . Sa r dig a n ev er r ec eiv ed an y bo nu s d ur ing t he co ur se o f his
em pl oy men t wi th Nor th er n Tru st. Fo ur th , Sa rd i ga i n f orm ed Hi n es th at h e b el i ev ed Nor th er n Tru st’ s m

ar keti n g l i teratu retoNo. 1-09- 2930

4

be misleading. Su bseq uent ly, Hines allow ed S ar diga t o r evise t he mark et ing liter at ur e t hat he
use d i n h i s pre sen tations to cli en

ts. Fi n al l y , Sa rd i ga sp oke wi th Hi n es re ga rdi n g h i s c on cern s a

b out a l ac k of con f i den ti al i ty pr ot ect ions in No rt her n Tr ust ’s co nt act manage ment s yste m, a c omp ut er ized d at abas e co nt aining in form ation ab out Nort hern Trust clie nts. The general

ly accepted practice at Nort hern Trust was t o p lace c onfide nt ial client infor matio n into t he co nt act manage ment s yste m unless a c lient speci fi cally requested ot herwi se. Mem bers of v arious departme

nts wi thin Nort hern Trust had
acc ess t o t his dat a. Afte r mak ing Hines a war e o f his conc er ns, S ar diga c ont inued t o u se t he
con tact m an ag em en t sy ste m b ut d i d n ot i n pu t con f i den ti al i n f orm ati on . Inste ad , h e put i

n a n ote st at ing t hat he had co nduc t ed a co nfident ial meeting w ith a t he client and t hat not es fro m the
meeti ng c oul d be

f ound i n the conf i den tia l f i l e. Sar diga t est ifi

ed a t his dep os itio n t hat he did no t co nsider No rt her n Tr ust ’s us e o f the contact man

agement sy

stem to be ill

egal; h e merel y consi dered it t o be a “poo r busin ess pract ice.” In add ition, Sar diga test if ied that he never spo ke with anyone from No rt hern Tru st’s leg al o rco mplia nc e d ep ar t men t s a bo ut his c o nc er ns w it h t he sys t em. Durin g Sardiga’ s tenure at Nort hern Trust, he reported his c oncerns ab out the various bu sine ss pr ac t ice s o nly t o Hin es . Hin es wo uld us ua lly re sp o nd by eit he rsa ying t ha t he wo uld bring S ar diga’ s co ncer ns t o t he at t ent ion o f the legal de par t ment o r infor ming Sar diga t hat t he l egal depa rtme nt had al ready approv ed of the p ractice a

nd d i recti ng S ardi ga to l eav e m atters al one.No. 1-09- 2930

5

On De cem b er 5, 2 00 4, S ardi

ga appr oach ed

Hi n es an d th re ate n ed to tak e h i s c on cern s to the Nat ional

Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) if

Hin es did not adequat ely

address S ar di ga ’s co nc er ns ab o ut No r t he rn T rus t ’s rul es ab o ut wh o co ul d s ell s ec ur it ies
. S pe cif ica lly, Sardiga threat ened to appro ach the NASD over t he f act t hat fi nanci al pl anners at Nor thern Trust
wer e no t licensed . N or t her n Tr ust t er minated Sar diga’ s emplo yment o n Janu ar y 3, 2 005 , a nd Sar diga a rg ues t hat his thr eat t o c ont act t he NAS D wa s t he ca t alyst fo r his t er minatio n. Northern Trust pre sen

ted a m ore com pl ex versi on of ev en ts i n i ts m otion f or sum mary judgm ent. In addition to Sardiga’s repeated c omplai nts about Nort hern Trust’s business practi ces , Hi ne s al so rece i ve d nu merous c omp l ai

nts f rom e m ploye es a nd c l i en ts of Northern Tru st a bou t Sar di ga ’s j ob p erf orm an ce . Sa rdi ga ’s troub l esbe ga

n i n h i s f i rs t we ek s of
em pl oy men t wi th N orth ern

Tru st w he n h e m ad e a pre senta ti on th at e ve n h e agre eswa s n

ot of pr of es si on al qu al i ty to a g rou p of som e 2 00 executi

v es at a l arge pr osp ec ti v e c orp ora

te c l i en t. Sardiga al so arrived ove

r half an hour late to an im

port ant clie

nt mee ting. In a ddition, he m

ade
rem arks to s evera

l dif f ere nt c l i en ts or pros pe cti

ve cl i en ts th at the c l i en

ts f oun d of f en si ve or obj ectionab l e an

d com pl ai ne d ab out to Northern Tru st. Hin es do cu men t ed co mpla int s t ha t he ha d r ec eiv ed ab o ut Sa r dig a’ s p er fo r man ce in Sardiga’ s m

id-y ear perform

ance rev ie w in August 2004. As the y

ear progressed, Hin

es i nf ormed his im mediat e su per visor and t he human r eso ur ces dep ar t ment a t No rt her n Tr ust of c ont inuing
co mpla int s a ga inst Sa r dig a a nd Hin es ’ la ck o f co nfid en ce in S ar dig a’ s a bilit y t o su cc es sfu lly
co mplet e client enga gement s. I n Oct obe r 2 004 , H ines ga ve Sa rd iga a w rit t en final war ning andNo. 1-09- 2930

6

perfor mance i

mprovement plan. Hines cont inued to receive complaints about Sard iga’s perf orma nc e an d i ntera cti on wi th cl i en ts i n N ovem ber 2004 , and he

recom mended that Norther

n Tru st te rm i n ate Sa rd i ga ’s em pl oy men t. Sa rd i ga f i l ed th e i n sta n t l aw su i t on A ug us t 12 , 20 05 , w i

th a tw o-c oun

t com pl ai n t. C oun t I alle ge d a co mmo n la w c laim o f r et alia t o ry dis ch ar ge . Co un t I I alle ge d a vio lat io n o f t he I llino is Wh is tlebl ower Act (740 ILCS 174/1 et seq. (West 2004)). In support of his al le gations un

der
cou nt I I, Sa rdi ga as serted tha t “ Plai nti f f ref us ed to pa rti ci pa te i n North ern

Tru st’ s v i ol ati ons of pu blic p o licy ag ains t it s c us t o mer s, t o whic h No rt her n T ru st re sp o nde d by t er minat ing P laint iff i n re tal i ati on f or h i s ref us al .” No m

oresp ec i f i c a l l eg ati on s a pp ea r i n th e c om pl ai n t. On March 12, 2009, the tr ial cour t gr anted summ

ary j udgment in

fav or o f Northern Tr ust on count II o f pl

ai ntif f’ s compl ai nt. Count I remai

ns pen din g with the c ircui

t cour t. Sardiga fi

le d
a m otion to recons i der th e tri al

court’s order gra nti ng s um mary j udgm en t, whi ch the tri al court deni ed on Septemb er 1, 2009. The trial court ma de a Rule 304(a) fi

ndi ng on October 15, 2009,
and Sard i ga f i l ed thi s ti mel y appe al . Il l . S. Ct. R. 30 4(a) (e f f . Jan . 1, 2006 ). AN AL YSIS On ap pe al, Sa r dig a a r gu es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in g r an t ing su mmar y jud gme nt in fav o ro f No r t he rn T rus t o n c o un t I I o f his c o mpla int , wh ich alle ge d a vio lat io n o f t he I llino is Wh i stl eb l ower Act. 740 IL CS 17 4/20 (W est 200 4). W e r ev i ew a tr i al cou rt’ s g ra n ti n g of su m mar y j udgm en t de novo
. Zuccolo v. Hannah Marine Corp. , 387 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 56 1, 564 ( 2008) . Under thi s stan dard of revi ew, we

may af f i rmNo. 1-09- 2930

7

the tri al court’s rul i ng on an y ba si s i n the rec ord. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Habitat Construction Co. , 377 Il l . Ap p. 3d 28 1, 291 ( 2007)
. Su mmary judgment is a dr ast ic means o f dispo sing o f li t igat ion and t hus s hou ld o nly be
use d whe re t he plea dings a nd o t her evident iary mat er ial in the r eco rd , w hen viewe d in a light
m ost f av ora b l e to th e n on mov i n g p ar ty , de mon strate th at n o gen ui n e iss ue of mate rial f ac t ex i sts
and tha t the m ovi ng p arty i s en titl ed to j udgm

en t as a m atter of l aw. Zuccolo , 387 Ill . App. 3d at 564 . A g enuine issu e o f mate rial fact exist s whe re eithe r t he mat er ial facts ar e disp ut ed o r t he material facts are undisputed but re asonable people m ay draw dif

ferent in ferences f rom those f acts. Williams v. Manchester, 228 Il l . 2d 404 , 417 (2 008). Sardiga argues

on appeal

that t he trial

court erred in

fi ndi ng that he f

ai le d to create a
ma terial is sue of f act regarding wh

ether he ref

used to part ic ipa

te in a n i ll egal or im proper activ ity in the course of hi s em

ploy me nt at Nor thern Trust. The Ill in ois W hi stleb lower Act provides : “A

n em ploy er may not ret al ia

te against an em

ploy ee for ref usi ng to part ic ipa

te in a n activi ty that wo uld resul

t in a vi olation of a Stat e or federal law, rule, or regu lation.” 740 ILCS 174/20 ( West 2004). Thus, in order t o sust ain a cause of action under t he Act, a plai ntif f m ust estab l i sh th at ( 1) h e r ef

us ed to pa rti ci pa te i n an ac ti v i ty th at w oul

d r es ul t i n a v i ol ati on of a state or federal la w, rule, or regulati on and (2) his em ploy er retali ated against hi

m b ecause of that ref usa l . 740 IL CS 17 4/20 (W

est 200 4). The parties di

spute what “ref

usi ng to part ic ipa

te” means under the A

ct. Sardiga argues t hat t he st at ut e do es no t re quir e o ut right re fusal; inst ead , he co nt ends , r epe at ed c omp laints a ndNo. 1-09- 2930

8

questions a

bout t he acti

vi ty i n questi on should suf

fi ce. Nort hern Trust responds that the l anguage of th e statu te is c l ea r a n d th at a pl ai n ti f f m us t re f ra i n f rom pa rti ci pa ti n g i n th e acti v i ty i n ord er to qual if y un der the Act. Thi s i s an issue of statut ory i nterpretat ion, wh

ic h we rev ie w de novo
. County of Du Page v. Il linois Lab or Relati ons Board , 231 I ll . 2d 593, 603 (200 8). T hus, we must
asc ertai n a nd gi ve ef f ect to the i

nten t of the l egi slature. Du Page , 231 I ll . 2d at 603-04. the most
re liable indicato r o f tha t intent is the st at ut or y languag e, which must be given it s plain and ordi na ry mean i ng. Id. at 604 . We do not co nsider individual wo rd s and phr ase s in isolat ion; i nstead, we

i nterpret them

i n l i ght of other re l ev an

t provi sion an

d the statute as a wh ole
. Id. Wh en the l anguage of

the statut e i s unam

bi guous, we apply

that lan guage as wri

tt en an d without resort to other ai

ds of statutory constructi on. Taylor v. Pekin Insurance C o. , 231 Ill . 2d 390, 395 (2008 ). Her e, t he langu age of t he st at ut e is una mbiguo us. “Refus ing t o p ar t icipat e” mea ns exa ct ly wha t it sa ys: a p laint iff who pa rt icipa t es in an a ct ivit y t hat wo uld re su lt in a vio lat io n o f a state o r federal

la w, rule, or regulati on cann ot cl ai m recourse un

der the Act. 740 ILCS 174/20 (We st 2004 ). Ins

tead, th e pl

ai ntif f m ust ac tuall

y ref use to partic i pate. B l ack’ s La

w Di cti onary defi nes “ refusa l” as “[t]he den

ia l or rej ection of s omethi

ng off ered or demande d.” Bla

ck’s Law Dic t io na ry 13 94 ( 9t h e d. 20 09 )
. I nd ee d, t he ve ry t it le o f se ct io n 2 0, “Re t alia t io n fo rce r t ain refusa ls prohib ited,” suggests that not every refusa l qua li fi es f or pro tection under the Act. 740 IL CS 174 /20 (W es t 200 4). Fu

rth erm ore, the A ct p rotects em

pl oyee s w ho c om pl ai n to a government agency

about an activi

ty that t he em

ployee reasonabl

y b eli eves constitut es aNo. 1-09- 2930

9

violation of a stat e or federal law, rule, or regu lation. 740 ILCS 174/1 5 (West 2004 ). Thus, “r efu sing ” me an s r efu sing ; it do es no t mea n “c o mpla ining ” o r“q ue st io ning , ” a s S ar dig a w o uld have us bel

ie ve. Sardiga argues

that if we were to fin

d that “refus in

g” does not mean “

compl ai ni ng,” as
we h av e don e a b ov e, wh er e a su pervi sor pr om i se s a n em pl oy ee th at h e wi ll l ook i n to th e l eg al i ty of an ac tivi ty af ter t he em ploy ee compl ai ns ab out it, then thi s would create a l oophole in

the Act contrary to publi

c poli cy . We are not persuaded by this argumen t. The Act prot ects empl

oyees wh o cal l attenti on i n one of two spec i f

i c way s to i l l egal

acti vi tie s ca rri ed out b y

thei r em ploye r. It p rote cts

em pl oy ee s w h o ei th er con tact a g ov er

n men t ag en cy to re por t th e acti v i ty or re f us e to pa r t icip at e in t ha t ac t ivit y. A n e mplo yee wh o do es no t pe r fo r m eit he ro f t he sp ec ifica lly
en ume r at ed ac t io ns u nd er t he Ac t ca nno t qu alify fo rit s p r o t ec t io ns. We fail t o se e h o w t he pla in
mea ni ng of the A ct c rea tesa l oophol e w

he n th e A ct d oesnot p

urp ort to cov

er th e s i tua ti on de scri be d i n th e i ns tan t ca se . W he n a n e m pl oyeecom pl ai ns to a supe rvi sor , as oppos ed to a governm ent agency

, and i s termi

nated as a resul

t, a co mm on la w cl ai m of retaliator y di

scharge ari ses , wi th wh i ch the A ct does n ot in terf ere. Callahan v. Edgewater Care & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. , 37 4 I l l . A

pp . 3d 63 0, 6 35 (2 00 7) (“

th e en ac tmen

t of th e W h i stl eb l owe r Act d i d n ot, ei ther expl ic itl y or i mpl ic itl y, preem pt o r repeal the c omm

on-law ri ght of action i

n f avor of an
em ploy ee di scharged i

n retali ation f or repo rting i

ll egal activ ities to her superior under ci rcum stan ces wh ere h er di sch arge v i ola tes a c l earl

y mandated p

ubl i c pol i cy ”). The parties h

ave n ot ci ted, nor have we be en ab le to fi nd, any Ill in ois cas e l awNo. 1-09- 2930

10

in terpret in g the la nguage of s ection 20. The onl y c ase di scussi

ng the m eani ng of s ection 20 that we have come across is Robinson v. Alter Barge Line, Inc. , 51 3 F .3d 66 8 ( 7th Ci

r. 2008), which sup po rt s o ur analysis abo ve. In Robinson , t he pla int iff, a d o ck ha nd , co mpla ine d o n mu lt iple occasions to hi s em ploy er that o ther crew mem

bers were usi

ng i ll egal drugs. 513 F.3d at 670. Sh o r t ly aft er t he pla int iff mad e h is t hir d c o mpla int , he wa s fir ed an d h e s ub se qu en t ly su ed his
em ploye r f or retali atory

di sch arge a nd a vi ola tion of the A ct. Id. The co ur t explained t hat t he pl ai n ti f f ’s cl ai m un der the A ct f ai l ed b ec au se pl ai n ti f f f ai l ed to es tab l i sh th at h e r ef us ed to partic i pate i n the i l l egal acti vi ty. The court stated: “[The A ct] forbids

an em ploy er to ‘retali

ate against an em

ploy ee for re fusing t o p ar t icipat e in an ac t ivity tha t wo uld r esu lt in a violat ion o f a St at e o r fed er al law, ru le, o r r egu latio n.’ U sing il le gal drugs would b e such an

‘activ ity ’ but there i s no evi

dence t hat t he plaint iff

re fused t o e ngag e in it. The dist rict judg e t hou ght ‘a cti vi ty ’ c oul d b e s tretche d to i

nc l ude work i ng wi th d rug us ers or o n bo at s o n w hic h d rug s w er e b ein g u se d, bu t t he st r et ch is impla us ible, be ca us e n eit he rwo uld be an illeg al a ct ivit y. N o rdid the pl ai nti f f ref us e to w ork b ec au se

of the pre senc e of

dru gsor dr ug u ser s, o r inde ed fo r a ny reas on. And, cr itically, t her e is no in dic ation that he ref

used to use drugs hi

ms el f. That i s not to say t hat he did u se t hem; t her e is no indicat ion o f tha t eithe r. The po intNo. 1-09- 2930

11 is that he di d not refuse to use them - as f ar as appears, he was never invited t o u se t hem. Anyway t her e is no indicat ion t hat t he de fen da nt fire d h im because he r efu se d t o us e d rug s. ( T ha t wo uld be b iz arre conduct - fi

rin g an em ploy ee for ref usi ng to use il

le gal dr ugs on t he job. ) And so he has no c laim under t he st at ut e, as t he di stri ct j udge

correctl y conc l uded .” (Em

phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Id. Thus, we m

ust determi

ne wh ether the ple adi

ngs an d evi dence i n the record establis

h that Sardiga ref

used to part ic ipa

te in a n acti vi ty that would resul

t in a v iolation of a s

tate o r federal la w, rule, or regulati on. Sardiga’s bri ef an d hi s pl eadi

ngs b el ow detail

fi ve areas a bout whic h Sa rd i ga com pl ai n ed to Hi n es : (1 ) l i cen si n g of f i n an ci al pl an n er s, (2 ) the p re se

n ce of we al th strate gi sts at m eeti n gs b etw een f i n an ci al pl an n er s a n d th ei r c l i en ts, (3 ) lac k of

di sc l osu reto clie nt s r eg ar din g h o w fin an cia l pla nne r s’ bo nu se s a r e c alc ula t ed , ( 4) misr ep r es en t at io ns in
mar ke t ing mat er ials us ed by fina nc ial p lan ne r s, an d ( 5) us e o f t he co nt ac t man ag eme nt sys t em. How ev er , the ev i den

ti ar y mate rials i n th e r ec ord

estab l i sh th at S ardi

ga n ev er ac tual l y re f us ed to part ici pate in any

of these activi

ties. Sa rd i ga com es cl ose st to sa

ti sf y i n g th e r ef us al re qui re men t of th e A ct i n h i s dea l i n gswi th the contact managem

ent system. He n

ot ed confi dentia l c li ent in form ation i n the contact
ma nagem ent system b

y i ncl udin g notations that confi

dentia l m eetin gs had taken pl

ace and that hi s n otesf rom the mee ti ng s c oul d b e f oun d i n th e c onf i denti al cl i en t f i l es . Th i s m odif i ed us e of t he sys t em is a s t r et ch in e st ab lishin g a r efu sa l, bu t as su ming fo rt he sa ke o f ar gu men t t ha t itNo. 1-09- 2930

12

sat isfies, S ar diga ha s no t est ablished t he o t her t wo re quir ement s o f the Act , na mely, tha t t he activ ity “resul t[ed] in a v

iolation of a State or federal la w, rule, or regulati on” and that he was term i na ted asa res

ul t of h i s ref usa l to partic i pate i n the ac tiv

i ty. 7 40 IL CS 17 4/20 (W

est 200 4). The pl eadi ngs , bri ef s, an d the evi den tia ry material i n the rec ord do not es tabl i sh that North ern Tru st’ s stan

da rd u se of the con tac t man ag em en t sy stem vi ol ate s a ny sta te or f ed era l l aw , rul e or regulation. In hi s deposition, when as ked whether h

e bel ie ved thi s use of the contact
man agement sy

stem to be ill

egal, Sardiga testified that he thought it merel y a “ poo r busin

ess pr act ice. ” Re fusal t o p ar t icipat e in a po or business pr act ice is no t sufficient t o s at isfy the
re qui re men ts o f th e A ct. Fu rther more , Sa rdi ga doe s n ot ar gu e th at h e w as f i re d f or re f us i n g to fo llo w N o r t he rn T rus t ’s st an da r d p r ac t ice s w it h r es pe ct t o t he co nt ac t man ag eme nt sys t em. Instead, he adm

its that Hi nes al lowed h im to modify

hi s use of the contact m

anagem ent system and dev ia te from Northern Trust’s standard practice s. Sardiga n ever argues that thi s m

odif ie d
use - o r r efusa l to follow st anda rd pr act ices - re sult ed in his t er minatio n. I nst ea d, Sa r dig a a r gu es t ha t he wa s t er minat ed be ca us e h e t hr ea t en ed t o r ais e h is
co ncer ns wit h t he NAS D unles s Hines a nswe re d S ar diga’ s qu est ions a bou t t he lega lity of t he oth er f our com pl ai n ed of ac ti v i ti es . H owev er , Sa

rdi ga n ev er argu es th at h e actual l y re f us ed to pa rti ci pa te i n an y of th e acti v i ti es ab out w h i ch h e c om pl ai n ed to Hi n es or th re ate n ed to re por t to th e N A SD . A s w e d

i sc us se d a b ov e, mer el

y com pl ai n i n g a b out a n ac ti v i ty - a s op pos ed to ac tual l y re f us i n g to p ar ti ci pa te i n i t - i s n ot s uf f i ci en t to en ti tl e a pl ai n ti f f to re l i ef un der the A ct. 740 ILCS 174 /20 (West 200 4); Robinson , 513 F. 3d at 670.No. 1-09- 2930

13

Sardiga attempts to make an end run around the pl

ai n m eani ng of the A

ct by arguin g that Nort hern Trust shoul

d be estopped from

arguin g that Sardiga did not refuse to part ic ipa te in w hat h e p erce i v ed to b e i l l eg al an d u n eth i ca l ac ti v i ti es du ri n g h i s e m pl oy men t wi th Nor th er n Tru st. Spe cif i cal l y , Sa rdi ga arg ue s th at b ec au se

Hi ne s a ss ure d h i m ei the r th at the c om

pl ai ne d-of
ac ti vi ti eswe re l

eg al or th at H i

ne s w oul d i nq ui re a s to th

ei r leg al i ty , thi s p rev

en ted Sar di ga f rom pe rf orm i ng hi s ow n i nv es ti ga ti on or ac tua l l y ref us i ng to pa rti ci pa te i n th e acti vi ti es . W e a re n ot persuade d by

thi s arg um en t. Fi rst, this arg

um en t fa i l s to take i

nto acc ount the

bur den of proof. In order t o prevail

under the Ac

t, it is the pl

aint iff who mus t establish that his em

ploy er retali ated agai nst hi m f or hi s ref usa l to partic i pate i n a qual i f y i ng a cti vi ty. 7 40 IL CS 17 4/20 (W

est 200 4). Noth i ng i n th e p l ai n l an gua geof the A ct sugg es ts a

de f en da nt e m pl oyer b ea rs the bu rde n of provi ng th at the p l ai ntif f em ploye e di d not sa tis f y the re qui rem en ts of th e A ct. Sec ond , we

f ai l to se e h ow H i ne s’ s a ss ura nc esto Sar

di ga pre ve nte d Sa rdi ga f rom ind ep en de nt ly ver ifying w ha t Hin es t o ld h im. N o t hing in t he r ec o r d in dic at es t ha t Sa r dig a c o uld
no t ap pr o ac h o rco mmun ica t e w it h N o r t he rn T rus t ’s leg al o rco mplia nc e d ep ar t men t wit h his que sti ons ; i ns tea d, h e m ere l y ch ose not to d o so. W ha t i s m ore, Sar di ga doe s n ot sh ow h ow Hi ne s’ s as sura

nc es prev en

ted hi m f rom r ef usi ng to pa rtic i pate i n acti vi tie s tha t he b el i ev ed we re dec ept ive and illegal. Sar diga r epe at edly arg ues , bo t h her e o n app eal and in his pleadings and
m otion s b elow, that Hi

ne s woul d not answe

r Sardi ga’ s que sti ons to h

i s sa tis f action. Howe

ver, Sardiga does n

ot expl ai n how thi s preven

ted Sardiga f

rom actuall

y ref usi ng to part ic ipa

te. Third , S ar diga ha s no t sho wn ho w t he element s o f est op pel ar e sa t isfied in the inst antNo. 1-09- 2930

14

case. Indeed, S ardiga does not even m ention the elem

ents in h is b rief . In or der t o est abl

ish estoppel, Sardiga m

ust show that (1) Hines m is represented or concealed m aterial facts; (2) Hin

es knew at the ti me h e m ad e the re pre senta ti ons tha t the y we re u ntr ue ; ( 3) S ard

i ga di d n ot know t ha t t he r ep r es en t at io ns w er e u nt rue wh en Hin es mad e t he m o rwh en Sa r dig a a ct ed up o n t he m; (4) Hin es reasonab ly

expected that Sardiga would act upon those representations; (5) Sardiga re aso nably relied up on H ines’s r epr ese nt at ions t o his d et riment ; and ( 6) Sar diga w ou ld be pr ejudice d by his reliance on t he r epr ese nt at ions if Hines w er e pe rmitt ed t o d eny the ir t ru t h. Campos v. Campos , 342 I ll . App. 3d 10 53, 1066 (2003) . The reco rd do es not clearly establi sh t hat Hines misre pr ese nt ed o r c onc ealed mate rial fact s o r t hat he kne w at t he t ime he made t he representations that they

were untrue. More im

port antly , the record do es not establis h that Sa rd i ga wou l d b e p re j udi ce d b y h i s rel i an ce on th e r ep re se

n tati on s i f Hi n es wereperm

i tted to deny their truth. Sardiga argues that he was prej udic ed becaus e he rel ie d on Hin

es’s as surances re ga rd i n g th e l eg al i ty of th e c om pl ai n ed of ac ti v i ti es . Sa rdi ga mai n tai n s th at h e d i d n ot re f us e to partici pate i n the purp ortedl

y i l l egal acti vi tie s b eca use Hi ne s as sure d hi

m that the y were proper, de sp it e S ar dig a’ s ling er ing do ub t s a bo ut t he ir le ga lit y. A s a r es ult , Sa r dig a a r gu es t ha t t his rel i ance pre cl

uded hi m f rom m ai ntai ni ng a suc ces sf ul clai m und er the Act. W e a re n ot pe rs ua de d by

Sar di ga ’s rel i an cearg um en t. A s n oted ab ove , Sa

rdi ga has n ot ade qua t ely explained ho w Hines ’s as sur ance s t o him pr event ed him fro m ascer t aining t he le gal ity of the compl

ai ned of ac tivi ties through other methods, f or instan ce, seeki ng gui dance f rom Northern

Trust’ s legal

or com pli ance de partm en t.No. 1-09- 2930

15

Ac co r din gly, we find t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did no t er rin g r an t ing su mmar y jud gme nt in f av or of Nor th er n Tru st o n cou n t II o f Sa rdi ga ’s com pl ai n t. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court o f Cook County i s af fi rmed. Af fi rmed.No. 1-09- 2930

16



### REPORT ER OF DECI SI ONS - IL LI NOIS APP EL LA TE COURT
DARR EN SARD IG A,

Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l an t,
v. THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY,

Defe ndan t-Appell ee. No. 1-09- 2930 Ap pe llat e C o ur t o f I llino is Fi rs t Di stri ct, S ec ond

Di vi si on March 15, 2011
JU STI CEHA

RR IS d el i v er ed th e op i n i on to th e c our

t. Jus t ices Kar nezis and Co nnor s co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

Ap pe al f r o m t he Cir cu it Co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. The Honorable A l l en

S. G ol dberg, Judge Presi din g. Barry

A. G omb erg &

As soci ates, L td., 53 West Ja

cks on Boul

ev ard, Su i te 1350 , Ch i cago, IL 60604 , (Barry

A. G omb erg, of

coun sel ), f or APPEL

LA NT. Vedder Price P.C., 222 North LaSall e Street , Suite 2600, Chi

cago, IL 60601-1003, (Edwar

d C. Jeps on, Jr . and Elizab eth N . Hal l , of c ouns el

), f or APPEL

LEE.