Opinion ID: 2798230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IWPCA Claim

Text: The IWPCA is designed “to provide employees with a cause of action for the timely and complete payment of earned wages or final compensation, without retaliation from employers.” Byung Moo Soh v. Target Mktg. Sys., Inc. 817 N.E.2d 1105, 1107 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). It states that final compensation “shall be defined as wages, salaries, earned commissions, earned bonuses and the monetary equivalent of earned vacation and earned holidays, and any other compensation owed the employee by the employer pursuant to an employment contract … .” 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 115/2 (emphasis added). Because the IWPCA does not define the term “earned bonuses,” Illinois courts analogize them to “earned vacation.” See Camillo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 729, 734 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (“’[E]arned vacation’ and ‘earned bonus’ should be interpreted similarly... .”). Where there is an unequivocal promise that a bonus will be paid, at least one court has awarded a pro rata share of that bonus to the terminated employee. See Camillo, 582 N.E.2d at 731–35. Where, by contrast, there is no unequivocal promise that a bonus will be paid, three courts have denied recovery under the IWPCA. See McLaughlin v. Sternberg Lanterns, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 1065, 1071 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009); In re Comdisco, Nos. 02 C 7030 & 02 C 7031, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2982, at  (N.D. 16 No. 14-1921 Ill. Feb. 27, 2003); Tatom v. Ameritech Corp., No. 99 C 683, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16720, at -27(N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2000). These decisions are consistent with regulations promulgated by the Illinois Department of Labor, which define “earned bonuses” under the IWPCA: An employee has a right to an earned bonus when there is an unequivocal promise by the employer and the employee has performed the requirements set forth in the bonus agreement between the parties and all of the required conditions for receiving the bonus set forth in the bonus agreement have been met. 56 Ill. Adm. Code § 300.500 (2014) (emphasis added). Under Illinois law, this regulation is entitled to “substantial weight and deference.” McLaughlin, 917 N.E.2d at 1071. Here, Hess’s claim under the IWPCA fails for two reasons. First, there is no unequivocal promise that a bonus will be paid. On this point, we look to the terms of the modification letter, which, despite not having been signed by Hess, both parties agree governs the terms of Hess’s compensation from June 21, 2002, until the date of his termination on February 14, 2007. The modification states that Hess “will be eligible to receive as a bonus” a certain percentage of all fee revenue generated over $100,000 (emphasis added). Eligibility, of course, is no guarantee. Hess might very well be eligible for a bonus, but due to a host of factors, not receive one. As a result, we do not find this bonus provision to be the kind of unequivocal promise that is required under applicable Illinois law. McLaughlin, 917 N.E.2d at 1071 (“If no such unequivocal promise was made, then the employee is No. 14-1921 17 not entitled to any part of the bonus pursuant to section 2 of the Wage Act [IWPCA].”). So on this ground alone, Hess’s claim under the IWPCA for post-termination settlement fees fails. But even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the parties intended eligibility to equate to a guarantee, Hess still would not be entitled to recovery under the IWPCA. For as we have already found, the employment agreement only provides for bonuses once a certain amount of fee revenue is received. Here, Hess acknowledges that K&A did not receive the settlement fees from his medical-malpractice cases until after his termination. That means not “all of the required conditions for receiving the bonus set forth in the bonus agreement have been met.” 56 Ill. Adm. Code § 300.500 (2014). This second reason, then, independently denies relief to Hess under the IWPCA. As there exists no genuine issue of material fact on which to proceed to trial, summary judgment was appropriately granted in favor of K&A on Hess’s IWPCA claim.