Court Opinion

ID: 9378581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 21:03:29.855276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.257968
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 1220489-U
                                                                            FIFTH DIVISION
                                                                              March 10, 2023
                                       No. 1-22-0489

 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
 limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
 ______________________________________________________________________________

                                          IN THE
                               APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                      FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 RAY ANTHONY BAYLOCK,                                     )    Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                          )    of Cook County.
        Plaintiff-Appellant,                              )
                                                          )
 v.                                                       )    No. 2020 L 11428
                                                          )
 ACIA AG AUTO, LLC d/b/a Grossinger City Autoplex,        )    Honorable
                                                          )    Michael F. Otto,
      Defendant-Appellee.                                 )    Judge, presiding.

        PRESIDING JUSTICE DELORT delivered the judgment of the court.
        Justices Mitchell and Lyle concurred in the judgment.

                                          ORDER

¶1    Held: We affirm the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the
      employer, because the employee did not present any evidence that he and his employer
      entered into a modified compensation plan that would have provided him with additional
      compensation beyond the scope of his existing compensation structure. Because there was
      no evidence of a modified compensation plan, the employee had no viable claim under the
      Wage Payment and Collection Act.

¶2    Plaintiff Ray Baylock filed suit pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage

Act) (820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. (West 2018)) against his former employer, Acia AG Auto, LLC,
1-22-0489

alleging that Acia owed him wages in the form of sales commissions and that the employer

retaliatorily terminated him after he asked to be paid certain additional commissions. After

discovery, Acia moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted, finding Baylock

failed to present evidence that he and Acia entered into an agreement that he would be paid

additional commissions. The circuit court also found that Baylock’s retaliation claim failed

because he presented no evidence to show that there was a Wage Act agreement in the first place.

Baylock appeals the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment. We affirm.

¶3                                      BACKGROUND

¶4     Acia employed Baylock as a general sales manager at its Cadillac/Chevrolet dealership.

The terms of his remuneration were set forth in a contract. Under the contract, Baylock was paid

either $15,000 per month or a percentage of his total sales for that month, whichever was greater.

¶5     On January 16, 2019, during Baylock’s employment as a general sales manager, Reena

Spurrier, vice president of financial services at Acia, copied him on an email in which she asked

another employee, Santino, to fill in as the finance and insurance manager (F&I manager) at Acia’s

Toyota dealership. Baylock responded to Spurrier’s email, expressing his willingness to cover the

F&I manager role at Toyota. Spurrier responded enthusiastically to Baylock’s offer, and Baylock

began working at the Toyota dealership.

¶6     At the end of his first day at the Toyota dealership, Baylock emailed Spurrier to tell her

that he had “Just over 10k on 3 deals in finance at Toyota.” Spurrier responded, “Your [sic] my

HERO!! The gross on those deals do not go in Santino’s name-I will be paying YOU on them.

Thank you!!!” Baylock, while still employed as a general sales manager, continued to fill in the

F&I manager role at the Toyota dealership for the next four months. It is undisputed that Baylock

continued to receive $15,000 per month while he filled in for the F&I manager role at Toyota.

                                                2
1-22-0489

¶7     On May 17, 2019, Baylock met with David Downhour, Acia’s director of human resources,

and Tamara Darvish, Acia’s president of operations. At the meeting, Baylock argued that he should

receive additional compensation for his work at the Toyota dealership. Darvish countered that

there was no agreement that Baylock would be paid anything beyond the scope of his

compensation plan as a general sales manager. Darvish also expressed her belief that the general

sales manager position was not a good fit for Baylock. Baylock asked whether he was being fired,

to which Darvish replied that he was not, but she suggested that other positions may be a better fit.

The meeting concluded, and Downhour told Baylock to call him if he is interested in other

positions with Acia. On May 20, 2019, Baylock emailed Downhour to ask whether a finance

position was available. Downhour responded, asking Baylock to “give [him] some time”. On May

23, 2019, Downhour received a notice that Baylock had filed for unemployment benefits.

¶8     Believing he was not paid what he was owed under this purported agreement with Acia,

Baylock sued Acia under the Wage Act. The operative complaint in this case is Baylock’s first

amended complaint, which contained two counts: (1) a claim for unpaid commissions allegedly

due to him, and (2) a claim for damages for his alleged retaliatory discharge from Acia for filing

the Wage Act claim. The dollar amount of the commissions allegedly owed to Baylock does not

appear in the complaint. However, at his deposition, Baylock testified that his total sales at the

Toyota dealership amounted to $169,477.85. He further averred that 17% commission was the

“low-end” average that Acia would pay its F&I managers for their sales. Thus, the amount at issue

appears to be $28,811.23 (17% of $169,477.85).

¶9     After discovery, Acia moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no

compensation plan other than Baylock’s existing plan as a general sales manager, and Baylock

failed to produce any evidence of the material terms of the purported modified agreement,

                                                 3
1-22-0489

including the amount of compensation. Acia also argued that Baylock’s claim for retaliatory

discharge must fail because Baylock was neither terminated nor offered a less lucrative alternative

position with Acia. Baylock responded, countering that he did produce evidence of a modified

agreement in the form of the email exchange with Spurrier. Baylock also countered that he was

told he was being fired at the May 17, 2019 meeting.

¶ 10   The circuit court granted Acia’s motion for summary judgment. With respect to the wage

claim, the court held that Acia was entitled to summary judgment because Baylock presented no

evidence that he entered into an agreement with Acia that would provide him any additional

compensation. The court also held that the retaliation claim could not survive summary judgment

because there was no viable wage claim on the basis of which Acia could retaliate against Baylock.

This appeal followed.

¶ 11                                        ANALYSIS

¶ 12   On appeal, Baylock argues that the circuit court erred in: (1) finding no evidence of the

existence of a Wage Act agreement; and (2) dismissing Baylock’s retaliation claim under the Wage

Act.

¶ 13   We first address jurisdiction. A reviewing court has an independent duty to consider its

own jurisdiction, whether or not the parties have raised it as an issue, before proceeding to the

merits of the case. Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209, 213

(2009) (citing People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 106 (2008), and R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G

Enterprises, Inc., 181 Ill. 2d 153, 159 (1998)).

¶ 14   Baylock asserts that his appeal is grounded in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff.

Mar. 8, 2016). Rule 304 governs appeals from judgments that do not dispose of an entire

proceeding. Rule 304(a) provides that, “[i]f multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are

                                                   4
1-22-0489

involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer

than all of the parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there

is no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both.” Id. A circuit court order, such

as the one at issue here, which does not contain a specific written finding that there is “no just

reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal”, is unappealable under Rule 304(a). See Henyard

v. Municipal Officers of Village of Dolton, 2022 IL App (1st) 220898, ¶ 23. However, because the

order at issue disposed of all issues in this case, it is appealable under Illinois Supreme Court Rule

303 (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 15   In his brief, Baylock initially erroneously asserts that our standard of review is abuse of

discretion, but he later pivots to the correct standard in his “Standard of Review” section. Summary

judgment motions are governed by section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2-

1005 (West 2018). Under section 5/2-1005(c), summary judgment should be granted “if the

pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law.” Id.; Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 29. We review appeals from summary

judgment rulings de novo. Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32, 43 (2004).

¶ 16   Baylock’s first contention of error is that the circuit court incorrectly found no evidence of

a Wage Act agreement. We have recognized the following as the fundamental principles of the

Wage Act:

       “In 1973, the Illinois General Assembly enacted the Wage Act to provide employees with

       a cause of action for the timely and complete payment of earned wages or final

       compensation, without retaliation from employers. See S. Miller, Minimum Guaranteed

       Rights Under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 81 Ill. B.J. 194, 195 (1993).

                                                   5
1-22-0489

       Upon an employee’s separation, an employer is required to pay the full amount of the

       employee’s final compensation within the next regularly scheduled pay period. 820 ILCS

       115/5 (West 1992). An employer convicted under the Act for intentionally withholding

       or delaying the payment of wages or final compensation is guilty of a Class C

       misdemeanor. 820 ILCS 115/14(a) (West 1992). The Wage Act defines wages or final

       compensation as ‘any compensation owed an employee by an employer pursuant to an

       employment contract or agreement between the 2 parties.’ 820 ILCS 115/2 (West 1992).

       Claims for wages or final compensation are thus akin to breach of contract actions.”

       Doherty v. Kahn, 289 Ill. App. 3d 544, 557–58 (1997).

¶ 17   At its core, a Wage Act claim is akin to a breach of contract claim, and it requires proof of

the same essential elements. To succeed in a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must show: (1)

the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, (2) substantial performance by the plaintiff,

(3) breach by the defendant, and (4) damages caused by that breach. Ivey v. Transunion Rental

Screening Solutions, Inc., 2022 IL 127903, ¶ 28. The terms of an agreement, if unambiguous,

should generally be enforced as they appear, and those terms will control the rights of the

parties. Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460, 479 (1998). Parties are free to modify the

terms of an existing contract by mutual assent, provided that the modification does not violate the

law or public policy. Urban Sites of Chicago, LLC v. Crown Castle USA, 2012 IL App (1st)

111880, ¶37.

¶ 18   The first element in a breach of contract claim is the existence of a valid and enforceable

contract. Agreements under the Wage Act are not bound by all the strictures of traditional contract

law. A Wage Act agreement is “broader than a contract and requires only a manifestation of mutual

assent on the part of two or more persons; parties may enter into an ‘agreement’ without the

                                                6
1-22-0489

formalities and accompanying legal protections of a contract.” Zabinsky v. Gelber Group, Inc.,

347 Ill. App. 3d 243, 249 (2004). Thus, the key question is whether Baylock produced evidence

of mutual assent to modify the terms of his existing compensation structure.

¶ 19   In support of his Wage Act claim for additional compensation, Baylock produced an email

exchange between himself and Spurrier, in which Spurrier congratulated him on his first day’s

performance filling in for the F&I manager role, and she advised him that the sales he generated

would go in his name rather than the employee who normally worked that position. At his

deposition, Baylock testified that he also received verbal affirmations from Acia’s managerial staff

that the sales he generated at Toyota would go in his name. However, both pieces of evidence

suffer from a common deficiency: there is no suggestion that anyone agreed that Baylock would

be compensated a 17% commission on his sales. The 17% figure represents nothing more than

Baylock’s estimation of what he believes he should be paid. It does not appear anywhere as a term

to which Acia agreed. This is problematic because the rate of commission is an essential term of a

compensation agreement. See, e.g., David M. Kaufman Associates, Inc. v. Lake County Trust Co.,

157 Ill. App. 3d 926 (1987); O’Neil and Santa Claus, Ltd. v. Xtra Value Imports, Inc., 51 Ill. App.

3d 11 (1977).

¶ 20   The lack of commission evidence is fatal to Baylock’s claim because the “parties’ failure

to agree upon an essential term of a contract indicates that the mutual assent required to make a

contract is lacking and, thus, there is no enforceable contract.” Rose v. Mavrakis, 343 Ill. App. 3d

1086, 1091 (2003). Baylock produced no evidence of an essential term, and it is not our role to

supply it. O'Neil & Santa Claus, Ltd. v. Xtra Value Imports, Inc., 51 Ill. App. 3d 11, 14 (1977)

(“Where certainty is lacking in the essential terms of [a] contract, the court will not supply the

                                                 7
1-22-0489

missing essential terms.”). Because Baylock produced no evidence of an essential term, mutual

assent was lacking, meaning there was no agreement under the Wage Act.

¶ 21   Moreover, though Baylock testified that he generated $169,477.85 in sales during the

months he filled in for the F&I manager role, he did not aver that the sales he generated in any

particular month were large enough to entitle him to a compensation higher than the $15,000

monthly guarantee (which he did receive each month he worked at Toyota).

¶ 22   Having concluded that Baylock failed to produce evidence of a modified compensation

agreement because he did not introduce evidence of mutual assent, we need not consider the

remaining elements of the Wage Act claim for additional compensation.

¶ 23   Baylock also contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing Baylock’s retaliation claim

under the Wage Act. The Wage Act provides a cause of action for employees who were retaliated

against by their employers after complaining about unpaid wages. 820 ILCS 115/14 (c) (West

2021). However, where “the record does not reflect any evidence that [defendant] failed to pay

[p]laintiff[] ‘in accordance with the provisions of [the Wage Act]’”, retaliatory discharge claims

cannot survive summary judgment. Reid v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, 2013 WL

1087557, at * 8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2013). Here, Baylock has not shown the existence of an

agreement for additional compensation, and it is undisputed that Acia paid him everything he was

owed under his existing employment contract. Because Acia paid Baylock in accordance with the

provisions of the Wage Act, Baylock’s retaliation claim cannot survive summary judgment.

¶ 24                                     CONCLUSION

¶ 25   Baylock failed to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue of material fact, as he provided

no evidence that his employer agreed to additional compensation, or that his termination was in

                                                8
1-22-0489

retaliation for his claim under the Wage Act. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s grant of

Acia’s motion for summary judgment.

¶ 26   Affirmed.

                                               9