Court Opinion

ID: 9715945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:20:54.693984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:39.281548
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLER, dissenting: In the present case, the employee handbook issued to the plaintiff provided that the employer could terminate nonprobationary employees for “just cause.” In addition, the handbook expressly required that security guards maintain accurate time records. I would find that the defendant-employer acted within the terms of the handbook in discharging the plaintiff, who, having arrived late for work, submitted inaccurate time records that concealed his tardiness. Because the case presents no genuine issue of material fact, the circuit court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The handbook distributed by the defendant to its security guards contained the prefatory warning, “Violation of any of the following policies will lead to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal.” Section E of the handbook stated, “All time cards and sign-in log books must reflect correct dates and times worked.” Section J, pertaining to discipline, provided in pertinent part: “After an employee has completed the probationary period, such employee shall not be suspended, discharged or otherwise disciplined without just cause, just cause to in-elude but not be limited to the following: continuing poor performance on the job, whether due to inefficiency, loafing, carelessness or incompetency; dishonesty or other misconduct in connection with work; incivility; insubordination, and serious or persistant [sic] infraction of reasonable rules promulgated by management relating to the operation of the store or the health or safety of employees.” The majority opinion does not question the defendant’s authority, under the terms of the employee handbook, to discharge a guard who commits misconduct by maintaining inaccurate time records. (142 Ill. 2d at 169.) The majority believes, however, that a question of fact remains because it is unclear whether the plaintiff’s actions were not simply inadvertent. The majority’s analysis ignores the plain import of the plaintiff’s admissions and misconstrues the provisions of the employee handbook. The present case would pose a question of fact if, for example, the plaintiff denied that he was late on the workday at issue, or if he denied submitting incorrect time records for that day. But the plaintiff has acknowledged that he was late for work, and that he did submit false time records. The plaintiff cannot create a question of fact simply by insisting that his state of mind is in dispute, for under section E of the handbook an employee’s intent is not an issue. On this record, the trial judge properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff acknowledged that the entries he made for August 2, 1983, on the time card and sign-in log were incorrect. Section E of the employee handbook could not have expressed more clearly the requirement that security guards maintain accurate time records. In addition, the handbook provided that violation of its provisions could result in discharge. The employee’s violation was in this case manifest, and the defendant acted within its authority in dismissing the plaintiff. The majority observes that the plaintiff stood to gain less than $5 through his tardiness and submission of incorrect time records. (142 Ill. 2d at 157.) Apparently the majority wishes to suggest that the defendant’s discharge of the plaintiff was unduly harsh, and that a more lenient sanction would have been appropriate. Although the plaintiff would have improperly gained only a slight amount of money had his misconduct gone undetected, the real and potential costs incurred by the defendant as a result of the plaintiff’s misconduct were much greater. As the appellate court observed, the plaintiff’s work as a security guard placed him in the sensitive position of protecting the defendant’s employees and property, and those responsibilities made prompt attendance and accurate time-keeping particularly important. (189 Ill. App. 3d at 456.) The defendant is entitled to require that its security guards maintain accurate records of the hours they have worked, and the handbook issued to the guards contained an explicit statement of that rule. In view of the plaintiff’s admissions that he was late for work on the day in question and that he submitted inaccurate time records for that day, it is clear that the plaintiff committed “misconduct” within the meaning of sections E and J of the employee handbook. The defendant acted within its authority in dismissing the plaintiff for that violation of its rules. For those reasons, I respectfully dissent. CHIEF JUSTICE MORAN joins in this dissent.