Dichiarro v. Woodland Maintenance Group, LLC, 2021 IL App (2d) 210418

1. Case citation and parties
- Dichiarro v. Woodland Maintenance Group, LLC, 2021 IL App (2d) 210418 (2d Dist. Dec. 23, 2021).
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Lisa Dichiarro. Defendants-Appellees: Woodland Maintenance Group, LLC; Daniel Huber; Brian McShane.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the 2011 amendment to section 14(c) of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (820 ILCS 115/14(c)) (adding that an unlawfully retaliated-against employee “shall be entitled to recover through a claim filed with the Department of Labor or in a civil action, but not both, all legal and equitable relief…[and]…costs and all reasonable attorney’s fees”) (Pub. Act 96‑1407) (eff. Jan. 1, 2011):
a) Abrogated McGrath v. CCC Information Service, Inc., 314 Ill. App. 3d 431 (2000); and
b) Establishes a “clearly mandated public policy” sufficient to support a common-law retaliatory-discharge tort claim when an employee is terminated for demanding unpaid wages.

3. Holding / outcome
- The court answered the certified question partly yes and partly no:
- Yes — the 2011 amendment created a statutory cause of action for retaliatory discharge under the Act (an employee may pursue relief in a civil action and recover costs and reasonable attorney fees).
- No — the amendment did not abrogate McGrath as to the common-law retaliatory-discharge tort; it did not supply the “clearly mandated public policy” element necessary to expand the common-law tort to wage-demand terminations.
- Cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Reaffirmed Palmateer framework: to plead common-law retaliatory discharge an employee must show discharge in retaliation for activity that violated a “clearly mandated public policy.”
- McGrath had held the Wage Payment and Collection Act did not manifest such a public policy; the appellate court concluded the 2011 amendment created an express statutory remedy but did not itself articulate a constitutional/statutory public policy sufficient to resurrect or expand the common-law tort.
- Distinction emphasized between (a) a legislatively created statutory remedy (now explicit in §14(c)) and (b) the separate common-law public-policy requirement—legislative creation of a remedy does not automatically convert the underlying conduct into the kind of public-policy violation that supports a common-law tort.

5. Practice implications
- Plaintiffs: After the 2011 amendment, plead a statutory retaliatory-discharge claim under §14(c) (civil action option), and assert entitlement to costs and reasonable attorney fees; do not rely solely on pre‑2011 cases (e.g., McGrath) to bar relief.
- Defense: Motions to dismiss should distinguish statutory claims (now viable) from common-law tort claims (still subject to Palmateer/McGrath analysis); consider that employees must elect Dept. of Labor or civil action (but not both). Settlement of wage claims may not resolve reserved statutory retaliatory claims.
- Litigation strategy: Focus discovery and briefing on whether plaintiff proceeds under the statutory cause (more promising) versus attempting to bootstrap a common-law public-policy claim (still difficult absent clearer statutory/public-policy language).