# Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.

> Appellate Court of Illinois · August 31, 1977 · 51 Ill. App. 3d 1016

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9722985

## Case

- **Full name:** MARILYN JO KELSAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** August 31, 1977
- **Citations:** 51 Ill. App. 3d 1016; 9 Ill. Dec. 630; 366 N.E.2d 1141; 1977 Ill. App. LEXIS 3228
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Craven
- **Judges:** Trapp, Craven
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed by Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172 (1978).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9722985

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing the general rule that employment at will may be terminated by either party with no right of action for discharge

## Opinion text

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting:
The majority opinion reaches a result contrary to that reached by a different panel of this court in an opinion concurrently filed herewith. (See Leach v. Lauhoff Grain Co. (1977), 51 Ill. App. 3d 1022 , 366 N.E.2d 1145 .) The only difference between the two cases so far as a substantive issue is concerned is that the retaliatory discharge by Motorola was prior to the effective date of section 4(h) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 48, par. 138.4(h)). That provision of the statute now makes the conduct of Motorola, as shown by this record, a criminal offense.
The conduct as shown, was and would continue to be outrageous. The conduct was and continues to be contrary to public policy. Nothing is added by making it a criminal offense. Yet, under the unfortunate, and, I believe, erroneous, view of the majority here, an employer is immune from any common law liability by reason of the exclusive remedy provision of the Act. The employer can, with impunity, chill, if not freeze, the employee’s exercise of the limited remedy made available to him by the Act. The employer can say, “If you file a claim, I’ll fire you,” and the wage earner, dependent upon the income from his job, is very likely deterred from filing the claim. Thus, the employer, under the majority view, gets the best of both worlds. He has no common law liability and there is little likelihood of a claim being filed under workmen’s compensation. The employer can deal with the employee and be limited only by his benevolence and malevolence. In this connection, the article found in the Columbia Law Review, as cited in the opinion in Leach, is most persuasive. See Blades, Employment At Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power, 67 Colum. L. Rev. 1404 (1967).
For the reasons set forth in the opinion in Leach, I dissent from the view expressed by the majority. All members of both panels fortunately are in agreement that these two cases should be certified to the Illinois Supreme Court for resolution of our differences.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9722985. Public record. Not legal advice.