Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Teale v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Citations: 359 N.E.2d 473; 66 Ill. 2d 1; 3 Ill. Dec. 834; 1976 Ill. LEXIS 465; 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 11,509; 36 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1129Docket: 48645
Court: Illinois Supreme Court; November 15, 1976; Illinois; State Supreme Court
The case involves James N. Teale (Appellant) appealing a dismissal of his complaint against Sears, Roebuck and Company (Appellee) for alleged violations of the Illinois Age Discrimination Act. The Supreme Court of Illinois, in its opinion delivered by Justice Schaefer, addressed whether a civil action for damages exists under the Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on age. The Act, enacted in 1967, aims to protect qualified individuals from age discrimination in employment, particularly against those over 45 years. It emphasizes the importance of utilizing experienced workers and maintaining their dignity and self-support. The Act defines unlawful employment practices, including refusal to hire or discrimination in employment terms due to age, and establishes penalties for noncompliance. Teale's complaint details his employment history with Sears, noting that he served in progressively responsible roles, culminating as a national buyer before being involuntarily retired at age 56. He alleges that his position was eliminated in favor of a younger employee, which he claims violated the Age Discrimination Act, resulting in damages of $400,000 from lost salary and benefits, as well as emotional distress and reputational harm. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment dismissing the complaint. The complaint seeks $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, asserting that the plaintiff's employment was terminated solely due to age discrimination. The court assumes the allegations are sufficient for this claim, although the statute in question does not explicitly allow for damages. The plaintiff argues that a civil remedy should be implied based on the precedent set in Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co., which allows for civil liability if a statute is intended to protect a specific class. The court, however, rejects this argument, citing the General Assembly's declaration that the statute's protections are limited to the provisions stated within it. Further, the court points out that other discrimination statutes provide specific civil remedies, indicating that implying additional rights would be inconsistent. Additionally, Count II of the complaint, which alleges a breach of employment contract, fails because it lacks specific contract terms and does not attach a written contract. The plaintiff's attempt to circumvent the Statute of Frauds is also unconvincing, as it does not pertain to a claim for previously performed work. Ultimately, the judgment from the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.