RETALIATORY FAILURE TO REHIRE??? - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

Fighting yet another Motion for Summary Judgment in a retaliatory discharge case. My client, a nice young guy had worked for years with his employer. He suffers a legitimate back injury lifting a heavy hose[he was in a heavy labor job]. He is off work for a bit, and is eventually released, with some signficant lifting restrictions. Employer says he can basically work in a light duty job for a certain period, but if he doesn’t find another position within the company[consistent with his restrictions] within a finite period, he will be terminated. Additionally, the company is supposed to help him find another spot, but does absolutely nothing for him. Several HR people testify they typically help injured employees find other spots, but for some reason, just never got around to my client. Gosh, I wonder why? Of course he doesn’t land a job consistent with his restrictions, so they can him.
I file suit for him and after lots of depos, they move for summary judgment, arguing he was physically unable to do his former job. Which is true.
But, under Section 4(h) of the Illinois Workers Compensation Act, it is unlawful for the employer to ” …refuse to rehire or recall to active service in a suitable capacity an employee because of the exercise of hir or her rights or remedies granted to him or her by the this Act.”
In my client’s case, there is testimony from HR personnel that they usually helped people with restrictions find suitable spots in the company consistent with those restrictions. BUT…they didn’t make any such effort with my client. The failure to do so raises a legitimate fact question as to why the HR people didn’t help my client. The implicit explanation being that they didn’t help him because he had a comp claim pending. That will be my argument anyway. Hope the judge gets it.

Digital brain graphic with circuit board background, glowing blue, representing artificial intelligence.

The Anthropic Ruling - AI can't steal your content. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Topgolf building exterior with a gray facade, white sign, blue sky, and landscaping.

Topgolf hit with $15 million dollar verdict after 9 year old suffers devastating injuries. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.

Tesla Ignored $60 million settlement overture before getting crushed with $242 million dollar verdict. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Taco with ground meat, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese sauce, and onions in a crispy shell.

Appellate Court rebuffs same proximate cause argument twice in taco restaurant crash. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.

Supreme Court lets $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict stand against Johnson & Johnson - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Bar counter with beer taps, logos, and a pint of Guinness. Shelves filled with bottles in the background.

Trial Judge: criminal attack outside bar not foreseeable. The Illinois Appellate Court: not so fast.... - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Hand holding a black smartphone displaying the Uber app on a dark background.

Experts dispute victim numbers in Uber Sexual Assault Trial. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Spilled tan liquid with straw and debris on black asphalt with white line.

Surprise Headline - Federal Appeals Court sides with injured plaintiff in Costco Spilled Smoothie case. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Movie poster for

DuPont to pay $2 Billion to clean up "forever chemical" messes - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.
Four airline workers with luggage walking across an airport tarmac toward a setting sun.

Federal Judge tosses airline employees' lawsuit claiming uniforms caused illnesses. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025