Losing your job can make you wonder if your employer’s explanation is the real reason. Companies often say a firing happened because of poor performance, restructuring, attendance issues, or breaking a workplace rule. Sometimes these reasons are valid, but sometimes they hide discrimination based on a protected characteristic. Employers almost never admit that bias played a role, so these cases usually rely on the facts, changing stories, unfair discipline, and how similar employees were treated. We help employees review their work history to see if illegal discrimination may have been a factor in their firing.
In Illinois, most jobs are considered at-will. This means an employer can usually fire someone for a bad reason, an unfair reason, or no reason at all, as long as it does not break a contract, law, or public policy.
Discrimination at work is different. Both federal and Illinois laws make it illegal for employers to fire someone because of certain protected traits. To win a claim, you need more than proof that your employer was harsh or made a poor decision. There must be evidence linking the firing to discrimination, retaliation, or another illegal reason.
We start by looking at what changed before you were fired. Did a new boss make biased remarks? Did expectations suddenly get tougher? Did your employer start writing up small issues they used to ignore? Were people outside your protected group treated better for doing the same things? These answers help tell the difference between a normal workplace problem and possible discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The prohibition appears in 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2. Federal protection against sex discrimination includes claims involving pregnancy and other forms of sex-based unequal treatment.
Other federal statutes protect additional groups. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits covered employers from firing or otherwise discriminating against workers who are at least 40 years old because of age. The governing prohibition appears in 29 U.S.C. Section 623.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits covered employers from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in hiring, discharge, compensation, advancement, training, and other employment terms. The federal prohibition appears in 42 U.S.C. Section 12112.
Different federal laws contain different definitions, employer-coverage requirements, causation standards, and procedural rules. We evaluate which statutes apply rather than treating every termination claim as legally identical.
The Illinois Human Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on numerous protected characteristics. These include race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, order of protection status, physical or mental disability, military status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, reproductive health decisions, and unfavorable military discharge. Illinois law may therefore protect an employee in circumstances that require a separate analysis from federal law.Â
The Illinois Department of Human Rights explains that the Act applies to employment decisions such as firing, layoff, discipline, demotion, promotion, performance evaluations, compensation, working hours, leave, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Illinois law may also apply to employers that are not covered by a particular federal statute.Â
Employer size and the nature of the claim can affect which legal protections are available. We examine both federal and state law because limiting the review to one system can cause an employee to overlook a viable claim.
Timing does not prove discrimination by itself, but it can be important. A firing may deserve closer review when it occurs shortly after an employer learns about a pregnancy, disability, religious need, interracial relationship, gender transition, medical restriction, or another protected fact.
The same concern may arise when an older employee is terminated soon after management discusses bringing in younger workers or reducing payroll costs. A termination shortly after an employee returns from disability-related leave may also warrant investigation, particularly when the employer previously praised the employee’s performance.
We compare the timing of the termination with evaluations, emails, attendance records, accommodation requests, management meetings, disciplinary notices, and changes in job duties. A timeline can reveal whether the employer’s criticism existed before the protected issue arose or appeared only afterward.
One common warning sign is unequal enforcement of workplace rules. An employer may claim that you were fired for tardiness, insubordination, a customer complaint, or a policy violation while retaining employees outside your protected group who engaged in comparable or more serious conduct.
The employees being compared do not always need to have identical jobs or records, but meaningful similarities matter. Relevant questions include whether the employees had the same supervisor, violated the same rule, had similar disciplinary histories, and worked under similar conditions.
An employer may have a legitimate reason for imposing different discipline. One employee may have received prior warnings, held a safety-sensitive position, or committed a more serious offense. We review the complete context rather than relying on a superficial comparison.
Useful evidence may include disciplinary records, workplace policies, schedules, performance reviews, witness statements, internal messages, and records showing how the employer handled earlier incidents.
An employer’s explanation for a firing should remain reasonably consistent. A company may create suspicion when a supervisor gives one reason during the termination meeting, human resources gives another reason in writing, and the employer later offers a third explanation during an agency investigation.
A false or shifting explanation may support an argument that the stated reason is pretext, meaning it is not the employer’s true reason. Pretext can also be shown when the employer cannot produce records supporting its claims, abandons its usual disciplinary process, applies a policy selectively, or relies on facts that decision-makers knew were inaccurate.
We do not assume that every inconsistency proves discrimination. People may communicate poorly, and several legitimate reasons may contribute to a decision. The issue is whether the contradictions, together with the remaining evidence, reasonably support an inference that discrimination influenced the termination.
A history of positive evaluations followed by abrupt criticism can raise questions. This is especially true when the criticism begins after management learns of a protected characteristic, accommodation need, discrimination complaint, or anticipated leave.
Employers are allowed to change standards, replace managers, and demand improved performance. A good past record does not guarantee continued employment. However, an employer may have difficulty defending a termination when it cannot explain why documented performance changed so sharply.
We examine whether the new criticisms are supported by objective evidence. We also compare the employee’s targets, assignments, resources, deadlines, and training with those given to coworkers. Sometimes an employer creates conditions designed to make a particular employee appear unsuccessful.
Preserve performance reviews, awards, customer praise, productivity data, sales records, emails, and earlier statements about your work. These records may become difficult to obtain after access to company systems is terminated.
An employee may have a claim even when the employer disputes the underlying discrimination complaint. Title VII prohibits retaliation against an employee because the employee opposed an unlawful employment practice or participated in a discrimination charge, investigation, or hearing. The federal retaliation provision appears in 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3.
Protected activity may include reporting discriminatory treatment to human resources, supporting a coworker’s complaint, requesting certain disability or religious accommodations, filing an agency charge, or participating in an investigation. The activity must concern conduct that the employee reasonably understands as potentially unlawful discrimination.
Retaliation may be shown through termination, demotion, reduced hours, undesirable assignments, intensified scrutiny, or other materially harmful action. Close timing between a complaint and termination can be relevant, but we also look for evidence of management hostility, procedural irregularities, shifting reasons, and different treatment after the complaint.
A disability-related termination may involve more than an openly biased statement. The dispute may concern whether the employee could perform the essential functions of the position with a reasonable accommodation.
Under the ADA, a qualified individual is someone who can perform the essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. An employer may need to consider changes such as modified schedules, accessible equipment, job restructuring, leave, or another effective accommodation, depending on the circumstances. The ADA prohibits disability discrimination in discharge and other employment decisions under 42 U.S.C. Section 12112.
An employer does not necessarily need to remove essential job duties, accept indefinite leave, or provide an accommodation that creates an undue hardship. These cases depend heavily on job descriptions, medical information, communications between the parties, available positions, and the employer’s response to the request.
A termination may be suspicious when the employer fires an employee immediately after learning of a medical restriction without discussing possible accommodations.
Employers may reduce staff, eliminate positions, or reorganize departments for lawful business reasons. A restructuring can still be discriminatory when older employees are disproportionately selected because of age.
The ADEA protects employees who are 40 or older from termination because of age. Relevant evidence may include age-related comments, replacement by a substantially younger worker, manipulated performance rankings, patterns showing older employees were selected for layoff, or pressure to retire.
Cost concerns do not automatically establish age discrimination, even when older employees earn higher salaries. We examine whether management used salary as a genuine financial criterion or as a substitute for assumptions about age, energy, adaptability, or retirement plans.
Employees presented with severance agreements should review them carefully before signing. A release may waive legal claims, and federal law imposes specific requirements on waivers of ADEA rights by employees who are 40 or older.
A termination can be legally discriminatory even when the employer uses neutral language such as performance concerns, restructuring, attendance, or lack of fit. We examine whether the stated explanation matches the record, whether policies were enforced consistently, whether protected employees were treated differently, and whether retaliation followed a complaint or accommodation request.
The Law Office of Josh McCann represents employees in Chicago and surrounding communities from its office in Lisle, Illinois. The firm assists workers facing discriminatory termination, retaliation, disability-related employment disputes, unequal discipline, and other violations of federal and Illinois employment law. To receive your free consultation, contact our Chicago employment discrimination attorney at the Law Office of Josh McCann when you call (847) 450-1103
We're ready to listen. Get started now by filling out the attached form.
