Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, CONTRACT CLAIMS—Ill. App.: Former White Sox head trainer who signed litigation waiver after he was fired gets bias suit reinstated, (Feb 19, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

In response to the team’s motion to dismiss, the trial court mistakenly placed the burden on the employee to prove the team fraudulently misrepresented the reason for his firing to induce his signature.

An Illinois appeals court reinstated a discrimination lawsuit brought by the former head athletic trainer for the Chicago White Sox who claimed that he signed a termination agreement that contained a litigation waiver because a team executive told him he was being let go because he did not “fit in” with the team’s future and fraudulently concealed he was really being fired because of his sexual orientation. In granting the team’s motion to dismiss, the trial court improperly placed the burden of proof on the employee, who plausibly alleged that the waiver was not “knowing and voluntary” due to the alleged deception and several other factors. Reversing and remanding, the appeals court also left it for the trial court to address the team’s contention that the trainer ratified the alleged defects in the agreement by accepting and retaining the severance pay and medical benefits he received as part of the agreement (Ball v. Chicago White Sox, Ltd., No. 1-23-0949 (Ill. App. Feb. 14, 2025)).

The employee began as an assistant athletic trainer for the Chicago White Sox in 2000, and in 2018 was promoted to head trainer. In February 2020, team management advised him that he would no longer directly treat players and assigned him to an administrative position in which he oversaw those who provided treatment.

Pandemic-related suspension of contract. He worked under a Major League Club Uniform Employee Contract (UEC) that contained an addendum that allowed the White Sox to stop paying his compensation if he was terminated during a period in which Major League Baseball (MLB) suspended the UEC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the MLB commissioner suspended the contracts of employees covered by the UEC, effective May 1, 2020. The White Sox retained him for the remainder of the 2020 season and he continued working at the training facility.

Fired. In July 2020, the employee was the victim of a violent carjacking in which he was severely beaten. The GM insisted that he take medical leave and see a psychologist, during which time the team allegedly discussed his mental health with the doctor without his consent. After the doctor approved his return in August, the GM allegedly instructed him to take more time to recover and assured him that his job was safe. However, on October 26, the GM told him he was being terminated because he did not “fit in” with the team’s plan to reach the next level.

Termination agreement. The next day, the team presented the employee with a termination agreement offering him one year of salary and health insurance premiums in exchange for his waiver of “any and all known and unknown claims” for alleged violations of “federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or common laws, including but not limited to… the Illinois Human Rights Act.” The agreement stated that he had 21 days to sign, with an additional seven days to revoke, and advised him to consult an attorney. However, he claimed the team threatened to rescind the agreement if he did not sign it within a week, which he did. Two months later, a manager allegedly revealed to him that his termination had nothing to do with organizational fit but rather his sexual orientation.

Lawsuit dismissed. The employee filed an administrative charge with the EEOC and the Illinois Department of Human Rights and, after exhausting his administrative remedies, initiated this lawsuit asserting claims of sex, age, and disability discrimination under the IHRA. The trial court subsequently granted the team’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, concluding that the waiver in his termination agreement refuted his discrimination claims and that he “did not provide clear and convincing evidence grounds” to set the agreement aside.

Improper burden shift. The trial court erred by shifting the burden of proof to the employee instead of accepting his allegations as true and considering them in a light most favorable to him. He directly challenged the validity of the agreement by alleging the White Sox procured his signature by concealing the truth, and the appeals court found that this issue of material fact could not be disposed of through a motion to dismiss.

“Knowing and voluntary?” Waiver of one’s rights under state and federal anti-discrimination laws are enforceable only when “voluntarily and knowingly” made, explained the appeals court. And here, several factors weighed against enforcing the employee’s waiver of his rights. Most significant, he alleged—and the White Sox wholly failed to refute—that management deliberately misled him about the reason for his termination. Though the team argued that it had no fiduciary duty to provide him with a reason for terminating him, “an employer’s concealment of discriminatory practices prevents the enforcement of waivers obtained under false pretenses” since procurement of the waiver through fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation cannot be voluntary and knowing. “Employers may not benefit from their deception,” stated the appeals court.

Moreover, the timing and context of the agreement’s execution must be considered given that he signed the agreement during the rare global pandemic when the unemployment rate reached an all-time high of almost 15 percent, and without having signed the agreement he would have had to give up continued access to health insurance months after a violent carjacking. There was also no indication that he had business experience or legal knowledge necessary to appreciate the consequences of the agreement, nor was he involved in its drafting. And while the agreement allowed 21 days for consideration, the team allegedly imposed a seven-day deadline on him.

Ratification? The White Sox also argued that dismissal was proper since the employee ratified the alleged defects in the agreement by accepting and retaining the severance pay and medical benefits after learning he was fired because of his sexual orientation. However, because the trial court did not address this argument and it involved issues of fact, the appeals court remanded for its consideration by the trial court.

The case is No. 1-23-0949.

Judge: Hyman, M.

Attorneys: John F. Winters Jr. (Winters Salzetta O'Brien & Richardson) for Brian Ball. Clifford R. Perry (Laner Muchin) for Chicago White Sox, Ltd.

Companies: Chicago White Sox, Ltd.

Cases: ContractClaims Discrimination AgeDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Procedure StateLawClaims IllinoisNews