Whistleblower cases often result in large verdicts but a recent case may signal that reviewing courts are now more strictly reviewing emotional distress claims. In Svec v. City of Chicago, Beth Svec alleged that the City retaliated against her in violation of the Whistleblower Act for reporting evidence to her supervisors and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office that impeached two officers’ narrative of a gun arrest. Svec said that the officers lied in their reports about the arrest. In retaliation, Svec said, she was transferred to a different district to investigate property crimes, placed on its midnight shift, received a lower performance rating for 2016, and at work was called a “whistleblower.” Instructed that Svec had to prove retaliation for her disclosures and a refusal to participate in actions that violated state or federal law, rules, or regulations, the jury found the City liable and awarded Svec $4.3 million, including $3 million for emotional distress.
The appellate court reduced the emotional distress award to $1.5 million because she was not terminated, her compensation was not reduced, and she worked for five months at her new assignment without evidence of distress. One Judge dissented, stating that the award was supported by the testimony of mental health professionals and was comparable to verdicts in other similar cases.
Whether this ruling is the beginning of a trend to reduce large emotional distress awards, or large awards rendered against the City, remains to be seen. As this is written, there is no indication whether Svec will seek review by the Illinois Supreme Court. For a copy of the case, Svec v. City of Chicago, 2024 IL App (1st) 230893, or to seek advice about Whistleblower cases, contact Tom Patterson at tpatterson@pattersonlawfirm.com
