## Facts

- William G. Tullis worked for Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co., Inc. at its Eldorado, Illinois plant, first as a sandblaster and later as a “jigger” handling parts of varying size and weight.
- On January 25, 1996, Tullis injured his back while lifting a mold at work, received medical treatment, and was restricted from regular work for a period of time.
- After the injury, Townley prepared a work-accident report so medical bills could be handled through workers’ compensation.
- Tullis sought to return to work after treatment and ultimately obtained a medical release to full duty, which he delivered to Townley.
- Tullis filed a workers’ compensation claim.
- Townley terminated (or otherwise ended) Tullis’s employment after the injury and workers’ compensation activity.
- Tullis sued Townley in federal court, asserting an Illinois retaliatory-discharge claim based on the public policy protecting employees who exercise rights under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
- The case was tried to a jury. The jury found in Tullis’s favor and awarded him compensatory damages, including $80,185 in nonpecuniary damages for “mental anguish and inconvenience.”
- On emotional harm, Tullis was the only witness. He did not testify to depression, anger episodes, or physical manifestations, but said he felt “low” and “degraded” when laid off and “back-stabbed” when Townley opposed his unemployment claim.
- Tullis testified he was unemployed for nine to ten months and had to borrow money, had his lights and phone cut off, could not afford clothes or outings for his children, and struggled to pay child support. When he found new work as a truck driver, it required time away from home, unlike the prior job that was minutes away.
- Townley moved for judgment as a matter of law and sought a new trial or remittitur, arguing the evidence did not support liability and that the emotional-distress award was unsupported and excessive. The district court denied the motions, and Townley appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Townley discharged Tullis in retaliation for pursuing workers’ compensation rights under Illinois law.
2. Whether the jury’s $80,185 nonpecuniary award for mental anguish and inconvenience—based primarily on Tullis’s testimony—was unsupported or so excessive that a new trial or remittitur was required.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Tullis.
- The court held the record provided a reasonable basis for the jury to find retaliatory discharge under Illinois law, and the district court did not err in denying Townley’s post-trial motions on liability.
- The court upheld the $80,185 nonpecuniary award, concluding it was not “monstrously excessive,” did not shock the conscience, and had a rational connection to the evidence.
- The court ruled that, in appropriate circumstances, a plaintiff’s testimony alone can support an award for emotional distress and related nonpecuniary harm, and the jury was entitled to credit Tullis’s account of both his feelings and the real-world consequences of the discharge.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois law, an employer may be liable in tort for retaliatory discharge when it terminates an employee for exercising rights protected by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
- A jury verdict must be upheld if there is a reasonable basis in the record to support it; on appeal, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party when reviewing denial of judgment as a matter of law.
- Denial of a new trial or remittitur is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with substantial deference to the district court and jury.
- An award for nonpecuniary loss (including emotional distress) may be supported, in certain circumstances, solely by the plaintiff’s testimony; medical or expert evidence is not always required.
- The jury, not the appellate court, assesses witness credibility and weighs the force of testimony about subjective harms.
- A damages award is set aside as excessive only in extreme cases—when it is monstrously excessive, shocks the conscience, or lacks a rational connection to the evidence.

## Conclusion

Tullis v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co. affirmed a jury’s finding that an employee was retaliatorily discharged for workers’ compensation activity and sustained an $80,185 award for mental anguish and inconvenience, holding that credible plaintiff testimony describing emotional impact and concrete hardships can provide an adequate basis for nonpecuniary damages under deferential review of jury awards.


Tullis v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co., 243 F.3d 1058 (2001)