The question presented is whether the Court properly required former employees to "prove" defendant's articulated reason for firing plaintiffs was untrue.
More specifically, in the underlying case, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant terminated plaintiffs in retaliation for providing information to Illinois Bureau of Weights and Measures regarding sale of underweight seed bags. According to defendant, the trial court found that the defendant had valid, non-pretextual reason for terminating the plaintiffs.
The Appellate Court, in entering judgment in plaintiffs' favor, found that trial court erred in requiring plaintiffs to prove not only that their terminations were based on plaintiffs' protected conduct, but also that defendant's proffered reasons for their terminations were untrue. In its petition for leave to appeal, defendant argued that Appellate Court improperly required it to "prove" its articulation for plaintiffs' terminations.