Employee Cipolla filed a charge of discrimination with the IDHR and then a state court complaint in Cook County, alleging that the Village fired her because of her age in violation of the IHRA. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Village.
Cipolla appealed, arguing (1) that the trial court should have given the jury a "cat's paw" liability jury instruction. The Appellate Court held that there was no evidence that the decision-maker blindly relied on a non-discision maker manager in connection with his employment decision to terminate the plaintiff or that the non-decision maker had a discriminatory intent. Thus, the cat's paw jury instruction was unwarranted and the trial court did not err in refusing to give it.
Cipolla also argued (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to clarify for the jury the meaning of the word "fired." While the jurors were deliberating, they requested that the judge define the term "fire." The trial judge held that it was a factual question and instructed the jury to resolve its questions by reviewing the evidence and referring to the jury instructions. The Appellate Court agreed.
Finally, the Appellate Court found that the jury instructions approved by the trial judge accurately and sufficiently stated Illinois law on the elements a plaintiff is required to prove to win an employment discrimination case. Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions provide that the plaintiff has the burden to prove: (1) that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant; (2) that the plaintiff was fired from her employment with the defendant; (3) that the plaintiff was fired because of her age (or other protected classification); and (4) that the plaintiff sustained damages as a result her firing.