Background
Daniel Mehrmann had taught music technology as an adjunct professor at Southwestern Illinois College since 2003. In January 2022, he filed a union grievance after the College did not assign him a course he believed he had requested. The union ultimately declined to pursue the grievance.
After the spring 2022 semester, the College terminated Mehrmann without cause. It initially attributed the decision to declining enrollment and the planned elimination of the music technology degree program. The College continued offering the relevant courses through a teach-out plan and later through a certificate program. During the unfair-labor-practice proceedings, the College also maintained that Mehrmann lacked the master’s degree it believed was required to teach the courses.
The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board found that the College violated section 14(a)(1) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act by retaliating for Mehrmann’s grievance. The College sought direct appellate review.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the Board’s order. It held that the Board’s finding that Mehrmann’s protected grievance activity was a motivating factor in his termination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The College’s stated reasons conflicted with its actions: it needed additional faculty for the teach-out plan, continued to offer courses Mehrmann had taught, and had employed him for nearly two decades without treating his lack of a master’s degree as disqualifying.
The court also held that this was a dual-motive case. Although the collective bargaining agreement gave the College a contractual right to terminate Mehrmann without cause because of his seniority status, the College failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have discharged him regardless of his grievance. The Board therefore did not clearly err in sustaining the unfair labor practice charge and granting relief.
Key Takeaways
- Shifting explanations for a discharge can support an inference that protected union activity motivated the decision.
- An employer’s facially legitimate contractual authority to terminate an employee does not defeat a retaliation claim by itself.
- In a dual-motive labor case, the employer must prove it would have made the same decision absent the protected activity.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that educational employers may face liability when their stated rationale for an adverse action is inconsistent with their contemporaneous conduct or changes during litigation. A contractual right to dismiss an employee without cause does not establish that the right, rather than protected activity, actually drove the discharge.