Seaman v. Thompson Electronics Co.

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-01-0101 Rel

Case Date: 09/28/2001

September 28, 2001

No. 3--01--0101

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2001

GEORGE SEAMAN, Individually and
on behalf of the class of
similarly situated employees of
Thompson Electronics company,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

THOMPSON ELECTRONICS COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appeal from the Circuit Court
of the 10th Judicial Circuit,
Peoria County, Illinois

No. 99--L--313

Honorable
John A. Barra
Judge, Presiding

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOMER delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal presents two issues regarding the PrevailingWage Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq. (West 2000)). First, we must decide whether a right to a jury trial existsunder the Act. Second, we must determine the limitations periodapplicable to claims filed under the Act. We conclude that aright to a jury trial does not exist and that the five-yearstatute of limitations in section 13--205 of the Code of CivilProcedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/13--205 (West 2000)) applies.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs filed a suit against Thompson ElectronicsCompany (Thompson) claiming damages for lost wages under the Act. They demanded a jury trial in their complaint. Thompson moved tostrike the demand, asserting that the Act does not provide for ajury trial. The judge concluded that a right to a jury trialexists under the Act and denied Thompson's motion.

Thompson further moved for partial summary judgment,asserting that some of the plaintiffs' claims were barred by thethree-year statute of limitations in the Minimum Wage Law (820ILCS 105/12(a) (West 2000)) and other claims were barred by thefive-year statute of limitations in section 13--205 of the Code. The judge concluded that the five-year statute of limitationsapplies to the Act and thus partially granted Thompson's motion.

The judge also declared that the issues he had decidedinvolved questions of law on which substantial ground existed fordifference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal maymaterially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. This court subsequently allowed Thompson to file an immediateinterlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 308(a) (155 Ill. 2dR. 308(a)).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Since the issues before us present questions of law, ourreview is de novo. See Yang v. City of Chicago, 195 Ill. 2d 96,745 N.E.2d 541 (2001).

ANALYSIS

I. Right to Jury Trial

The Illinois Constitution provides that "[t]he right oftrial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate." Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,