Carl E. Thomas v. Guardsmark, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “only an actual termination can support an employee’s retaliatory discharge claim under Illinois law”
• denying motion to strike extraneous documents submitted by the plaintiff to rebut the defendant’s argument that the claims were time-barred
• writing that “[i]n a diversity case, the federal court must apply the choice of law rules of the forum state to determine applicable substantive law…as long as the contract is valid and the law chosen is not contrary to Illinois’s fundamental public policy”
• denying motion to strike new materials submitted on appeal because the plaintiff’s supplemental appendix not included in the record illustrated there might be a set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint
• “Illinois respects a contract’s choice-of-law clause as long as the contract is valid and the law chosen is not contrary to Illinois’s fundamental public policy.”
• “Illinois respects a contract’s choice-of-law clause as long as the contract is valid and the law chosen is not contrary to Illinois’s fundamental public policy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).