Following the recent decision in Rivas v. Benny’s Prime Chophouse, where the Illinois Appellate Court allowed a civil claim to proceed despite arguments that the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”) barred recovery, the court’s ruling in Kordas v. Bob’s All Bright Electric offers a contrasting outcome. Both cases involve workplace injuries tied to known personal risks—an employee’s food allergy in Rivas, and a coworker’s mental health history in Kordas. Together, they highlight how courts assess employer knowledge and determine whether the Act provides the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries.
The Incident and Kordas’ Claims
Kamil Kordas was working on a residential electrical job when his coworker, Thomas Clarizio, struck him in the head multiple times with a shovel during what was later described as a psychotic episode. Clarizio fled the scene in a company van and was later arrested. Kordas was hospitalized and later filed suit against both Clarizio and the employer, Bob’s All Bright Electric, Inc., alleging negligence, intentional misconduct and concealment of Clarizio’s mental health history.
Kordas argued that the employer knew or should have known about Clarizio’s mental health issues, including multiple hospitalizations and a prior altercation with a family member. He claimed that the employer’s failure to disclose or act on this information placed him in danger and took the case outside the protections of the Act.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis of Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the Act barred Kordas’ claims. It found that the injury was “accidental” from the employer’s perspective, as the employer had not directed or authorized the assault. The court emphasized that even if the employer was aware of the coworker’s mental health history, there was no evidence of prior violent behavior in the workplace or any indication that the employer intentionally placed Kordas at risk.
The court also rejected arguments that the attack stemmed from a personal dispute unrelated to work. The testimony showed that Kordas and Clarizio had no relationship outside of work and that any tension between them was work-related. Clarizio himself testified that the attack was not provoked by anything Kordas said or did, but was the result of his own mental health struggles and failure to take prescribed medication.
Finally, the court found no basis to conclude that Kordas’ injuries were not compensable under the Act. Although Kordas had not pursued workers’ compensation benefits, there was no evidence that his claim would have been denied.
A Brief Note on the Dissent
One justice dissented, arguing that questions of material fact remained as to whether the employer’s conduct rose to the level of intentional concealment and whether the attack was motivated by personal animosity. The dissent suggested that the exclusivity provision should not shield employers who knowingly expose employees to serious risks.
Considerations for Employers and Litigation Awareness
Kordas adds to a body of cases examining how courts treat employer knowledge, especially when that knowledge is indirect or based on informal channels. While Rivas involved constructive knowledge of an employee’s food allergy, Kordas addressed actual knowledge of a coworker’s mental health history. In both cases, the courts focused on whether the employer’s awareness was sufficient to overcome the protections of the Act.
These decisions show how courts may examine not just whether an employer had knowledge of a risk, but whether that knowledge was tied to any history of workplace incidents or behavior. Where no prior threats or violence are documented, courts may be reluctant to find that an employer’s awareness, however concerning, creates liability beyond the protections of the Act.
[View source.]