Sutula-Johnson v. Office Depot, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting portion of defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-employee’s action alleging that defendant breached employment contract by unilaterally changing terms of compensation plan regarding plaintiff’s sales of office furniture in favor of different compensation plan that paid her less in overall compensation. Terms of prior compensation plan did not create enforceable contract that required defendant to offer new consideration prior to enforcing new compensation plan, since under terms of prior plan defendant could change terms of compensation plan without notice and for any reason. Moreover, plaintiff’s continued employment after terms of new plan had been announced evidenced her acceptance of said terms, even though plaintiff had orally objected to said terms at time they were announced. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting portion of defendant’s summary judgment motion with respect to plaintiff’s claim that defendant violated Ill. Wage Act by failing to pay her commissions on monthly, as opposed to quarterly basis. While defendant argued that said payments were not subject to monthly payment mandate under Act because they were more properly deemed “bonuses,” Ct. of Appeals found that instant “incentive” payments were more properly deemed to be commissions, where: (1) payments were viewed as mandatory compensation for making sales and were paid out as set percentage of each transaction, rather than based on company or department-wide performance: and (2) instant incentive payments formed two-thirds of plaintiff’s over-all compensation. Defendant also could not deem commissions earned as of date they were actually paid to plaintiff.