Ex-White Sox Trainer’s Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit Restored

An Illinois appellate court last Friday reversed the dismissal of a discrimination lawsuit brought by the team’s former head trainer, Brian Ball, who contends he was let go in 2020 because of his sexual orientation.

Ball v. White Sox suggests that employment termination agreements for team personnel, who are paid in exchange for relinquishing potential claims, might not extinguish the risk of litigation for teams. 

Writing for himself and Justices Carl A. Walker and Celia Gamrath, Justice Michael B. Hyman wrote, “allowing an employer to conceal discriminatory motives while inducing an employee to waive statutory protections undercuts the very purpose of anti-discrimination statutes.” 

Ball joined the White Sox in 2000 as an assistant trainer. He was promoted to head trainer in 2018. In July 2020, Ball was the victim of a violent carjacking when two men beat him and then stole his car. 

The White Sox placed Ball on medical leave and instructed him to see a psychologist before returning to work. Ball claims that team executives assured him his job would be waiting for him, but after being cleared by the psychologist to return to work, and eager to do so, he was fired in October 2020; Ball asserts he was told he did not “fit in” to the club’s plans. At the time, Ball, like other non-uniform White Sox employees, was employed on a month-to-month basis consistent with a COVID-19 pandemic employment policy.

The White Sox then presented Ball with a termination agreement that offered one year of salary and health insurance premiums, with Ball separately receiving health care coverage through an MLB policy. The agreement required Ball to release the White Sox for any legal claims, including those that could be raised through the Age Discrimination in Employment Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act. Ball was given 21 days to sign but contends he was urged to sign it within a week. Ball signed the agreement.

A couple of months later, Ball contends a White Sox management-level employee told him the real reason he was fired was because he’s gay. Ball then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which later issued Ball a right-to-sue letter. Ball sued the White Sox, which disputed his allegations and stressed that Ball contractually waived claims in consideration for the termination provisions that called for a year of pay and benefits. 

Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court Judge Thomas M. Donnelly dismissed Ball’s case in 2023 on grounds Ball contractually relinquished claims and had failed to provide “clear and convincing evidence” to establish the White Sox committed any fraud. Ball appealed, arguing (among other things) the termination agreement was borne through fraudulent concealment and that the trial court erred by requiring more of him than necessary in a motion to dismiss.

Hyman agreed. He reasoned that Ball’s allegations “directly challenge the validity of the termination agreement” and namely whether the White Sox “procured his signature by concealing the truth.” The case should not have been dismissed, Hyman wrote, since key points are in dispute.

The judge also noted there are “several factors” that “weigh against enforcing the waiver.” They include that when Ball signed the waiver, the U.S. unemployment rate had climbed to nearly 15% due to the COVID-19 pandemic and he had reason to worry about continued access to health care just “months after the violent carjacking.” Hyman also noted that Ball appears to have lacked “business experience or legal knowledge” about the agreement and it doesn’t seem he consulted with an attorney.

But most significant, Hyman reasoned, is that “nowhere” in affidavits or during oral argument did “the White Sox refute” Ball’s contention he was misled about why he was let go. The White Sox pushed back against that point, arguing, as Ball’s employer, it “had no duty to provide Ball a reason for terminating him.” Also, the White Sox maintained, even if there was a duty that the team failed to meet, Ball would have cured that problem by retaining the compensation from the agreement. 

Hyman disagreed, writing “the law does not condone deception.” As to the legal impact of Ball keeping the severance pay and medical benefits, Hyman explained the trial court did not address that issue and thus it is not for the appellate court to decide at this juncture. The case returns to the trial court level, and it’s possible the parties could reach a settlement at any point.