EAST ST. LOUIS – Indiana resident Gary Martin broke Illinois law by recording conversations at work, according to a judge presiding over Martin’s civil suit against his former employer.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Beatty declared the recordings inadmissible on Jan. 29.
“Plaintiff secretly recorded these conversations without the consent of all parties, violating the eavesdropping statute,” he wrote.
Attorney Stephen Williams of Terre Haute, Ind. sued Central State Construction of Marshall on Martin’s behalf last March.
The lawsuit alleges Martin purchased real estate to build a home and a lender preapproved a construction loan with a qualifying credit score of 788.
Central State manager Ron Stone allegedly gave Martin a credit card in his name to purchase materials to be used on jobs. Stone said his name was on the card for identification purposes only and the card wouldn’t be tied to him personally.
When Martin was ready to close the loan, the lender denied it, the lawsuit claims. Martin’s credit score had dropped to 660.
Martin asked Stone to pay the balance on the card, and Stone allegedly said he didn’t care and if Martin didn’t like it he should move on.
Martin quit his job and obtained treatment for distress and anxiety, the suit claims.
Central State retained former U.S. attorney Courtney Cox of Carbondale, and Cox requested production of documents from Martin.
Among other items Cox received three video recordings Martin captured with his telephone camera inside Central State on May 23, 2018, with transcripts.
He also received a recording of a phone conversation between Martin and Central State owner Larry Yargus, with a transcript.
In August, Cox moved to exclude the recordings as evidence.
Beatty denied the motion as premature, stating that parties should file motions to limit evidence and testimony no more than 21 days before a pretrial conference.
At a deposition in September, Cox asked Martin to tell every reason why he decided to make the recordings.
“If I work off the books, so to speak, or don’t get paid through the contractor then that could also affect my pension, I believe,” Martin said.
Cox asked if he believed a crime of some sort was being committed against him.
“If I’m being told to perform work for the contractor and it would be at their discretion whether I got paid for that work then yes, I thought as if yes, that would be a crime,” Martin said.
Cox asked what crime that would be and he said, “Working without getting paid.”
Cox said, “You never worked without getting paid, did you?”
Martin said he didn’t know what Cox meant.
Cox said, “You told me you got paid for all of the time you turned in including your overtime, including your bidding time.”
Martin said correct, and Cox asked if he was talking about someone not paying him in the future.
Martin said correct, and Cox asked if he thought that was a crime.
Martin said, “I kind of felt that it was at the time.”
Cox asked what crime that was and he said, “I just felt that in some way, shape or form that didn’t seem right, that at that time doesn’t seem fair.”
Cox asked him to point to a place in a transcript where there was discussion of what he suspected to be a crime.
Martin pointed to a discussion about hiring a guy to help with bids and having him help that guy better himself.
He pointed to his statement asking how to charge hours out for that and to Stone’s statement that, “We can’t do that.”
Cox said, “Meaning you can’t charge some client for it?”
Martin said, “Meaning that I would be in the office working for free.”
Cox said, “He’s saying you cannot bill a client for you helping this person. He is not saying you can’t get paid.”
Martin said, “I don’t see it that way. I’m sorry.”
Cox asked for other crimes and Martin said they talked about trying to get him to sign a second credit card agreement.
He quoted an employee saying he had to sign it, and he said, “That seems like he’s forcing me to sign something that I don’t agree to.”
Cox said it looked like the employee said new cards would be issued and the old ones wouldn’t work.
Martin said that’s what the employee alluded to but he didn’t want the new card because there was no guarantee that it wouldn’t affect his credit.
Beatty ruled in October that Cox could renew the motion to exclude the recordings.
Cox renewed it in December and attached Martin’s deposition.
Williams responded for Martin that the motion remained premature but was nonetheless meritorious.
Beatty granted the motion and prohibited the parties from using or attempting to convey to anyone any information regarding the recordings.
He has set jury trial for June.