On December 1, 2015, Joseph J. Blazek tripped in a pothole in ADT’s employee parking lot in Oak Brook, Illinois, and was injured. ADT’s security cameras recorded the fall. Two supervisors came to help. Ron Fiege filled out a First Report of Injury, and Ken Bobak drove Joe to Elmhurst Hospital.
ADT denied payment for the emergency care. The bill went back to Joe.
Joe’s work was physical. For 42 years, he installed and repaired alarm systems, climbing stairs and ladders as part of the job. Away from work, he played men’s softball in Cicero and later traveled throughout Illinois as a volunteer Little League umpire. Before the injury, he expected to return to umpiring the following summer.
ADT was self-insured for workers’ compensation, and its third-party administrator, Gallagher Bassett, refused to open a claim. Joe used his personal days to recover. When they ran out, ADT told him to report to the office to keep his paycheck. He sat in a chair for eight hours a day when he was supposed to be resting, elevating, and icing his injuries.
In March 2016, ADT sent Joe on a service call. His knee gave way as he climbed a customer’s stairs. A supervisor took him to Concentra Immediate Care. Joe missed more days of work, which were unpaid.
After that second fall, Joe’s doctor scheduled surgery to repair the torn meniscus. The day before the procedure, Edward Hospital told Joe that ADT had denied workers’ compensation coverage. His regular health plan would not cover a work injury. The surgery was canceled. With ADT refusing to pay for the surgery, Joe’s doctor made his restrictions permanent. The note read, “Permanent no stairs no ladders.”
In April, ADT’s regional HR manager, John Roberts, told Joe he was being “retired.” On April 27, ADT’s Oak Brook HR manager, Travis Miller, told Joe it was his last day. After 42 years on the job, Joe was out of work with an untreated knee injury, no workers’ compensation benefits, and no severance pay.
Why had ADT ended the career of an employee with a clean work record, good performance reviews, and commendations from customers? Was the company trying to avoid scrutiny of a parking lot whose condition raised questions about OSHA compliance? Was it unwilling to pay for surgery to get an otherwise healthy worker back on the job? Or did Joe’s departure fit the incoming CEO’s view of veteran technicians? In a recorded address at the Barnes Buchanan conference, Tim Whall referred to “guys who had grown old sitting in their trucks.” He contrasted veteran technicians with younger workers and claimed his daughters who were not alarm technicians, could outperform technicians he had employed for 20 years. The reason for ADT’s treatment of Joe remained unanswered.
Getting answers—and getting the benefits he needed—would take him through agencies and courts for years.
Proving the injury
Joe went to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission because ADT refused to provide medical care and replace his lost wages. ADT disputed his claim. Joe had to obtain a hearing and present the evidence that his injury was work-related and that he was entitled to benefits. Despite ADT’s unrelenting attempts to thwart his progress, Joe ultimately got his hearing. The arbitrator awarded him benefits and ordered ADT to pay a penalty.
ADT challenged the ruling. On June 9, 2023, the Commission upheld the central findings and the penalty. ADT challenged that ruling, too. The corporation took the case to DuPage County Circuit Court for judicial review.
Joe had won before the arbitrator and defended that win before the Commission. Now he had to defend it in court. His workers’ compensation claims ultimately ended in a settlement approved by the Commission in February 2024.
Fighting for the records
Joe also asked the Illinois Department of Human Rights to investigate discrimination in his firing. ADT used Joe’s personnel records to claim the firing was justified. To answer ADT’s account, Joe needed those records as well. But ADT controlled those records and denied him access. Joe turned to the Illinois Department of Labor. The department notified ADT to release his personnel records. ADT did not comply.
The IDHR initially dismissed Joe’s discrimination complaint. After the dismissal, Joe filed an appeal. The IDHR gave him access to all the documents ADT had submitted during the investigation. He used those same documents to challenge the dismissal, and he prevailed. The IHRC overturned the dismissal and directed the IDHR to enter a finding of substantial evidence. Shortly thereafter, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) agreed.
Three agencies had reached conclusions favorable to Joe. His persistence had turned a dismissal into recognition that his discrimination complaint warranted further proceedings.
But ADT did not participate in the effort to remedy the wrongdoing. Joe received a right-to-sue notice and had to take his case to court.
Starting again in federal court
Joe filed his discrimination suit in DuPage County Circuit Court. ADT immediately moved it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Joe now faced federal litigation without an attorney. He had the agency findings and supporting documents. But Joe also had to learn the complicated rules for presenting his evidence. Law schools devote an entire semester—and at some schools a full academic year—to teaching civil procedure. Joe had to learn it while fighting his own case against ADT’s attorneys. What to file. When to file it. How to answer ADT’s legal arguments. How to put each disputed fact before the judge in the required form. It was like being handed a rulebook written in another language.
A University of Chicago Law Review study found that workers representing themselves lost about 98% of federal employment discrimination cases against the defendant who had an attorney. ADT asked for summary judgment—a ruling that would end Joe’s remaining claims before trial. Joe submitted a declaration, exhibits, and statements of fact. The judge found that parts of his response lacked the record citations and required a filing of a brief that Joe missed. On February 23, 2023, the judge ruled for ADT.
The pay Joe was still seeking
Throughout these proceedings, Joe continued seeking the severance pay that his union contract provided for workers who were terminated without wrongdoing. Initially ADT’s regional HR manager told Joe they couldn’t talk to him about it while there was pending litigation. Then throughout the years ADT’s story shifted from stating that Joe had quit his job (to the IWCC), to their terminating his “for cause” (to the IDHR), depending on what showing was called for to avoid paying what Joe was owed. After the federal court dismissed Joe’s case, he Joe renewed his efforts to get his severance pay. Now ADT answered that too much time had passed.
Joe filed a severance suit in Will County Circuit Court in December 2025. In March 2026, ADT again moved his case to federal court. Joe asked for it to be returned to state court. ADT opposed that request and argued that his earlier federal lawsuit barred the severance case. On November 4, 2026, the judge kept the case in federal court and dismissed it with prejudice. The court closed the case without deciding whether he had earned the 42 weeks of severance pay under the union contract.
It began with a fall in an employee parking lot. Joe needed treatment for a torn meniscus so he could get back to work. He eventually underwent a total knee replacement in 2019. Today, he can no longer play softball or umpire Little League games. The man who once climbed ladders for a living has spent nearly eleven years fighting over what happened when he fell.
The financial damage began immediately. Joe used up personal days recovering from a work injury. He lost wages, then his job. For years, he went without the weekly workers’ compensation checks he sought to replace his income. Medical bills and the cost of pursuing his claims added to the burden. His workers’ compensation case finally ended in a settlement in 2024. The 42 weeks of severance pay he sought after four decades of service remain unpaid.
Joe proved his workers’ compensation case. He overturned the dismissal of his discrimination complaint. Each victory required another fight, while the physical and financial consequences continued.