testified that the picture hanger did not constitute an improvement to the space and that neither the filing cabinets nor the refrigerator were integral parts of the building. And while it is true that the renovations to the space were made with the idea that the new space would be used as a kitchenette and storage, the facts that (1) the bookshelves, appliances, wood cabinetry, wastebasket, storage bin, sink, lighting, and alarm system could have easily been replaced by different bookshelves, appliances, cabinetry, wastebaskets, storage bins, sinks, lighting, and alarm systems, and (2) these particular items could have easily been used at a different location, establishes that these items were not “peculiarly adapted for use on the land in question.” Rothermich, 10 S.W.3d at 617 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, in the present case, there was
holding that private complaints by public employee that his responsibilities were being lessened and his recommendations were not being followed were at least for the most part not on a matter of public concern holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts holding that bowling alley pinspotters did not constitute fixtures in a bowling alley in part because they were easily replaceable by different pinspotters and the very pinspotters at issue were then currently being used at a different location