Rabin v. KARLIN AND FLEISHER, LLC
945 N.E.2d 681
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Rabins hired July 1997 by Karlin & Fleisher, LLC as an investigator for contingency-fee cases; he was salaried but the firm billed clients at $40/hour for his work and did not disclose his employment status or exact wages.
- In 1998 Ronald Fleisher allegedly advised Rabin to bill hours on invoices dating back to start of employment and to remove the firm's name to disguise Rabin's status as an employee.
- On July 10, 2007 Ronald allegedly asked Rabin to alter an invoice; Rabin refused and complained that creating fake invoices could violate law and professional conduct rules.
- In February 2008 Rabin was terminated by the Firm; he sued Ronald, the Firm, and Richard Fleisher; the trial court dismissed the original complaint with prejudice and later allowed amendment.
- Rabin’s second amended complaint claimed retaliatory discharge based on whistleblowing about improper invoicing and alleged public-policy violations; the trial court dismissed the amended complaint under 2-615, with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a retaliatory-discharge claim against the Firm | Rabin contends the Complaint alleges termination for protesting illegal billing. | Firm argues there is no clearly mandated public policy and no illegality proven. | Yes, but dismissal affirmed for lack of public-policy basis. |
| Whether Ronald and Richard Fleisher can be sued jointly for retaliatory discharge | Rabin asserts joint liability for the alleged retaliatory discharge. | Only the former employer may be liable in retaliatory discharge claims. | No, they cannot be liable; dismissal of Ronald and Richard with prejudice affirmed. |
| Whether the alleged conduct violated a clearly mandated public policy | Complaint relies on the crime-fighter exception and Rules of Professional Conduct. | No clearly mandated public policy identified. | Not stated; no clearly mandated policy identified. |
| Whether the Rules of Professional Conduct or alleged criminal statutes support retaliation claim | Alleged violations of Rules and statutes show illegality. | Plaintiff failed to plead specific, enforceable illegality. | Insufficient public-policy specificity; claim rejected. |
| Standard of review for dismissal under 2-615 in Illinois | Plaintiff asserts factual sufficiency; trial court erred in ruling. | Record shows no set of facts to state a claim. | De novo review; affirmance of dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., 185 Ill.2d 372 (1998) (retaliatory discharge limits; no extension to attorneys absent whistleblower proof)
- Barr v. Kelso-Burnett Co., 106 Ill.2d 520 (1985) (public policy required for retaliatory discharge claim)
- Turner v. Memorial Medical Center, 233 Ill.2d 494 (2009) (need specific, clearly mandated public policy; broad statements insufficient)
- Johnson v. World Color Press, Inc., 147 Ill.App.3d 746 (1986) (good-faith belief of illegality needed to support whistleblower theory)
- McCluskey v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 147 Ill.App.3d 822 (1986) (illustrates insufficiency of vague public-policy assertions)