Roberts v. Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508
105 N.E.3d 923
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Roberts worked at Malcolm X College as director of medical programs with responsibility to vet instructors for courses like HeaPro 101 (phlebotomy and EKG).
- In Jan–Feb 2015 Roberts discovered and repeatedly complained that instructors assigned to HeaPro 101 lacked required certifications and qualifications and that one instructor abandoned the class.
- Roberts emailed and spoke with multiple college administrators expressing concern that unqualified instructors put students and accreditation at risk; he alleged he was excluded from hiring decisions.
- After his complaints and related administrative actions (including the removal/termination of other administrators), Roberts was terminated in August 2015.
- Roberts sued for retaliatory discharge (common law), violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and wrongful termination; the trial court dismissed the retaliatory discharge and Whistleblower Act counts with prejudice; Roberts appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roberts pleaded a retaliatory discharge that violates a clearly mandated Illinois public policy | Roberts: termination for complaining about unqualified instructors frustrates state and federal higher-education funding policy (access to meaningful postsecondary education) | City Colleges: no clear Illinois public policy bars such a discharge; Turner controls and limits expansion of the tort | Court reversed dismissal: alleged facts implicate state and federal higher-education policies and satisfy the public-policy element for retaliatory discharge |
| Whether Roberts stated a claim under the Illinois Whistleblower Act (refusal to participate in illegal activity) | Roberts: his refusals to “cover things up,” be quiet, or look the other way suffice as refusals to participate | City Colleges: no request or demand was ever made that Roberts participate in unlawful conduct | Court affirmed dismissal: Whistleblower Act requires an employer request/demand to participate in unlawful activity; complaint lacked such allegation |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124 (defines the "clearly mandated public policy" standard for retaliatory discharge)
- Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill.2d 495 (explains retaliatory discharge tort protects public policy and deters employer conduct that frustrates it)
- Turner v. Memorial Medical Center, 233 Ill.2d 494 (limits expansion of retaliatory-discharge tort; applies public-policy threshold)
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172 (recognizes retaliatory discharge exception in worker's compensation context)
- Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc., 164 Ill.2d 29 (states at-will employment rule and its exception)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill.2d 422 (standard for section 2-615 pleadings review)
- Gillen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 215 Ill.2d 381 (limits materials considered on section 2-615 motion)
- Sardiga v. Northern Trust Co., 409 Ill. App.3d 56 (interprets "refusal to participate" under Whistleblower Act as requiring an actual refusal of a requested or demanded illegal act)