Roberts v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508
2019 IL 123594
| Ill. | 2019Background
- Roberts was director of medical programs at Malcolm X College and repeatedly complained that instructors assigned to HeaPro 101 (phlebotomy/EKG) were unqualified and that he was excluded from selection decisions.
- He emailed supervisors and made verbal complaints; after being told to file an EEO complaint he did so; Roberts was terminated on August 7, 2015, with no reason given.
- He filed a three-count complaint: Count I (common-law retaliatory discharge alleging violation of a public policy derived from the Higher Education Act (HEA)), Count II (Whistleblower Act §20 refusal-to-participate claim), and Count III (wrongful termination for filing the EEO complaint — not at issue here).
- The circuit court dismissed Counts I and II under section 2-615 (failure to state a claim); the appellate court affirmed dismissal of Count II but reversed dismissal of Count I.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, reviewed the 2-615 dismissals de novo, and held Count I (retaliatory discharge) and Count II (Whistleblower Act) were both insufficiently pleaded and properly dismissed; the appellate court was reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roberts pleaded a retaliatory-discharge claim based on a clearly mandated public policy (HEA) | Roberts: HEA establishes a public policy that institutions must enable students to obtain federal funding; his firing for refusing to support appointment of unqualified instructors undermined that policy | Board: Complaint fails to identify any specific HEA violation or facts showing risk to Title IV eligibility; reliance on non‑recognized accreditor (NAACLS) is irrelevant | Court: Complaint fails to plead facts showing HEA or regulations were violated or that Title IV eligibility was at risk; dismissal proper |
| Whether Roberts stated a claim under Whistleblower Act §20 for refusing to participate in illegal activity | Roberts: He refused to participate in appointing unqualified instructors and need not allege an employer asked him to do so; the appointment violated HEA/regulations | Board: Plaintiff failed to plead a statutory/regulatory violation that §20 requires; appellate court also stressed absence of employer request | Court: Regardless of whether an employer request is required, Roberts failed to plead any underlying state or federal law, rule, or regulation that was violated; Count II properly dismissed |
| Relevance of accrediting standards relied on (NAACLS) | Roberts: Instructors violated NAACLS standards, supporting the claim that HEA protections were implicated | Board: NAACLS was not a Secretary‑recognized accrediting agency for Title IV eligibility in 2015, so its standards do not control Title IV eligibility | Court: NAACLS was not recognized by the Secretary in 2015; its standards do not establish a HEA violation and cannot support the claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill. 2d 124 (establishes limited retaliatory‑discharge exception to at‑will employment)
- Barr v. Kelso‑Burnett Co., 106 Ill. 2d 520 (mere citation of a statute does not automatically create a retaliatory‑discharge action; public‑policy requirement explained)
- Michael v. Precision Alliance Group, LLC, 2014 IL 117376 (elements and public‑policy balancing for retaliatory discharge)
- Henderson Square Condominium Ass’n v. LAB Townhomes, LLC, 2015 IL 118139 (standard of review for section 2‑615 motions is de novo)
- Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662 (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive a 2‑615 motion)
- Buckner v. Atlantic Plant Maintenance, Inc., 182 Ill. 2d 12 (legal conclusions unsupported by facts do not state a cause of action)
- In re Witt, 145 Ill. 2d 380 (fraud requires an allegation of a misrepresentation)