in the absence of a rule mandating termination, courts have declined to find that reinstatement violates public policy when some punishment was imposed and the employee's work performance was otherwise satisfactory but have found that reinstatement violates public policy when a comprehensive statutory scheme delineated the employee's duties or where no punishment was imposed. Compare AFSCME , 124 Ill. 2d at 262-64, 124 Ill.Dec. 553, 529 N.E.2d 534 (acknowledging policies of providing compassionate care for mentally disabled and promoting constructive relationships between public employers and public employees, but concluding that no policy mandated discharge where employees had exemplary work records, punishment had been imposed, and there was no nexus between the infraction and the death; further concluding that reinstatement did not violate public policy where arbitrator found that employees would not likely repeat their misconduct), and City of Harvey , 333 Ill. App. 3d at 677-80, 267 Ill.Dec. 311, 776 N.E.2d 683 (although there is a policy favoring employees' safety in the workplace, reinstatement of employee who assaulted supervisor did not violate the policy where arbitrator found that behavior would not likely recur, employee had long work history and good disciplinary record, and employee was punished with suspension and no back pay), with DuBose , 173 Ill. 2d at 313-15, 219 Ill.Dec. 501, 671 N.E.2d 668 (examining DCFS's role in implementing comprehensive legislative scheme to identify the public policy implicated in the case), and County of De Witt v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees , 298 Ill. App. 3d 634, 634-39, 232 Ill.Dec. 716, 699 N.E.2d 163 (1998) (county operating nursing home terminated nurse's aide with long and exemplary work history who allegedly struck an elderly resident in the head; collective bargaining agreement provided for immediate discharge of employees who abused residents; reviewing court held that arbitrator's reinstatement of employee—ba

The Department also cites the criminal laws prohibiting violence, particularly battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3(a) (West 2012)) and other more specific laws like the Workplace Violence Prevention Act (820 ILCS 275/1) and the Victims' Economic Security and Safety Act (820 ILCS 180/5) which are both aimed at protecting employees and promoting the safety of Illinoisans while at work. Less persuasive but still supportive, the Department cites the Health Care Workplace Violence Prevention Act (405 ILCS 90/1) and the existence of civil causes of action for negligent retention of an employee and retaliatory discharge (see City of Harvey v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31, Local 2404, 333 Ill. App. 3d 667, 676 (2002); Leweling v. Schnadig Corp., 276 Ill. App. 3d 890, 893 (1995)) as evidence that the State has a public policy of protecting citizens while at work. The Department maintains that all of these sources of positive law demonstrate that "Illinois has a well-defined and dominant public policy to protect employees from workplace violence."