We must therefore decide whether the facts of this case warrant an expansion of the common law tort of retaliatory discharge. In McGrath v. CCC Information Services, Inc., 314 Ill. App. 3d 431, 731 N.E.2d 384 (2000), we considered whether an employee who was discharged after filing a lawsuit against his employer under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ( 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. (West 1996)) could amend his complaint to include a claim for retaliatory discharge. The underlying dispute involved conditional stock options and calculation of the employee's year-end bonus.
Relevant here, count III of plaintiff's first amended complaint sought damages from Woodland for retaliatory discharge, arising from plaintiff's claim that she was terminated because of "her repeated demands for payment of the [u]npaid [w]ages due and owing to [her] under the terms and conditions of her [e]mployment [a]greement." Relying on McGrath v. CCC Information Service, Inc., 314 Ill.App.3d 431 (2000), the circuit court of Kane County granted Woodland's motion to dismiss count III, reasoning that the Act does not manifest a clear public policy that would allow an employee who was denied past-due wages the right to bring a common law retaliatory-discharge claim against his or her employer. The trial court subsequently denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal of count III.
Public policies based on social or economic regulation are not as likely to be considered sufficient to support claims of retaliatory discharge. McGrath v. CCC Info. Servs., 731 N.E.2d 384, 391 (Ill.App.Ct. 2000). Instances in which the Illinois Supreme Court has expanded protection for retaliatory discharge include situations in which employees were terminated for supplying information to law-enforcement agencies against other employees or their employers (referred to as whistle-blowing), and employees who filed worker's compensation claims.
As an exception to the at-will employment rule, a retaliatory discharge claim may succeed if an employee shows: (1) that she was discharged (2) in retaliation for her activities (3) in contravention of a clearly mandated public policy. McGrath v. CCC Info. Servs., Inc., 314 Ill.App.3d 431, 246 Ill.Dec. 856, 731 N.E.2d 384, 388 (2000). Illinois courts have held that the "clear mandate of public policy" standard is met in the context of workers' compensation claims and whistle-blowing.
The matter "must strike at the hear. of a citizen's social rights, duties, and responsibilities" to implicate a clearly mandated public policy, and thus justify application of the tort. McGrath v. CCC Info. Servs., Inc., 731 N.E.2d 384, 391 (Ill.App.Ct.), appeal denied, 742 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 2000). The Illinois Supreme Court has "repeatedly and consistently emphasized a goal of restricting the tort of retaliatory discharge."McGrath, 731 N.E.2d at 390.
Other than these two circumstances, however, Illinois courts consistently have refused to expand the tort to encompass a private and individual grievance. See Price v. Carmack Datsun, Inc., 109 Ill. 2d 65, 485 N.E.2d 359 (1985); McGrath v. CCC Information Services, Inc., 314 Ill. App. 3d 431, 731 N.E.2d 384 (2000) ( McGrath); Eisenbach v. Esformes, 221 Ill. App. 3d 440, 582 N.E.2d 196 (1991); Abrams v. Echlin Corp., 174 Ill. App. 3d 434, 528 N.E.2d 429 (1988) ( Abrams). The supreme court repeatedly has emphasized the goal of restricting the tort of retaliatory discharge. See Fisher v. Lexington Health Care, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 455, 467, 722 N.E.2d 1115 (1999) ( Fisher) (noting that the court "has consistently sought to restrict the common law tort of retaliatory discharge"); Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc., 164 Ill. 2d 29, 37-38, 645 N.E.2d 877 (1994) ( Zimmerman) (noting that the supreme court has "expressed its disinclination to expand the tort of retaliatory discharge").
Id. (quoting Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 85 Ill. 2d 124, 130, 52 Ill. Dec. 13, 15, 421 N.E.2d 876, 878 (1981)). It is not enough to simply state a constitutional or statutory provision in a complaint to trigger a retaliatory discharge claim. See McGrath v. CCC Info. Servs., 314 Ill. App. 3d 431, 440, 246 Ill. Dec. 856, 863, 731 N.E.2d 384, 391 (2000). Here, the allegations state that Simpson was terminated in response to his demand for payment of his earned bonus, satisfying the first two prongs.
Defendants argue that the Illinois Supreme Court would disagree with the Fiumetto Court because the Unemployment Insurance Act is more similar to the Illinois Minimum Wage Act (IMWA) and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), both of which do not allow for retaliatory discharge claims. See McGrath v. CCC Info. Servs., 314 Ill.App.3d 431 (Ill. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2000); and Wilke v. Salamone, 404 F.Supp.2d 1040 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Defendants suggest that the UIA is like the IMWA and IWPCA in that all three are economic in nature.
" (citing Jacobsen v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., 185 Ill.2d 372 (1998); Sutherland, 356 Ill.App.3d at 626)); Sutherland, 356 Ill.App.3d at 626 (same) (citations omitted); Chicago Commons Ass'n v. Hancock, 346 Ill.App.3d 326, 328-29 (2004) (similar) (citing Jacobsen, 185 Ill.2d at 376); Shakboua v. City of Chicago, No. 1-13-1804, 2014 IL App (1st) 131804-U, at *4 (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 14, 2014) (similar) (citations omitted). Of particular significance here is that courts in Illinois have explicitly refused to apply the tort of retaliatory discharge to terminations based on an employee's assertion of rights under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. See, e.g., Chicago Commons, 346 Ill.App.3d at 330 (discussing McGrath v. CCC Info. Servs., Inc., 314 Ill.App.3d 431 (2000)). Wage disputes, the courts have found, involve personal matters that do not implicate the State's clearly mandated public policy.
" Michael v. Precision Alliance Grp., LLC, 2011 IL App (5th) 100089, 952 N.E.2d 682, 687, 351 Ill. Dec. 890, 895 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). This cause of action is a narrow exception to the Illinois rule that at-will employees "generally may be discharged for any or no reason." Id.; McGrath v. CCC Info. Servs., Inc., 314 Ill. App. 3d 431, 438, 731 N.E.2d 384, 390 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (noting the Illinois Supreme Court has "repeatedly and consistently emphasized a goal of restricting the tort of retaliatory discharge."). "The limited scope of retaliatory discharge is an attempt to achieve a 'proper balance' between the employer's interest in maintaining an efficient and profitable business while recognizing the competing interests of the employee in earning a livelihood and society's interest in effectuating vital public policies.