Turner v. Memorial Medical Center
233 Ill. 2d 494, 911 N.E.2d 369, 331 Ill. Dec. 548 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To state a claim for retaliatory discharge, an employee must allege that the termination violated a specific and clearly mandated public policy found in the state's constitution, statutes, or judicial decisions; a general assertion of a violation of "patient safety" based on private accreditation standards is insufficient.
Facts:
- Mark Turner was a licensed respiratory therapist employed by Memorial Medical Center since 1983.
- In September 2006, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, a private entity, performed an on-site survey at Memorial, which was necessary for the hospital to maintain federal Medicare/Medicaid funding.
- The Joint Commission's standard required that electronic patient charting be performed immediately after care is provided.
- Memorial's policy, however, only required a respiratory therapist to chart patient care at some point during their shift, not immediately.
- On September 28, 2006, Turner truthfully informed a Joint Commission surveyor that Memorial's charting policy deviated from the Joint Commission's standard and that this deviation jeopardized patient safety.
- On October 4, 2006, Memorial discharged Turner from his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Turner brought a retaliatory discharge action against Memorial Medical Center in the circuit court of Sangamon County.
- The circuit court granted Memorial's motion to dismiss Turner's first-amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Turner, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the intermediate appellate court.
- A divided panel of the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of Memorial, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois granted Turner's petition for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee state a valid claim for retaliatory discharge by alleging he was fired for reporting that his employer's internal patient charting policy deviates from a private accreditation organization's standard and violates the general public policy of "patient safety"?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Freeman
No. Discharging an employee for reporting a deviation from a private organization's standards does not violate a clearly mandated public policy sufficient to support a retaliatory discharge claim. The tort of retaliatory discharge is a narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine and requires the employee to identify a specific public policy found in the state's constitution, statutes, or judicial decisions. A broad, general concept like "patient safety" is too vague to provide employers with clear guidance on prohibited conduct. The Joint Commission's standards are not Illinois law, and the Medical Patient Rights Act provision cited by Turner, while promoting "sound nursing and medical practices," does not specifically mandate immediate charting and is too general to form the basis of a retaliatory discharge action.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of the retaliatory discharge tort in Illinois and heightens the pleading standard for plaintiffs. It establishes that employees cannot rely on broad, abstract public interests like "safety" or standards promulgated by private, non-governmental organizations to support their claims. The ruling protects the doctrine of at-will employment by requiring plaintiffs to tether their protected activity to a specific and concrete mandate expressed in state law or judicial precedent. Consequently, future retaliatory discharge claims will require a much more precise identification of the violated public policy at the complaint stage.
