Pratt v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

• Citation: 500 N.E.2d 1001,102 Ill.Dec. 900,149 Ill.App.3d 588
• Decision Date: 10 November 1986
• Docket Number: No. 3-85-0764,3-85-0764
• Parties: , 102 Ill.Dec. 900, 55 USLW 2371, 107 Lab.Cas. P 55,803, 1 IER Cases 1201 Don M. PRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1001

500 N.E.2d 1001

149 Ill.App.3d 588, 102 Ill.Dec. 900,

55 USLW 2371,

107 Lab.Cas. P 55,803, 1 IER Cases 1201

Don M. PRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3-85-0764.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Third District.

Nov. 10, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1986.

Phillip H. Palmer, Richard D. Price, Jr. & Associates, Ltd., Peoria, for Donald M. Pratt.

Gerald D. Skoning, J. Stephen Poor, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, for Caterpillar Tractor Co.

Presiding Justice SCOTT delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Don M. Pratt, appeals from an order entered by the circuit court of Peoria County dismissing his complaint against the defendant, Caterpillar Tractor Company, wherein he alleged that Caterpillar Tractor Company wrongfully discharged him and that his discharge constituted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Pratt was employed by a subsidiary of Caterpillar Tractor Company, Caterpillar Overseas, S.A., in Geneva, Switzerland. Pratt's position with Caterpillar Overseas, S.A., involved him in the sale and distribution of Caterpillar products to the Soviet Union, Eastern Block and Middle Eastern countries. During his employment Pratt alleged he was asked by his superiors to engage in conduct in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 78ddet seq.) and the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C.App. Sec. 2401, et seq.). Pratt further alleged that he refused to sign statements denying any knowledge that any other person or officer of Caterpillar Tractor Company engaged in activities or was required to engage in activities which violated these Federal statutes and, as a consequence of his refusal to sign these statements, he was returned to the United States in 1983 and subsequently discharged on March 10, 1983.

On March 8, 1985, Pratt filed a complaint against Caterpillar Tractor Company alleging in two counts a cause of action for retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Caterpillar Tractor Company moved to dismiss Pratt's complaint contending the complaint failed to state a cause of action for retaliatory discharge and failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On November 27, 1985, the circuit court dismissed Pratt's complaint concluding, inter alia, that no State policy was alleged to support the claim of retaliatory discharge.

The primary issue presented to this court for review is whether the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Export Administration Act enacted by Congress establish a public policy of the State of Illinois sufficient to create a basis for our State's tort of retaliatory discharge.

It is settled law in Illinois that an employee at will may be terminated by his employer at any time for any reason or none at all. (Martin v. Federal Life Ins. Co. (1982), 109 Ill.App.3d 596, 65 Ill.Dec. 143, 440 N.E.2d 998; Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982), 111 Ill.App.3d 261, 66 Ill.Dec. 906, 443 N.E.2d 1069; Criscione v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 664, 23 Ill.Dec. 455, 384 N.E.2d 91.) A narrow exception to the "employment at will" doctrine has been established in those cases wherein an employee can demonstrate that he was terminated in retaliation for his actions, if his termination contravenes the public policy of this State. This common law tort of retaliatory discharge was first recognized in Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353. In Kelsay, our supreme court held that the discharge of an employee for filing a Workman's Compensation claim was tortious, and that an employee so harmed could bring suit for retaliatory discharge in an exception to the "employment at will" doctrine. Our courts have declined to recognize this cause of action, however, in cases involving internal employer/employee disputes which do not constitute violations of the State's criminal law and employer/employee disputes covered by a bargaining unit contract. Rozier v. St. Mary's Hospital (1980), 88 Ill.App.3d 994, 44 Ill.Dec. 144, 411 N.E.2d 50; Cook v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1980), 85 Ill.App.3d 402, 40 Ill.Dec. 864, 407 N.E.2d 95.

In Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (1981), 85 Ill.2d 124, 52 Ill.Dec. 13, 421 N.E.2d 876, our supreme court held that a cause of action for retaliatory discharge will be recognized when an employer discharges an at will employee in retaliation for some action taken by the employee, for reasons that contravene "clearly mandated public policy." In attempting to determine what constitutes clearly mandated public policy, the court stated:

"There is no precise definition of the term. In general, it can be said that public policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively. It is to be found in the State's constitution and statutes and, when they are silent, in its judicial decisions." 85 Ill.2d 124, 130, 421 N.E.2d 876, 878.

In the recent case of Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1985), 108 Ill.2d 502, 92 Ill.Dec. 561, 485 N.E.2d 372, the supreme court held that the Energy Reorganization Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5851 (1982)) did not preempt a retaliatory discharge suit alleging improper dismissal because the employee refused to engage in activities involving the mishandling of radioactive materials. In Wheeler, the court ruled that the hazards of radioactive material fall within the bounds of State public policy because of its impact on the health and safety of Illinois citizens in general. In Price v. Carmack Datsun, Inc. (1984), 124 Ill.App.3d 979, 80 Ill.Dec. 262, 464 N.E.2d 1245, aff'd (1985), 109 Ill.2d 65, 92 Ill.Dec. 548, 485 N.E.2d 359, the court affirmed the dismissal of a retaliatory discharge cause of action based on the State Insurance Code and in part on a policy created by the Employee Retirement Income...