Rehfield v. Diocese Joliet

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CHIEF JUSTICE ANNE M. BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
• Citation: Rehfield v. Diocese Joliet, 2021 IL 125656, 182 N.E.3d 123, 450 Ill.Dec. 677 (Ill. 2021)
• Decision Date: 04 February 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. 125656
• Parties: Mary REHFIELD, Appellant, v. DIOCESE OF JOLIET, Appellee.

2021 IL 125656

182 N.E.3d 123

450 Ill.Dec. 677

Mary REHFIELD, Appellant,

v.DIOCESE OF JOLIET, Appellee.

Docket No. 125656

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed February 4, 2021.

Julie B. Porter, of Salvatore Prescott Porter & Porter, PLLC, of Evanston, for appellant.

Maureen A. Harton, of Diocese of Joliet, of Crest Hill, for appellee.

OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE ANNE M. BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff Mary Rehfield filed a two-count amended complaint against defendant, the Diocese of Joliet, alleging retaliatory discharge and violation of the Whistleblower Act ( 740 ILCS 174/1 et seq. (West 2016)). Defendant filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal based on the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention. 2019 IL App (3d) 180354, 438 Ill.Dec. 557, 146 N.E.3d 311. We granted plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal ( Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019)). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the appellate court's judgment.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On February 27, 2018, plaintiff filed a two-count first amended complaint in the circuit court of Will County against defendant. The first amended complaint alleges the following facts, which we take as true for purposes of our review. See Marshall v. Burger King Corp. , 222 Ill. 2d 422, 429, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048 (2006) ; Village of Bloomingdale v. CDG Enterprises, Inc. , 196 Ill. 2d 484, 486, 256 Ill.Dec. 848, 752 N.E.2d 1090 (2001).

¶ 4 Plaintiff served as an educator for more than 43 years, including nearly 18 years as a principal throughout Illinois. In 2012, plaintiff was hired as the principal of St. Raphael Catholic School (St. Raphael) in Naperville, Illinois. The school educates students from preschool through eighth grade with an average enrollment of 310 students and approximately 25 teachers and staff members. As of May 2017, plaintiff was "in strong standing" at St. Raphael. She had received a "glowing performance review" and was nominated for "Outstanding Principal of the Year" for the 2016-17 school year by St. Raphael's pastor, Father Daniel Bachner. Plaintiff had been offered a new contract to continue as principal for the 2017-18 school year, which she had accepted.

¶ 5 Prior to these events, in January 2016, the mother of a student alerted a teacher that her daughter had been "picked on" at school. The teacher addressed the issue and believed it to be resolved. On January 27, 2016, the teacher received an e-mail from the student's father, William MacKinnon, who lived in Massachusetts. MacKinnon stated, in substance, that he wanted the teacher to ensure his daughter was no longer bullied. The e-mail was "rude in tone, but not threatening." The teacher notified plaintiff, who consulted with Father Bachner. With his agreement, plaintiff responded to MacKinnon. She asked him to bring future concerns directly to her attention and communicate in a more collegial manner. MacKinnon responded and apologized for the tone of his previous e-mail.

¶ 6 Soon after his January 2016 e-mail, MacKinnon sent several additional e-mails to the same teacher. The teacher informed plaintiff of these additional e-mails. Plaintiff "perceived the emails as a potential threat." After consulting with Father Bachner, and with his approval, plaintiff contacted the police. The police advised her that no further action needed to be taken at that time.

¶ 7 Approximately one month later, in the spring of 2016, plaintiff received a "concerning" e-mail from MacKinnon. Plaintiff again notified the police. After consulting with the police and Father Bachner, and with their approval, plaintiff distributed a photograph of MacKinnon to the faculty members and staff of the school and the parish with instructions to call 911 if MacKinnon was seen on campus.

¶ 8 On February 7, 2017, Father Bachner received a several-minute-long voicemail from MacKinnon in which MacKinnon "rant[ed] about priests and the Church." To the extent that the message was threatening, the threat was to Father Bachner. When plaintiff learned of the voicemail, she promptly contacted the police and requested that they review the matter. The police issued an arrest warrant for MacKinnon.

¶ 9 Following the arrest warrant, plaintiff sought input and advice from the police, Father Bachner, and the school's superintendent, Father John Belmonte. Based on these communications, plaintiff again distributed a photograph of MacKinnon to school and parish staff and informed them to call 911 if they saw MacKinnon. The police and Father Bachner advised plaintiff "that it was unnecessary and even inappropriate to communicate about this matter with parents, under all the circumstances."

¶ 10 On May 8, 2017, the Naperville Sun published a story with the headline: "Man vowed to ‘terrorize’ Naperville school: authorities." The story inaccurately stated that MacKinnon's February 7 message was sent to plaintiff rather than to Father Bachner. The newspaper also inaccurately reported that MacKinnon threatened to terrorize the school and its staff. After the story was published, concerned parents contacted plaintiff and others at St. Raphael. On May 9, plaintiff sent a letter to parents explaining the situation. A meeting with parents was scheduled. Prior to the meeting, plaintiff participated in a discussion with Father Bachner, Father Belmonte, assistant principal Jen Timmons, diocese administrator Mike Bava, and diocese attorney Maureen Harton. They discussed the message that plaintiff should relay to parents. Plaintiff agreed to follow the advice from her superiors and the Diocese's legal counsel. At the meeting with parents, some parents expressed anger that they were not informed of the situation earlier, and some called for plaintiff's termination. Plaintiff "remained calm and professional, addressing parents’ questions."

¶ 11 Days after this meeting, the Diocese terminated plaintiff from her position as principal of St. Raphael. Plaintiff was terminated because she reported the threatening conduct of a parent to the police and because the Diocese made her a scapegoat for a situation it found embarrassing and problematic. Plaintiff suffered significant financial and emotional distress as a result of her termination and has been unable to find another job.

¶ 12 Count I of plaintiff's first amended complaint, titled "Retaliatory Discharge," alleges that defendant unlawfully retaliated against plaintiff by terminating her for reporting a parent's threatening conduct to police. Plaintiff alleges her termination is in direct conflict with the public policy in this State to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses. She further alleges that defendant's actions are likely to make other staff and faculty members reluctant to come forward to report potentially unlawful or criminal conduct. In count II, plaintiff alleges that defendant's actions violated the Whistleblower Act, which provides in part that an employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a law enforcement agency where the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information discloses a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation. See 740 ILCS 174/15(b) (West 2016). In her prayer for relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorney fees, costs, and expenses.

¶ 13 Defendant filed a combined motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with prejudice, pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2016)). See id. § 2-619.1. In this motion, defendant made two arguments for dismissal. First, defendant argued that count I should be dismissed under sections 2-615 and 2-619 on the ground that a claim of common-law retaliatory discharge is available only to at-will employees and that plaintiff fails to allege that she was an at-will employee at the time of her termination. Rather, she alleges that she was a contracted employee pursuant to an express, written contract for a specific term. Defendant attached to its motion copies of plaintiff's employment contracts for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years. Defendant also attached signed and certified declarations by Father Bachner and Nancy Siemers, the Diocese's director of human resources, both of whom stated that plaintiff was a contracted employee, not an at-will employee. They further stated that, after being relieved of her duties as principal in June 2017, plaintiff continued to be paid all compensation due under the terms of the 2016-17 and 2017-18 employment contracts.

¶ 14 Defendant's second ground for dismissal pursuant to section 2-619 was that the first amendment precluded the trial court from hearing both of plaintiff's claims. Relying on Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n , 565 U.S. 171, 132 S.Ct. 694, 181 L.Ed.2d 650 (2012), and other authorities, defendant argued that the first amendment to the United States Constitution ( U.S. Const., amend. I ) and article I, section 3, of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 3 ) protect a religious institution's ability to select individuals appointed to speak for the church. Thus, where a plaintiff whose employment qualifies her as a "minister" files a lawsuit challenging the termination of her employment, a court must abstain from deciding the dispute. See Hosanna-Tabor , 565 U.S. at 194-95, 132 S.Ct. 694 (applying the "ministerial exception" to a former Catholic school teacher's employment discrimination claims). In support of its argument that plaintiff fulfilled a ministerial role, defendant cited Father Bachner's declaration, which described the ecclesiastical nature of plaintiff's job duties and stated that plaintiff, as principal, was "expected to serve as the religious and educational leader" of the school community.

¶ 15 Plaintiff filed a response...