Roberts v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508

• Decision Date: 23 May 2019
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 123594,123599
• Citation: 2019 IL 123594,135 N.E.3d 891,434 Ill.Dec. 309
• Parties: Kenrick ROBERTS, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 508, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2019 IL 123594
135 N.E.3d 891
434 Ill.Dec. 309

Kenrick ROBERTS, Appellee and Cross-Appellant,
v.
The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 508, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 123594
123599

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed May 23, 2019.

135 N.E.3d 892

James P. Daley, James D. Thomas, and David M. Novak, of Jackson Lewis P.C., of Chicago, for appellant.

Brian R. Holman and Dennis H. Stefanowicz Jr., of Holman & Stefanowicz, LLC, of Chicago, for appellee.

CHIEF JUSTICE KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

135 N.E.3d 893

434 Ill.Dec. 311

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Kenrick Roberts, brought this action in the circuit court of Cook County to recover damages from defendant, the Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, d/b/a City Colleges of Chicago, following his termination as director of medical programs at Malcolm X College, one of seven institutions of higher education operated by defendant. Plaintiff's complaint, as amended, was in three counts. Count I asserted a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. Count II alleged violation of section 20 of the Whistleblower Act ( 740 ILCS 174/20 (West 2014) ). Count III sought recovery based on wrongful termination.

¶ 2 Defendant moved to dismiss the retaliatory discharge and Whistleblower Act counts pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2014) ). The circuit court granted that motion, dismissed both counts with prejudice, and ultimately made an express written finding under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) that there was no just reason for delaying the appeal.

¶ 3 On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of plaintiff's Whistleblower Act claim but reversed its dismissal of his claim for retaliatory discharge. 2018 IL App (1st) 170067, 423 Ill.Dec. 515, 105 N.E.3d 923. Both plaintiff and defendant then petitioned this court for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. Apr. 1, 2018). We granted their respective petitions and consolidated the appeals.

¶ 4 For the reasons that follow, we hold that the appellate court was correct to affirm dismissal of plaintiff's Whistleblower Act claim but that it erred in reversing the dismissal of plaintiff's claim for retaliatory discharge. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 5 BACKGROUND

¶ 6 We take the following statement of facts largely from the appellate court's recitation of the allegations in plaintiff's second amended complaint.

¶ 7 Defendant operates seven colleges located in Chicago, one of which is Malcolm X College (Malcolm X). At all relevant times, plaintiff was the director of medical programs at Malcolm X. As director of medical programs, plaintiff's job duties and responsibilities included vetting potential instructors to teach various courses and curricula. Plaintiff was also responsible for ensuring that instructors assigned to teach various courses, including but not limited to HeaPro 101, met the appropriate accreditation standards and had the correct qualifications to teach their assigned courses and curricula. HeaPro 101 includes the instruction of phlebotomy and electrocardiograms (EKG).

¶ 8 On or about January 15, 2015, after becoming aware of complaints that the instructor assigned to teach HeaPro 101 was unqualified, plaintiff met with that instructor to discuss her qualifications. During the course of their meeting, the instructor admitted that she had never taught phlebotomy before, that she was unfamiliar with the requirements and certifications

135 N.E.3d 894

434 Ill.Dec. 312

necessary to become a phlebotomist, that phlebotomy was not her area of expertise, and that she was not certified in phlebotomy.

¶ 9 Plaintiff concluded that the instructor was not qualified to teach HeaPro 101 or the related curricula. After reaching this conclusion, he e-mailed his direct supervisors, Dr. Micah Young, the dean of health sciences and career programs at Malcolm X, and Dr. Mario De La Haye, the associate dean of health sciences and career programs at Malcolm X, to complain that an unqualified instructor had been assigned to the faculty without his input. His e-mail stated:

"In compliance with the City Colleges of Chicago policy and the College of Health Science credentialing standards and requirements it is my responsibility as Program Director of HeaPro 101 to review, evaluate and approve the recommendation of each faculty member that is approved to teach in a program which I am the director. Taking into consideration I had no input into the department decision to appoint a nurse to teach HeaPro 101 without my review of the credentials and necessary certifications and licenses put our programs and students at risk. Please note that this is a breach of the standards that were developed to ensure that students obtain the best outcomes moving forward with their education in the medical field. Please note I am very concerned about the direction in which we are traveling and wish to discuss this matter."

After receiving plaintiff's e-mail, Dr. Young e-mailed Dr. Anthony Munroe, the President of Malcolm X, as well as the college's provost, relaying plaintiff's concerns about the unqualified instructor assigned to teach HeaPro 101 and questioning how to address the issue. Plaintiff also made verbal complaints directly to Dr. Munroe regarding the assignment of an unqualified instructor to HeaPro 101. He also protested that he had been intentionally excluded from the selection process and stated that he refused to support the assignment.

¶ 10 On February 25, 2015, plaintiff e-mailed Dr. Munroe; Dr. Christopher Robinson-Easley, the vice president of the college; and the college's associate provost, stating that the instructor had admitted to never having taught phlebotomy before. The e-mail further indicated that plaintiff had since learned that this unqualified instructor had abandoned HeaPro 101 and advised that another unqualified instructor, one who was not properly certified to teach the EKG portion of the course, had been assigned to complete the remainder of HeaPro 101. Plaintiff also continued to complain that he had been excluded from the selection process of both unqualified instructors despite his job responsibilities as director of medical programs to vet and ensure the qualifications of the assigned instructors.

¶ 11 Upon receipt of plaintiff's e-mail, Dr. Robinson-Easley, who plaintiff alleges was responsible for selecting and assigning the unqualified instructors to teach HeaPro 101, requested that plaintiff meet with her. After receiving Dr. Robinson-Easley's request, plaintiff e-mailed the executive director of labor and employee relations for the college, stating that he wanted to document that he felt uncomfortable about meeting with Dr. Robinson-Easley in light of his complaints about the unqualified instructor.

¶ 12 Despite his discomfort, plaintiff met with Dr. Robinson-Easley the same day. According to plaintiff, his complaints upset her, and she was unwilling to address the problem. Thereafter, he was kept out of important meetings, discussions, and decisions regarding programs that were within

135 N.E.3d 895

434 Ill.Dec. 313

his area of responsibility as director of medical programs.

¶ 13 Plaintiff continued to complain to Dr. Munroe about the unqualified HeaPro 101 instructors and defendant's failure to address and rectify the problem. On June 15, 2015, the newly hired associate dean of health sciences and career programs at Malcolm X, Roy Walker, told plaintiff that Dr. Robinson-Easley "has an axe to grind against [him]" because of his complaints regarding the assignment of the unqualified instructors.

¶ 14 On June 28, 2015, Dr. Munroe instructed plaintiff to file an equal employment opportunity complaint against Dr. Robinson-Easley for retaliating against him by keeping him out of important meetings and decisions in connection with his complaints about the assignments of unqualified instructors. Plaintiff filed the equal employment opportunity complaint form the same day. Approximately six weeks later, on August 7, 2015, plaintiff was advised that he was terminated from his director of medical programs position. No reason for the termination was given. Up to that point, plaintiff had never been advised nor received any indication that there were any issues or concerns regarding his performance or conduct. He had never been reprimanded, never been given notice of the need for improvement of his performance, and never been notified that he had engaged in any type of improper conduct. This litigation followed.

¶ 15 As noted at the outset of the opinion, plaintiff's complaint, as amended, was in three counts. In count I, a claim for common-law retaliatory discharge, plaintiff alleges the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) ( 20 U.S.C. § 1070 et seq. (2012) ) establishes a clearly mandated public policy of enabling students to obtain the...