Case Study:
Palmateer v. International Harvester Company
Ray Palmateer had worked for International Harvester (IH) for 16 years at the time of his discharge. Palmateer sued IH for retaliatory discharge, claiming that he was terminated because he supplied information to local law enforcement authorities regarding a co-worker’s criminal activities and for offering to assist in the investigation and trial of the co-worker if necessary. The court agreed and found in favor of Palmateer.
Simon, J.
[The court discusses the history of the tort of retaliatory discharge in Illinois and explains that the law will not support the termination of an at-will employment relationship where the termination would contravene public policy.] But the Achilles heel of the principle lies in the definition of public policy. When a discharge contravenes public policy in any way, the employer has committed a legal wrong. However, the employer retains the right to fire workers at-will in cases “where no clear mandate of public policy is involved.” 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. Although there is no precise line of demarcation dividing matters that are the subject of public policies from matters purely personal, a survey of cases in other States involving retaliatory discharge shows that a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen’s social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be allowed. It is clear that Palmateer has here alleged that he was fired in violation of an established public policy. There is no public policy more basic, nothing more implicit in the concept of ordered liberty than the enforcement of a State’s criminal code. There is no public policy more important or more fundamental than the one favoring the effective protection of the lives and property of citizens. No specific constitutional or statutory provision requires a citizen to take an active part in the ferreting out and the prosecution of crime, but public policy nevertheless favors citizen crime-fighters. Public policy favors Palmateer’s conduct in volunteering information to the law enforcement agency. Palmateer was under a statutory duty to further assist officials when requested to do so. The foundation of the tort of retaliatory discharge lies in the protection of public policy, and there is a clear public policy favoring investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses. Palmateer has stated a cause of action for retaliatory discharge.
Q1. Is there a difference between the court’s protection of an employee who reports a rape by a co-worker or the theft of a car, and an employee who is constantly reporting the theft of the company’s paper clips and pens?
Q2. Should the latter employee in the above question be protected? Consider that the court in Palmateer remarked that “the magnitude of the crime is not the issue here. It was the General Assembly who decided that the theft of a $2 screwdriver was a problem that should be resolved by resort to the criminal justice system.”
Q3. What are other areas of public policy that might offer protection to terminated workers?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format.