CHICAGO — Saying they believed a fired Malcolm X College administrator had demonstrated he was fired for reporting actions which "defrauded ... the taxpayer," an Illinois appellate panel has reversed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a retaliatory discharge suit over claims he was fired after raising concerns about the school allegedly hiring unqualified professors.
The appeal was heard by justices Daniel J. Pierce, Mary L. Mikva and Sheldon A. Harris, who penned the court’s decision, issued April 16 in Illinois First District Appellate Court.
The case revolves around Kenrick Roberts, a former Malcolm X College employee who was responsible for making sure the school hired qualified teachers, according to the appellate court’s decision.
Roberts discovered the school’s phlebotomy instructor allegedly “had never taught phlebotomy, was unfamiliar with the requirements and certifications necessary to become a phlebotomist, phlebotomy was not her area of expertise and she [allegedly] did not have any certifications in phlebotomy.”
Roberts allegedly expressed concerns about the professor to school officials. The professor in question later left the school, and another unqualified professor allegedly was brought in as a replacement. When Roberts complained about the unqualified professors, he allegedly was fired, according to the appellate court’s decision.
The plaintiff then filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court, claiming retaliatory discharge, wrongful termination and violations of the Whistleblower Act. The trial court, however, dismissed the claims, finding Roberts had failed “to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.”
Roberts appealed.
The appellate panel sided with him on the retaliatory discharge claim, but the justices upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss the Whistleblower Act claim.
The crux of the retaliatory discharge claim centered around whether Roberts’ firing was a “violation of a clear mandate of Illinois public policy.”
“[The] plaintiff alleges his discharge for complaining about the unqualified instructors violated a specific public policy: ‘the right to obtain the benefits of a post-secondary education through federal and state funded programs,’” Harris wrote in the decision.
Roberts hinged his argument on Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, “which establishes various loan and grant programs to assist students in obtaining a postsecondary education at places like Malcolm X,” according to the appellate court’s decision.
And the appellate justices found Roberts’ argument to be compelling.
“[I]t is obvious to this court the purpose of establishing both state and federal loan programs is to ensure individuals without the private means of paying for a college education are given access to funds to better develop themselves intellectually so as to provide a greater contribution to our state and country,” Harris wrote in the decision. “… If [the] defendant accepts loan money but uses it to hire incompetent and unqualified individuals… [the] defendant has essentially defrauded both the student and the taxpayer… We find [that the] plaintiff’s complaint demonstrates a clear mandate of public policy and reverse the dismissal of [the] plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge count.”
The appellate panel, however, upheld the dismissal of the whistleblower claim.
“[I]n order to state a claim under the Whistleblower Act, there must be a request or demand by the employer that the employee engage in the illegal or unlawful conduct,” Harris wrote in the decision. “In this case, [the] plaintiff fails to allege [that] the defendant ever made a request or demand he approve or sanction the hiring of the allegedly unqualified instructor. Accordingly, he does not state a claim under the Whistleblower Act.”
The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.