United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
October 12, 2004.
Rockford School District 205.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHILIP REINHARD, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, William H. Trapp, filed a two-count complaint
against defendant, Rockford School District 205, alleging in
Count I a cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and in Count II a
state-law claim for "public policy retaliation." Jurisdiction is
based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as to Count I, as well as
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for the supplemental state-law claim in Count
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss Count II, contending,
among other things, that Illinois does not recognize a cause of
action for retaliation short of that resulting in the actual
discharge of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an unhelpful,
one-page response in which he states that he "stands by the
sufficiency of his previously filed complaint."
Illinois courts recognize a common-law tort of retaliatory
discharge that has three elements: (1) discharge; (2) in
retaliation for the plaintiff's activities; and (3) the
retaliation violates a clearly mandated public policy. Vorpagel
v. Maxell Corp. of America, 333 Ill. App. 3d 51, 54,
775 N.E. 2d 658 (2002). The Illinois Supreme Court has expressly refused to
expand the tort to any employer conduct short of actual
discharge, see Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc.,
164 Ill. 2d 29, 645 N.E. 2d 877 (1994), and the act of actual discharge
continues to be a necessary element, Graham v. Commonwealth
Edison Co., 318 Ill. App. 3d 736, 742, 742 N.E. 2d 858 (2000).
In this case, plaintiff has not alleged that he was discharged
in retaliation for any of his activities. Thus, Count II does not
state a recognized cause of action under Illinois law and is,
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.