1. 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?

2. 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.”

3. What are other areas of public policy that might offer protection to terminated workers?

Issue: Whether employees who assist law enforcement agencies should be protected as a matter of public policy.

Facts: 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.

Decision: The court agreed and found in favor of Palmateer. 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. 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.”