public policy exception in Illinois

2026Applying the public policy exception requires a two-step analysis in which the reviewing court must determine (1) “whether a well-defined and dominant public policy can be identified” and, if so, (2) “whether the arbitrator’s award, as reflected in his interpretation of the agreement, violated the public policy.” Id. at 307-08 .

2026Id.; see also AFSCME, 173 Ill. 2d at 307 (“the historical context of the [public policy] exception is grounded in common law” and, therefore, “a court will not enforce a collective-bargaining agreement that is repugnant to established norms of public policy.” (Emphasis added)). ¶ 31 Although Morgan does not explicitly reference this court’s decision in Munizzi, he contends that the public policy exception does not only apply to cases involving a CBA.

2025“An employer should not be exposed to liability where a public policy standard is too general to provide any specific guidance or is so vague that it is subject to different interpretations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Turner, 233 Ill. 2d at 503 .

2023In expressing what “clearly mandates” means in this context, our supreme court explained that “ ‘clearly mandated public policy’ implies that the policy will be recognizable simply because it is clear. ‘An employer should not be exposed to liability where a public policy standard is too general to provide any specific guidance or is so vague that it is subject to different interpretations. [Citations.]’ ” Id. at 503 (quoting Birthisel v. Tri-Cities Health Services Corp., 424 S.E.2d 606, 612 (W.

2020See Chicago Transit - 20 - 1-20-0526 Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241, 399 Ill.

2019The threshold question is whether a well-defined and dominant public policy can be identified. [Citation.] If so, the court must determine whether the arbitrator's award, as reflected in his interpretation of the agreement, violated public policy. [Citation.] As our supreme court has cautioned, although a rote recitation of the exception's two-prong test can be easily made, the exception's ultimate applicability to a case is necessarily fact dependent. [Citation.]" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chicago Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 , 399 Ill.

2023In expressing what “clearly mandates” means in this context, our supreme court explained that “ ‘clearly mandated public policy’ implies that the policy will be recognizable simply because it is clear. ‘An employer should not be exposed to liability where a public policy standard is too general to provide any specific guidance or is so vague that it is subject to different interpretations. [Citations.]’ ” Id. at 503 (quoting Birthisel v. Tri-Cities Health Services Corp., 424 S.E.2d 606, 612 (W.

2022“An employer should not be exposed to liability where a public policy standard is too general to provide any specific guidance or is so vague that it is subject to different interpretations.” Turner, 233 Ill. 2d at 503 (quoting Birthisel v. Tri-Cities Health Services Corp., 188 W.Va. 371, 377 (1992)). ¶ 37 Harvey contends her third amended complaint alleged the CTA violated a clear mandate of public policy expressed in the NTSSA, which provides that public transportation agencies, like the CTA, may not terminate an employee who provides information that he or she reasonably believes constitute

2016AFSCME v. CMS, 173 Ill. 2d at 307 . “[J]ust as we will not enforce a private agreement which is repugnant to established norms of public policy, we may not ignore the same public policy concerns when they are undermined through the process of arbitration.” Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, County of Cook v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, 74 Ill. 2d 412, 424 (1979).

2016AFSCME v. CMS, 173 Ill. 2d at 307 . “[J]ust as we will not enforce a private agreement which is repugnant to established norms of public policy, we may not ignore the same public policy concerns when they are undermined through the process of arbitration.” Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, County of Cook v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, 74 Ill. 2d 412, 424 (1979).

2010However, the public policy exception is an extremely narrow one and should “not otherwise sanction abroad judicial power to set aside arbitration awards.” Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. at 43 , 98 L.

2010However, the public policy exception is an extremely narrow one and should “not otherwise sanction abroad judicial power to set aside arbitration awards.” Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. at 43 , 98 L.

2001App. 3d 87, 93 , 614 N.E.2d 513, 517 (1993) (AFSCME ID. •5 In determining if the arbitration award falls under the public policy exception, we apply a two-step analysis.

2001App. 3d 87, 93 , 614 N.E.2d 513, 517 (1993) (AFSCME ID. •5 In determining if the arbitration award falls under the public policy exception, we apply a two-step analysis.

2011However, unless an employee at will identifies a ‘specific’ expression of public policy, the employee may be discharged with or without cause. [Citation.] For example, insufficient allegations of public policy include ‘right to marry’ a coworker (McCluskey v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 147 Ill.

1994App. 3d 822 , 498 N.E.2d 559 (court rejected retaliatory discharge claim that plaintiff was discharged solely because she married a coworker, the court finding that the law on marriage did not provide a basis for a public policy exception to the at-will rule); Zaniecki v. P.A.

2026See Munizzi, 2021 IL App (1st) 201237, ¶¶ 26-35 .

2025See Munizzi, 2021 IL App (1st) 201237, ¶¶ 26-35 .

2026Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 766 (1983). ¶ 30 This court, however, has previously expressed skepticism that the public policy exception is applicable in cases that do not arise from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

2025Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 766 (1983). ¶ 30 This court, however, has previously expressed skepticism that the public policy exception is applicable in cases that do not arise from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

2023Va. 1992)); accord Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical, Inc., 613 N.W.2d 275, 282 (Iowa 2000) (stating that requirement of “well-recognized and clear public policy” “helps ensure that employers have notice that their dismissal decisions will give rise to liability”).

2009Indeed: “Any effort to evaluate the public policy exception with generalized concepts of fairness and justice will result in an elimination of the at-will doctrine itself.” Fitzgerald, 613 N.W.2d at 283 .

2008The court stated that “[t]he legislature is vested with the power to enact the laws and if the legislation as enacted ‘seems to operate in certain cases unjustly or inappropriately, the appeal must be to the General Assembly, and not to the court.’ ” Illinois Farmers, 226 Ill. 2d at 413-14 , quoting People v. Garner, 147 Ill. 2d 467, 475-76 (1992).

2008The court stated that “[t]he legislature is vested with the power to enact the laws and if the legislation as enacted ‘seems to operate in certain cases unjustly or inappropriately, the appeal must be to the General Assembly, and not to the court.’ ” Illinois Farmers, 226 Ill. 2d at 413-14 , quoting People v. Garner, 147 Ill. 2d 467, 475-76 (1992).

2006Since Luethans, the Missouri Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine with en banc approval (see McCoy v. Caldwell County, 145 S.W.3d 427, 429 (Mo. 2004)). 4 We note that, although just as in this case, the plaintiff in Leuthans alleged that he was 14 No. 1-05-3175 Missouri Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the university as a matter of law because plaintiff had pled his cause of action under the theory of wrongful discharge, whereas his employment with the university had expired under the employment contract.

2006Since Luethans, the Missouri Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine with en banc approval (see McCoy v. Caldwell County, 145 S.W.3d 427, 429 (Mo. 2004)). 4 We note that, although just as in this case, the plaintiff in Leuthans alleged that he was retaliated against in violation of 9 C.F.R. §2.32 (c)(4) (2006), the Missouri Supreme Court did not consider whether that regulation provided whistleblowers a private cause of action for retaliatory discharge.

2005It recognized that, under AFSCME and federal cases applying the public-policy doctrine, an arbitrator's reinstatement of an employee such as DuBose must be upheld "as long as the arbitrator makes a rational finding that the employee can be trusted to refrain from the offending conduct." DuBose , 173 Ill. 2d at 322 ; see also Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International , 808 F.2d 76 (D.C.

2005It recognized that, under AFSCME and federal cases applying the public-policy doctrine, an arbitrator’s reinstatement of an employee such as DuBose must be upheld “as long as the arbitrator makes a rational finding that the employee can be trusted to refrain from the offending conduct.” DuBose, 173 Ill. 2d at 322 ; see also Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, International, 808 F.2d 76 (D.C.

2012App. 3d 503, 512 , 554 N.E.2d 759, 765 (1990). -5- ¶ 24 A two-step analysis is to be employed when considering whether the public-policy exception applies.

1993(AFSCME, 124 Ill. 2d at 260 , 529 N.E.2d at 540 .) The public policy exception which permits vacatur of arbitration awards rising from collective-bargaining agreements is an “extremely narrow” concept (CMS, 197 Ill.

2019Zeigler v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank , 245 Ill. 180 , 193, 91 N.E. 1041 (1910)." (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 307 , 219 Ill.Dec. 501 , 671 N.E.2d 668 . ¶ 54 Application of the public-policy exception is a two-step process.

2019Zeigler v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank , 245 Ill. 180 , 193, 91 N.E. 1041 (1910)." (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 307 , 219 Ill.Dec. 501 , 671 N.E.2d 668 . ¶ 54 Application of the public-policy exception is a two-step process.