{ "id": 261410, "name": "DORIS LANNING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MORRIS MOBILE MEALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Lanning v. Morris Mobile Meals, Inc.", "decision_date": "1999-11-09", "docket_number": "No. 3-99-0052", "first_page": "490", "last_page": "494", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "308 Ill. App. 3d 490" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "518 N.E.2d 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Fifth District" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 Ill. App. 3d 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3581297 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Fifth District" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/164/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 N.E.2d 693", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "First District" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 Ill. App. 3d 769", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2619839 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "First District" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/182/0769-01" ] }, { "cite": "646 N.E.2d 315", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Second District" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 Ill. App. 3d 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 365951 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Second District" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/269/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "651 N.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Fourth District" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 Ill. App. 3d 833", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 252802 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Fourth District" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/272/0833-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 N.E.2d 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "an internal safety complaint regarding violations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations does not preclude a retaliatory discharge claim" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 2d 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3130445 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "an internal safety complaint regarding violations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations does not preclude a retaliatory discharge claim" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/108/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "940 F.2d 184", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10521903 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "internal complaint sufficient" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/940/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 N.E. 725", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "727", "parenthetical": "\"The regulation of cooked food certainly tends to the promotion of health and assists in the suppression of disease\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "369 Ill. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2565944 ], "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "68", "parenthetical": "\"The regulation of cooked food certainly tends to the promotion of health and assists in the suppression of disease\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/369/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 N.E.2d 876", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" }, { "page": "880" }, { "page": "880" }, { "page": "880" }, { "page": "879", "parenthetical": "speaking to the importance of criminal laws, the court held that \"[t]here is no public policy *** more fundamental than the one favoring the effective protection of the lives and property of citizens\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469094 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "130" }, { "page": "133" }, { "page": "132-33" }, { "page": "132-33" }, { "page": "132" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 N.E.2d 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "First District" }, { "page": "592" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 Ill. App. 3d 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5441822 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "First District" }, { "page": "507-08" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/111/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 N.E.2d 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Fith District" }, { "page": "578-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 Ill. App. 3d 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3605156 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Fith District" }, { "page": "751-52" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/147/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "519 N.E.2d 909", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "911" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 2d 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3192772 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/119/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "706 N.E.2d 491", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ill. 2d 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 122021 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "376" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/185/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "694 N.E.2d 610", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "611" }, { "page": "611" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 Ill. App. 3d 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 222598 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" }, { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/296/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 N.E.2d 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ill. App. 3d 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5666909 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/143/0668-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 594, "char_count": 9833, "ocr_confidence": 0.785, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0352030511062221e-07, "percentile": 0.5492380057679038 }, "sha256": "e0229f6a956b134f12dd82422874b383ff92525deb573ea557bb968f7bd8227d", "simhash": "1:9b99396235e3dc87", "word_count": 1561 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:33.383803+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DORIS LANNING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MORRIS MOBILE MEALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LYTTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Doris Lanning filed a retaliatory discharge action against her former employer, Morris Mobile Meals, Inc. (Morris). Morris moved to dismiss Lanning\u2019s suit. The trial court denied Morris\u2019 motion and certified a question of law for review. This court granted Morris\u2019 petition for leave to appeal. We hold that Tanning\u2019s complaint of retaliatory discharge is not precluded based on her failure to report an alleged health code violation to a public official.\nFACTS\nMorris is a food service provider, delivering meals to customers\u2019 homes. Lanning was formerly employed by Morris. She claims that she was discharged in retaliation for \u201creporting to her supervisor and to a dietician at Morris Hospital that [Morris] through its agents and employees [was] endangering the health of its customers by leaving meals at customers\u2019 residences, unrefrigerated in 95 degree heat for indefinite periods of time in violation of Illinois public health laws.\u201d Morris moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court denied the motion and certified the following question of law to this court:\n\u201cWhether Zaniecki v. P.A. Bergner & Co. of Illinois, 143 Ill. App. 3d 668, 493 N.E.2d 419 (3rd Dist. 1986), which held that no cause of action for retaliatory discharge lies where an employee fails to report the alleged misconduct forming the basis of his or her retaliatory discharge claim to public authorities but only makes an internal report of the suspected misconduct, is controlling in the present case where the plaintiff allegedly reported misconduct to her employer as well as to a third party.\u201d\nWe granted Morris\u2019 petition for leave to appeal.\nANALYSIS\nMorris argues that Lanning did not allege that she complained to a public official, as required by Zaniecki v. P.A. Bergner & Co., 143 Ill. App. 3d 668, 493 N.E.2d 419 (1986). Thus, the trial court should have granted Morris\u2019 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of retaliatory discharge.\nLanning, on the other hand, asks this court to overrule Zaniecki, claiming that it is unsound. Alternatively, she contends that Zaniecki is distinguishable because, in this case, she complained to a third party.\nThis matter is before us pursuant to a certified question under Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308). The appellate court conducts a de novo review of certified questions, as it does with all questions of law. Lanxon v. Magnus, 296 Ill. App. 3d 377, 379, 694 N.E.2d 610, 611 (1998).\nA claim of retaliatory discharge is permissible where \u201can employee is discharged in retaliation for the reporting of illegal or improper conduct,\u201d also known as \u201c \u2018whistle blowing.\u2019 \u201d Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., 185 Ill. 2d 372, 376, 706 N.E.2d 491, 493 (1998). To succeed on a claim of retaliatory discharge, a plaintiff must show \u201cthat she was (1) discharged; (2) in retaliation for her activities; and (3) that the discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy.\u201d Hinthorn v. Roland\u2019s of Bloomington, Inc., 119 Ill. 2d 526, 529, 519 N.E.2d 909, 911 (1988).\nI\nIn Zaniecki, this court stated an additional requirement, i.e., that a retaliatory discharge claim will not lie unless the plaintiff has complained to a public official. Zaniecki, 143 Ill. App. 3d at 670-71, 493 N.E.2d at 421. There, the plaintiff alleged that he was terminated after reporting another employee\u2019s improper conduct to his employer\u2019s chief security officer. This court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s suit because the plaintiff only lodged an internal complaint.\nOur decision in Zaniecki is in direct conflict with the First and Fifth Districts. See Johnson v. World Color Press, Inc., 147 Ill. App. 3d 746, 498 N.E.2d 575 (1986) (Fith District); Petrik v. Monarch Printing Corp., 111 Ill. App. 3d 502, 444 N.E.2d 588 (1982) (First District). Neither district requires a plaintiff to allege that termination occurred after complaint to a public official.\nNevertheless, Johnson, Zaniecki and Petrik all rely upon our supreme court\u2019s ruling in Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981). In Palmateer, the court held that a plaintiff states a claim of retaliatoiy discharge where the plaintiff alleges termination in violation of clearly mandated public policy. 85 Ill. 2d at 130, 421 N.E.2d at 878. Because public policy favors the \u201cinvestigation and prosecution of criminal offenses,\u201d the court held that the plaintiff, who alleged termination after reporting another employee\u2019s illegal conduct to local authorities, stated a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. Palmateer, 85 Ill. 2d at 133, 421 N.E.2d at 880.\nBut is the investigation of complaints, which may lead to further action, a task designated solely to public officials? Johnson and Petrik held that it is not. Since the thrust of Palmateer was to protect employees who urge enforcement of Illinois public policy (85 Ill. 2d at 132-33, 421 N.E.2d at 880), Johnson and Petrik reasoned that employees who expose violations deserve protection, regardless of whether they choose internal or external processes. Johnson, 147 Ill. App. 3d at 751-52, 498 N.E.2d at 578-79; Petrik, 111 Ill. App. 3d at 507-08, 444 N.E.2d at 592. We agree.\nReports to internal personnel do not transform public issues into private disputes. See Parr v. Triplett Corp., 727 E Supp. 1163, 1166-67 (N.D. Ill. 1989). In many instances, complaints to internal personnel and supervisors may be the first step in an investigation. See Hicks v. Clyde Federal Savings & Loan Ass\u2019n, 722 E Supp. 501, 504 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (\u201cwell-intentioned employees\u201d should not be penalized for attempting \u201cto rectify wrongdoing internally prior to taking public action\u201d). Employees contemplating a complaint must not be intimidated by fear of retaliation. See Palmateer, 85 Ill. 2d at 132-33, 421 N.E.2d at 880. This remains true whenever the health, safety or welfare of the public is involved.\nHere, plaintiff complained of improper food storage, a matter affecting the health of the community. In order to protect the public from the type of conduct described, employees of food service providers must be able to freely report unsanitary conditions, as plaintiff attempted to do. Compliance with health codes, like compliance with the criminal code, is not a matter of private concern between an employer and an employee. Rather, it is a public concern of the highest magnitude. See Palmateer, 85 Ill. 2d at 132, 421 N.E.2d at 879 (speaking to the importance of criminal laws, the court held that \u201c[t]here is no public policy *** more fundamental than the one favoring the effective protection of the lives and property of citizens\u201d); City of Chicago v. R.&X. Restaurant, Inc., 369 Ill. 65, 68, 15 N.E. 725, 727 (1938) (\u201cThe regulation of cooked food certainly tends to the promotion of health and assists in the suppression of disease\u201d).\nFood service workers may be in the best position to document unsanitary practices. Employers are undoubtedly in the best position to rectify problems with food preparation, handling and storage. Failure to protect an employee who raises health concerns, even to his immediate supervisor, may stifle the willingness of other employees to complain of similar problems. To protect the public, this result must be avoided. Therefore, we answer the certified question as follows: Tanning\u2019s present complaint of retaliatory discharge is not precluded based on her failure to report an alleged health code violation to a public official.\nII\nMorris also argues that because Lanning was not terminated in violation of a clear mandate of public policy, the trial court should have granted its motion to dismiss.\nJurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal derives from Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308). The scope of a reviewing court\u2019s examination in an interlocutory appeal is strictly limited to the question certified by the trial court. Lanxon v. Magnus, 296 Ill. App. 3d 377, 379, 694 N.E.2d 610, 611 (1998).\nAlthough we have already addressed the importance of food service employees reporting unsanitary conditions, we will not consider Morris\u2019 public policy argument as a separate issue, as it is beyond the scope of the certified question. Accordingly, we decline Morris\u2019 request that we address this issue.\nThe certified question of the circuit court of Grundy County is answered.\nCertified question answered.\nBRESLIN and SLATER, JJ., concur.\nSee also Belline v. K-Mart Corp., 940 F.2d 184 (7th Cir. 1991) (internal complaint sufficient); Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 108 Ill. 2d 502, 485 N.E.2d 372 (1985) (an internal safety complaint regarding violations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission\u2019s regulations does not preclude a retaliatory discharge claim); Sherman v. Kraft General Foods, Inc., 272 Ill. App. 3d 833, 651 N.E.2d 708 (1995) (Fourth District) (employee protected where OSHA violation reported internally); Fragassi v. Neiburger, 269 Ill. App. 3d 633, 646 N.E.2d 315 (1995) (Second District) (implicitly allowing internal complaint); Russ v. Pension Consultants Co., 182 Ill. App. 3d 769, 538 N.E.2d 693 (1989) (First District) (allowed retaliatory discharge action where employee refused employer\u2019s request that he engage in illegal activity); Shores v. Senior Manor Nursing Center, Inc., 164 Ill. App. 3d 503, 518 N.E.2d 471 (1988) (Fifth District) (nurse\u2019s complaint to nursing home administrator sufficient to sustain claim).", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LYTTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "John J. D\u2019Attomo and Mark E. Furlane, both of Gardner, Carton & Douglas, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Gary R. Garretson, of Morris, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DORIS LANNING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MORRIS MOBILE MEALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 99\u20140052\nOpinion filed November 9, 1999.\nRehearing denied December 10, 1999.\nJohn J. D\u2019Attomo and Mark E. Furlane, both of Gardner, Carton & Douglas, of Chicago, for appellant.\nGary R. Garretson, of Morris, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0490-01", "first_page_order": 508, "last_page_order": 512 }