## Facts

- Mark Turner, a licensed respiratory therapist, worked at Memorial Medical Center from 1983 until his discharge in October 2006.
- In September 2006, a Joint Commission accreditation survey occurred at Memorial; loss of accreditation would jeopardize Medicare/Medicaid funding.
- Memorial used electronic charting; Turner alleged Joint Commission standards required immediate charting after care, while Memorial required charting at some point during the shift.
- During a meeting with a Joint Commission surveyor (with a hospital administrator present), Turner stated there was a discrepancy between the Joint Commission’s immediate-charting standard and Memorial’s practice.
- Turner alleged he also stated that delayed charting was inconsistent with sound medical practices and jeopardized patient safety.
- Memorial discharged Turner on October 4, 2006; Turner alleged the discharge was retaliation for his statements to the surveyor.
- Turner sued for retaliatory discharge; the circuit court dismissed the first-amended complaint under section 2-615 for failure to state a claim, and the appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a retaliatory discharge complaint states a claim when the asserted public policy is derived from private accreditation standards and a generalized appeal to patient safety.
2. Whether the Illinois Medical Patient Rights Act clearly mandates a public policy requiring immediate electronic charting sufficient to support a retaliatory discharge claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court held Turner did not plead discharge in violation of a clearly mandated public policy.
- Joint Commission standards, as private accreditation requirements, were not a sufficient legal source of clearly mandated Illinois public policy.
- The Medical Patient Rights Act provisions cited did not mandate immediate charting and primarily addressed confidentiality and access to patient records.
- A broad assertion of “patient safety,” without a specific constitutional, statutory, or judicially recognized mandate tied to the challenged conduct, was too indefinite to support the tort.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois recognizes retaliatory discharge as a narrow exception to at-will employment requiring: (1) retaliatory motive and (2) discharge in violation of a clearly mandated public policy.
- A “clearly mandated” public policy must be grounded in a constitution, statute, or judicial decision, not solely in private organizational standards.
- Generalized policy statements (e.g., patient safety in the abstract) are insufficient; the complaint must identify a specific, clearly defined policy that the discharge contravened.
- On a section 2-615 motion, a complaint that fails to allege a qualifying clearly mandated public policy is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

## Conclusion

The court declined to expand retaliatory discharge to cover termination for reporting noncompliance with private accreditation standards where the plaintiff could not anchor the alleged policy to a specific, clearly mandated source of Illinois law, and it affirmed dismissal of the complaint.


Turner v. Memorial Med. Ctr., 233 Ill. 2d 494, 911 N.E.2d 369 (Ill. 2009)