# Palmateer v. International Harvester Co.

> Illinois Supreme Court · June 8, 1981 · 85 Ill. 2d 124

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742213

## Case

- **Full name:** RAY PALMATEER, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, Appellee
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 8, 1981
- **Citations:** 85 Ill. 2d 124; 421 N.E.2d 876
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Underwood
- **Judges:** Simon, Underwood, Ryan, Moran
- **Cited by:** 571 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742213

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, "[a]lthough there is no precise line of demarcation dividing matters that are the subject of public policies from matters purely personal, *** a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen's social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be all…
- stating that, “[although there is no precise line of demarcation dividing matters that are the subject of public policies from matters purely personal, *** a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen’s social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be allo…
- holding that an "at will” employee who was discharged for reporting his co-workers’ suspected criminal activity to the police stated an actionable claim for common law wrongful discharge because "public policy favors the exposure of crime”
- holding that firing of employee who had reported suspected illegal activity of coworker to police and had agreed to assist in police investigation violated a clear mandate of public policy and gave rise to claim of retaliatory discharge
- finding that at-will employee dismissed for reporting suspected criminal activity by fellow employee to police stated claim for retaliatory discharge because “public policy favors the exposure of crime”

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting:
For the reasons stated in my dissent in Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 172, 190 , I believe the court there erred. The thoughts expressed in that dissent regarding judicial self-restraint are equally applicable here. In addition, I share Mr. Justice Ryan’s criticism of the court’s action in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742213. Public record. Not legal advice.