decisions in gomez forces fish and company and sherman vs kraft foods and the other decisions that we cited page nineteen of our brief i've worked for any illinois state court decision that went the other way that said raised by mr truly were viewed as too insubstantial and speculative just disagreements between him and management i think it's important here that the petitioner and her coworkers raised safety and security issues long before the ocean complaint petitioner testified she sat alone leave the entryway to this big facility about ninety percent of the time these were exclusively young women who sat alone in supervisor there is she's at most a just for sake of argument she's at the low end of the totem pole and in the back someplace there are people who are higher than she is just because she certainly could've found someone who had more authority even if it wasn't and a few days are used to colder or more gray for the movie because of the complaints she would raise a few days later he fires her for the stated reason of not having the range coverage for that father's day shift in  well i'll be very brief on that part of the case i mean i think it's a poor policy to allow employers to be able to say gotcha you went to the wrong place to compl quote deal with it yourselves or work out your so and that's what she did now i asked him for his deposition did she have the worst attendance and he said quote i'm hesitate it's police or any kind of employee rules expectations whatever you want to call it was there anything that they gave people who think you hired that if you want to swap a shift just do it on your own don't bother to tell us or is it possible that the not reporting any illegal activity by the alliance she was not reporting any perceived violation of a regulation or even any violation of an internal policy regarding the alliance's security or safety obligations instead she reported both are superior is and then to osha when she didn't get a response or satisfaction from her employer that she was upset by the set up of the lobby where the tables were placed in the lobby she didn't like where her desk was she was upset indeed about a comment she got from a visitor in march and she was also upset that the board was not sufficiently hearing the visitor services for all of those are valid grievances forward employee to of those things in this case and said what she is pointing to is individual workplace grievances that either she or allegedly her other employees coworkers had with her boss with her security  f those are not sufficient to violate a clear me to make a public policy and bring her within the scope of whistleblower protections for retaliatory discharge there's no whistleblower protection sure because she didn't blow the whistle on anything that the alliance was doing wrong the airlines wasn't even responsible for the security at the garfield park conservatory that's the province of the chicago park district there is no connection between her complaints and anything that the alliance  violate a lot of her regulation or even an internal policy with respect to all of the factual issues that mr gonzales a plaintiff's attorney has mentioned this morning about the facts and circumstances regarding the she was reporting wrongdoing or illegal activity by her employer you can read the complete yourself that she filed with osha and that she sent to her eternal supervisors into the should have a park district she never said that the alliance was breaking a law she felt that this was wrong or that she could point to any specific policy that they're in violation of she said she felt not supported she wanted the board of the alliance to listen to her visitor services and she wanted them to the visitor services employees have more of a say over there in media a good place environment there's no indication in any of those complaints that she had a good faith belief that there was anything illegal or wrong going alliance she may have had good suggestions about how to improve her workplace but a good idea and a clear mandate of public policy are two separate things and employers can't be expected to know in advance that an we can see that the clear mandate of public policy wrong is a legal question and it has been resolved technically twice but at least once already on the legal question it is a issue for the court to decide it's not a jury question so the is not particularly relevant if the complaint isn't about anything that violates public policy employers need to be on notice from a clear and specific guidelines for her size the illinois supreme court case that has been that is arbitration program and the trial court judge has looked at this question determined there's nothing warranting any type of ocean intervention there's no mandate of public policy at issue here the trial court got this right on s she was going to the park district to say you have to be for security at this facility especially approve of the drug shooting incident number two i forgot to answer your st question above the handbook my recollection is the hand you should report any concerns so in a normal office environment work environment if you thought something that's when you go to your boss and you think your boss take it up the chain of command and sooner or later some garfield park conservatory boss would talk to the kiev this is i guess the gist of the case you can go in as for example quote a plaintiff states a cause of action for a tele three just charge of illinois where he makes a sufficient showing that he was fired for reporting cases because there's that happens a lot there too of playing of those in files in charge of the yosi of sexual orientation discrimination but they don't cover that can the employer retaliate against them for doing that and the federal