heating air conditioning and one of his also one of his duties was to consult and also escort they want a partner a public health inspector health inspectors during their annual escorted gang around the property during his anyone's inspection and a new sidewalk was constructed around the perimeter of the home yang found the two thousand and eight yang came back for another inspection but this time when he was walking around the home he saw the exact same sidewalk in the approved before and told well was that he didn't believe it complied with the slope requirements of the only form of health regulations yang proceeded to hold his clipboard up to his face and eyeball in measurement of the slope of the sidewalk he said he told wells that the sidewalk looked about one inch too steep and accordingly he issued in october twenty fourth two thousand and eight report that to inch to sleep and needed to be changed he informed the administrator telegraph of the report of yang and then also th measurement measurement and reminded graph several times of the deadline to change the slope he did not have the authority to approve the expenditures to change the sidewalk  with originally no often the person in charge of major construction such as the sidewalk he only had authority to spend of up to five hundred dollars a month on regular maintenance around the home there was in his near the us have had had to approve and oversaw construction projects such as then the sidewalk wasn't repaired in directing the construction of the on the sidewalk begin immediately and the construction did not happen till two weeks later to begin till two weeks later on february twenty fifth two thousand and one and was completed on the twenty six the information but the older whistleblower act includes broad language that does not require those two specific voluntary and being the original source  requirements it only has what the only requirement is what the employee reasonably believes is a violation of the law rule regulation but it does require disclosure yes it does definition because there's also a second definition that is to make known to communicate on black's law dictionary actually defines a whistleblower as an employee who reports and employer wrongdoing so a report of information i would say is communicating information to somebody and that's consistent with the purpose of the act the main purpose of the act is protect people and provide frank information and frank discussion with regulators so that they may do their job it is different then the illinois false claims act for example that requires pacifically original source and the general assembly included that specific requirement in the statute but they do not he it's all in fact the only whistleblower actually language is similar to the on human rights act which as a resolution provision that also have that somebody has to have a reasonable belief that it violates f a person that corroborates evidence and colonel investigation would not be covered under the ad because they were not the original source and they did not voluntarily provide information they can be into the language of the statute nothing that the letter says you are being terminated for your mishandling of the inspection thank you thank whistle on anyone anything for any policy the only whistleblower act requires a disclosure that term disclosure appears throughout the year and disclosure is a report  the factual context is key and this is according to their own allegations paragraph twelve accordingly mr yang told williams of the slope did not meet the i d p age requirements for handicapped accessibility because of the alleged one inch deviation from the paragraph eighteen which you referred to just subprime is the most they complete and that's quote williams truthfully confirmed to yank the sidewalk violated the regulations but their own allegations show mr yang already author already did the investigation already found the sidewalk radio was noncompliant so to get back to your question as to whether or not disclosing an opening obvious view isn't the saying that sidewalk i looked at before the answer is yes it's the same sidewalk nothing has changed that's not a disclosure here's the presumption of that formulation of that fact that shows it's out of hamas which yak yak is not new it's been in effect since two thousand and four the act is to protect employees who pick up the phone or send an email or in person visit to a government office and say i think something unlawful spilling out of my workplace this is not a terse reply of yes just confirming that yeah things haven't changed it's still the same way as you went if you were here further from the truth the only human rights act and seven seventy five miles yes five six one i want retaliation that is covered there is because someone has opposed something which they reasonably believe is discrimination oppose the illinois whistle blower act is different it's different because it's like the only false claims that which is right next to in the titles is not the provision that's at issue fifteen b does require disclosure and says it twice and so if it's not revealing something that's unknown to somebody all ready then so different you're being told brain versus north chicago is just like this case nothing could be further from the record in brain the person in the police department goes into the mayor's office and says here are things i think the record it's not just standing over the object that you were directing to remedy and confirming that you still have a remedy that's not disclosure the school should not have been for example if it had occurred which predicted is if mr womack contacted somebody said oh by the way which where whatever means of contact is reasonable by the way did you know that the sidewalk gradient is not handicapped accessible you know by the way the really doesn't comply with id ph regulations it's not being a passive non compliant non responsive actor to the point where the mystery gang has to say well wait a minute nothing is just has change pressure i don't know what it's like well that would have been untruthful i don't think someone becomes a whistleblower by just one word answer saying yes the remediation  it's to confirm whether or not the compliance activity has heard it's not to find out whether the regulatory violation exists he's already found that it exists he's just finding whether or not there's been compliance activity and as noted the actual a piece of paper he didn't start any remedial work there's no way that he tried to comply at all but that's not the only thing he has not claimed that he has done one thing to thirty engineer off mr williams as not play anything other than handing the paper off to anybody else i understand what the court is asking but that you know going back to  original point though the statutory construction troels the dismissal here there has to be a report or disclosure and as of now at the pleading stand there is no whistleblower to find this is whistle alo noncompliance that doesn't qualify as whistle whistle blowing is again informing a governmental agency through a complaint or otherwise that some alleged unlawful activity is occurring or some  regulatory violation this is not retaliation under employment law under civil rights law where again it's opposition and frankly these facts as alleged don't even qualify as opposition which is a report no he's onsite just responding in kind and the fact if you visit one word answer that's not all it's not transforming a one word terse answer hand pieces of paper other people he doesn't fade that he got to work through together that he said here's a budget or here's here's my piece of paper with this order that i'm going to get compliance done nothing so all just as brian i'm not saying the allegations are false this is was dismissed as a two six fifteen what we're saying is that he's the director of maintenance and whatever budgetary limitations he has everybody has them i alleged what his duties were and what his responsibilities were one of the things the complaint states is that that does not include construction has nothing to do with that no actually the u engineer david falls is responsible for that there's one thing that i can and will most homes can agree upon with o s f is that truthfully providing information is not so you claim and was forced that however firing somebody for providing that information to them is a claim of the whistleblowers act on mcgrath also told them well knows that this is either going to cost you or me a job and the graph after that conversation which  complaint she fired was reported to mcgrath the order also reported the deadline that yang put in his order and he reminded her of the deadline he is not responsible for making the changes or overseeing the chang sidewalk all he had to do was reported and somebody else not to change the sidewalk so what really happened here is wells was the scapegoat or is always important any investigation whether it's criminal regulatory and robbery being in violation is something that the government needs