Dent v. Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.
2022 IL 126795
| Ill. | 2022Background
- Dent and RLD were at-will independent contractors for Constellation; Constellation terminated the consulting agreements after allegations arising from Pro-Am events in 2016 and 2018.
- Petitioners filed a verified Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 petition seeking the identities of three anonymous persons (Person A: accuser; Person B: witness; Person C: third‑party investigator) who allegedly published defamatory statements that led Constellation to terminate its contracts with Dent.
- Respondents attached a December 19, 2018 counsel letter stating Constellation had hired a third‑party investigator, that the investigator found Dent’s denials not credible, and that communications were privileged in the internal investigation context (Exhibit B).
- Respondents moved to dismiss under section 2‑615, arguing the alleged statements were qualifiedly privileged and petitioners failed to plead facts showing abuse of that privilege; the trial court dismissed with prejudice relying on precedent that Rule 224 is unnecessary when a potential defendant is already known.
- The appellate court reversed, holding privilege is an affirmative defense that should not be resolved on a 2‑615 motion in the Rule 224 context and that petitioners’ allegations were sufficient to survive a 2‑615 review.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review to decide whether qualified privilege may be considered on a 2‑615 motion to dismiss a Rule 224 petition and whether the petition alleged enough to overcome privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dent) | Defendant's Argument (Constellation) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a defendant raise qualified privilege in a section 2‑615 motion to dismiss a Rule 224 petition? | Rule 224 protects identification discovery and petitioner need only plead a plausible claim; affirmative defenses like privilege should not be resolved at 2‑615 stage. | Qualified privilege may be resolved on 2‑615 where the privilege is established by facts apparent on the face of the petition (including attached exhibits). | Court: Yes. Qualified privilege can be raised on 2‑615 when established by the complaint and exhibits. |
| Did the Rule 224 petition plead facts sufficient to overcome qualified privilege for Persons A, B, and C? | Alleged statements were completely false, made as facts, unprivileged, and caused contract terminations; those allegations suffice to defeat privilege. | Exhibit B and the petition show communications occurred in a sexual‑harassment investigation, establishing qualified privilege; petitioners’ denials are conclusory and do not show abuse. | Court: No. Petitioners’ conclusory denials do not plead facts showing abuse (actual malice/reckless disregard); petition fails to overcome privilege. |
| Was dismissal with prejudice appropriate and did petitioners already know a potentially liable party (so Rule 224 improper)? | Respondents themselves were not the publishers; only unidentified Persons A–C could be liable, so Rule 224 discovery was proper. | Trial court argued petitioners knew respondents/their counsel and thus knew potential defendants; Rule 224 not for wide speculative quests. | Court: Ultimately dismissed petition with prejudice under 2‑615 on privilege grounds; appellate reversal was reversed and circuit court judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- K. Miller Construction Co. v. McGinnis, 238 Ill. 2d 284 (Ill. 2010) (an affirmative defense may be raised in a 2‑615 motion when established by facts on the face of the complaint)
- Hadley v. Doe, 2015 IL 118000 (Ill. 2015) (to show Rule 224 necessity in defamation claims, pleadings must survive a 2‑615 legal sufficiency review)
- Kuwik v. Starmark Star Marketing & Administration, Inc., 156 Ill. 2d 16 (Ill. 1993) (explains qualified privilege in defamation and heightened showing to defeat it)
- Vickers v. Abbott Laboratories, 308 Ill. App. 3d 393 (Ill. App. Ct.) (1999) (qualified privilege applies to communications made in investigating workplace sexual harassment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (recognizes public interest and employer obligations in eradicating workplace sexual harassment)
- Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo’s Designer Direct, Inc., 227 Ill. 2d 381 (Ill. 2008) (tests for determining when speech is protected from defamation by the First Amendment)