Harrison v. Addington
955 N.E.2d 700
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Andre Harrison sued Deere & Co. employees for defamation and intentional interference with his employment, with summary judgment against him on those claims affirmed.
- Counts II and IV alleged defamation per se based on statements that Harrison raped a subordinate and there was an arrest warrant; the court affirmed summary judgment that those statements were not proven to be made by the named defendants.
- Counts VI through XIII alleged intentional interference with continued employment by various Deere officials who led or supervised an investigation and termination decision.
- Harrison, at termination in 2009, was operations manager at John Deere Seeding Group; several defendants were his supervisors or related personnel.
- The investigation process involved Digney, Olson, DeVault, Chisholm, Martin, Addington, and Hornbuckle; Deere security directed the inquiry and the personnel decisions followed.
- Everitt, Deere’s president of Deere agriculture and turf, ultimately made the decision to terminate Harrison based on Digney’s findings and related HR input.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation per se against DeVault/Olson | Harrison contends DeVault/Olson conveyed Maddox's allegations as true. | Defendant asserts statements were true or not attributable to them in a defamatory sense. | No defamation issue against DeVault/Olson. |
| Intentional interference preemption by the Human Rights Act | Interference claims are protected by retaliation theory under the Act. | Claims are preempted if inextricably linked to civil rights violations. | Not preempted; independent basis for interference exists. |
| Intentional interference against Olson/DeVault | Their actions constituted wrongful interference with Harrison's continued employment. | Actions were justified and part of a corporate response to allegations; not maliciously aimed at harming Harrison. | No genuine issue of material fact; Olson/DeVault entitled to summary judgment. |
| Intentional interference against Addington | Addington acted with bias and retaliatory motive based on past discrimination claim. | No evidence of retaliatory motive; actions were within Deere’s corporate process. | No genuine issue; Addington entitled to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill. 2d 274 (Ill. 2007) (standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo)
- Atanus v. American Airlines, Inc., 403 Ill. App. 3d 549 (Ill. App. 2010) (summary judgment standard; nonmoving party favorable view)
- Blount v. Stroud, 232 Ill. 2d 302 (Ill. 2009) (HR Act preemption requires inextricable link to civil rights violation)
- Geise v. Phoenix Co. of Chicago, Inc., 159 Ill. 2d 507 (Ill. 1994) (preemption framework for HR Act claims)
- Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558 (Ill. 2006) (defamatory per se categories and innocent constructions)
- Vickers v. Abbott Laboratories, 308 Ill. App. 3d 393 (Ill. App. 1999) (corporate officer liability and privileged actions)