Prakash v. Parulekar
2020 IL App (1st) 191819
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff Jai Prakash and defendant Satish Parulekar were tenured chemical-engineering professors at Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT); a 2012 IIT investigation cleared Prakash of wrongdoing.
- On November 6, 2013 Prakash settled with IIT for money and benefits and released IIT and its current/former employees from all claims arising through that date, including defamation and IIED.
- In February 2014 Parulekar complained to federal agencies and Argonne National Laboratory alleging Prakash misused federal funds; a federal investigation ensued (including agents interviewing Prakash at his home) and ultimately found no wrongdoing.
- Between 2015 and 2018 Parulekar allegedly repeated and circulated false accusations about Prakash to many non‑governmental third parties (letters and a March 4, 2018 email with an attached March 2, 2018 letter).
- Prakash sued (Aug. 2018) for IIED and defamation per se based on post‑settlement conduct; the trial court dismissed with prejudice under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (anti‑SLAPP) and immunity.
- The appellate court: (1) held the 2013 settlement released pre‑Nov. 6, 2013 claims, (2) rejected dismissal under the Act for the remaining post‑release allegations, and (3) found IIED pleaded adequately and allowed amendment on the defamation particulars; reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of the 2013 settlement release on claims | Prakash: release did not bar claims against Parulekar because Parulekar was not a party or intended beneficiary | Parulekar: settlement released claims arising before Nov. 6, 2013 against IIT and its past/current employees (including him) | Release barred use of pre‑Nov. 6, 2013 conduct; Parulekar falls within the released class of IIT employees — pre‑2013 allegations excluded from suit |
| Whether the Citizen Participation Act (anti‑SLAPP) immunizes Parulekar for the Feb. 2014 federal complaints (IIED theory) | Prakash: his IIED claim rests largely on post‑2014 publications to non‑governmental third parties and is not a SLAPP | Parulekar: complaining to federal agencies is protected petitioning activity and bars the suit | The 2014 complaints were protected petitioning, but Prakash’s IIED claim also relied on post‑2014 non‑governmental publications; Parulekar did not meet his burden to show the IIED claim was solely a retaliatory SLAPP — dismissal under the Act was improper |
| Whether the Act bars the March 4, 2018 email/attached letter (defamation per se) | Prakash: March 2018 materials were published to many non‑governmental recipients and falsely accused him of crimes/professional misconduct — not protected petitioning | Parulekar: all communications are related to his petitioning and thus protected | March 2018 circulation to nongovernmental recipients was not protected petitioning; defamation claim was not a SLAPP — dismissal under the Act was improper |
| Sufficiency of pleaded IIED and defamation under section 2‑615 | Prakash: alleged prolonged, extreme and outrageous conduct (2014–2018), severe distress, and false statements published to third parties | Parulekar: allegations insufficient as a matter of law (not extreme/outrageous; lacked particularity for defamation) | IIED adequately pleaded (extreme/outrageous conduct, severe distress, intent/knowledge). Defamation allegations lacked some particularity but amendment should be permitted; 2‑615 dismissal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (standards for 2‑615/2‑619 review and pleading)
- Alpha School Bus Co. v. Wagner, 391 Ill. App. 3d 722 (limitations on conclusory pleading; fact pleading requirement)
- Edelman, Combs & Latturner v. Hinshaw & Culbertson, 338 Ill. App. 3d 156 (procedural interplay of combined 2‑615 and 2‑619 motions)
- Wright Dev. Group, LLC v. Walsh, 238 Ill. 2d 620 (background on SLAPP and purpose of the Citizen Participation Act)
- McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78 (IIED — “no reasonable person could be expected to endure”)
- Green v. Rogers, 234 Ill. 2d 478 (defamation pleading specificity required)