Razavi v. School of the Art Institute of Chicago
122 N.E.3d 361
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- In 2013 SAIC students Walkuski and Zekelman reported that Razavi sexually assaulted and/or stalked them; campus security and SAIC investigated and Razavi was expelled after a Student Conduct Board hearing.
- Walkuski also obtained a Cook County plenary stalking/no-contact order against Razavi following a hearing where the court found her testimony more credible.
- Razavi sued SAIC, Walkuski, and Zekelman for defamation, alleging their reports to SAIC employees were false and caused his expulsion.
- On initial appeal this court held statements to campus security were absolutely privileged (Razavi I) and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand Walkuski and Zekelman moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619, arguing the absolute privilege extended to their subsequent reports to SAIC officials during the investigation and disciplinary process; the trial court granted dismissal.
- This appeal challenges whether absolute privilege bars Razavi’s defamation claims for statements made to SAIC officials during the investigatory/disciplinary process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute privilege covers victims’ restatements to SAIC officials during investigation and disciplinary proceedings | Razavi: privilege ends with initial report to campus security; disciplinary process is not quasi‑judicial and is outside absolute privilege | Walkuski/Zekelman: privilege attaching to initial reports to campus security continues to cover subsequent statements made in furtherance of the investigation and disciplinary process | Court: Absolute privilege extends to restatements made to SAIC officials during the investigation/disciplinary continuum; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether SAIC disciplinary proceedings must be quasi‑judicial to trigger absolute privilege | Razavi: disciplinary hearing was not quasi‑judicial so absolute privilege should not apply | Defendants: investigation is a continuum; federal law (Campus SaVE Act) required SAIC procedures, making restatements part of legally compelled investigatory process | Court: Need not decide quasi‑judicial label; privilege applies because restatements arose from and furthered an absolutely privileged initial report and occurred under federally mandated investigatory procedures |
| Whether absolute privilege is overcome by allegations of malice or falsity | Razavi: alleged falsity and malice mean privilege should not bar claims | Defendants: absolute privilege bars recovery even if statements were false or made with malice | Court: Absolute privilege bars defamation claims regardless of alleged malice or falsity in this context |
| Whether victims faced no sanction for false reports making privilege unreasonable | Razavi: lack of repercussions for false reporting undermines policy supporting absolute privilege | Defendants: SAIC handbook requires truthful reporting and false complainants can face sanctions; privilege is necessary to encourage reporting | Court: Handbook’s truthfulness requirement and potential sanctions mitigate concern; public policy favors absolute privilege to encourage reporting |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. Cueto, 209 Ill. App. 3d 936 (explaining absolute privilege for communications required by law to quasi‑judicial/disciplinary bodies)
- Busch v. Bates, 323 Ill. App. 3d 823 (absolute privilege applied to internal police disciplinary reports required by directive)
- Krueger v. Lewis, 342 Ill. App. 3d 467 (privilege as an affirmative defense in defamation dismissals)
- Layne v. Builders Plumbing Supply Co., 210 Ill. App. 3d 966 (absolute privilege covers statements necessarily preliminary to judicial or quasi‑judicial proceedings)
- Anderson v. Beach, 386 Ill. App. 3d 246 (elements of defamation and treatment of privileges)
- Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774 (disciplinary sanctions for abuse of process deter false reporting)
- Nero v. Kansas State University, 861 P.2d 768 (university duty to protect students; negligence context cited for policy)
- Miller v. State, 467 N.E.2d 493 (college liability for foreseeable safety risks)
- Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 449 N.E.2d 331 (upholding college liability for student safety failures)