Razavi v. Walkuski
55 N.E.3d 252
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff Omid Shariat Razavi and defendants Eva Walkuski and Ariel Zekelman were students at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC); Walkuski and Zekelman reported alleged sexual assaults to SAIC campus security.
- Walkuski also accompanied campus security to the Chicago Police Department and obtained a stalking no‑contact order; SAIC conducted a disciplinary hearing and expelled plaintiff.
- Plaintiff sued Walkuski, Zekelman, and SAIC for defamation (per se and per quod) based on the campus security reports.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under the absolute privilege for reports to law enforcement; the trial court denied the motion and certified a question under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308.
- The certified question: whether absolute privilege for reporting crimes to law enforcement applies when a student reports on‑campus sexual violence to campus security.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reports to campus security qualify as reports to "law enforcement" entitled to absolute privilege | Reports to campus security are not law enforcement and thus are not absolutely privileged; defendants can be liable for defamation | Campus security functions as law enforcement for campus matters and reports to them should receive absolute privilege | Court held statements to campus security are absolutely privileged when made to initiate legal proceedings |
| Whether absolute privilege requires a formal legal proceeding at time of reporting | Plaintiff: privilege should not apply absent a true legal proceeding or where motive undermines protection | Defendants: privilege attaches to reports to law enforcement-type actors regardless of reporter's subjective intent | Court held privilege does not turn on reporter's subjective intent; reports to campus security presumed made to institute legal proceedings |
| Whether private vs. public university status affects privilege | Plaintiff: private university context undermines extension of privilege | Defendants: status of institution is irrelevant to public policy protecting reporting victims | Court: public policy favors treating private and public campus security the same for privilege purposes |
| Risk of chilling reporting if absolute privilege denied | Plaintiff: not emphasized | Defendants: denying privilege would chill victims from reporting | Court agreed denying privilege would chill reporting and harm campus safety; privilege extended accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 383 Ill. App. 3d 129 (noting Rule 308 limits appellate review to certified question)
- Vincent v. Williams, 279 Ill. App. 3d 1 (defining absolute privilege elements for statements to law enforcement)
- Morris v. Harvey Cycle & Camper, Inc., 392 Ill. App. 3d 399 (privilege protects reports to further investigation despite alleged ulterior motive)
- Zych v. Tucker, 363 Ill. App. 3d 831 (privilege is a question of law; quasijudicial analysis)
- Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. 2008) (Indiana Supreme Court extended absolute privilege to student reports of sexual harassment)