99 F.4th 1007
7th Cir.2024Background
- Plaintiffs Sun and Zhao accused their former professor Xu of sexual and emotional abuse while at UIUC; Sun later publicized these allegations on national television.
- Plaintiff Wang, a professor at another university, posted online statements about Xu's alleged history of sexual misconduct, warning students and the public.
- Xu counterclaimed, alleging defamation (against Sun) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against all three plaintiffs, arguing their statements ruined his reputation and career.
- At trial, a jury found for Xu on all claims, awarding him substantial damages against Sun and Wang.
- Sun and Wang appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for Xu’s IIED claims and the district court’s evidentiary ruling admitting evidence about Sun’s relationship with another professor.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Xu on the IIED counterclaim against Wang but affirmed the judgment against Sun and dismissed the appeal for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for IIED (Wang) | Wang’s online posts were not extreme & outrageous; no abuse of power or intent to cause distress. | Xu suffered severe distress due to false statements; posts damaged reputation. | For Wang; no reasonable jury could find Wang’s conduct extreme & outrageous under Illinois law. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for IIED (Sun) | Sun’s statements were not extreme & outrageous; she believed them true; no severe distress shown. | Xu presented evidence Sun fabricated claims and publicized them nationally, causing job loss and distress. | Against Sun; sufficient evidence of extreme & outrageous conduct and severe distress. |
| Evidentiary ruling (Rule 412) | Admission of Sun’s relationship with another professor was unduly prejudicial, warranting a new trial. | Relationship evidence was relevant to damages and causation as raised by Sun’s expert. | Admission affirmed; court appropriately limited scope and balanced prejudice. |
| First Amendment defense (Sun) | Sun’s comments addressed a matter of public concern, thus protected by First Amendment. | Argument not preserved below, so should be waived. | Waived; Sun did not raise First Amendment below. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGrath v. Fahey, 533 N.E.2d 806 (Ill. 1988) (defines "extreme and outrageous" conduct standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress).
- Schweihs v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 77 N.E.3d 50 (Ill. 2016) (sets out elements for IIED under Illinois law).
- Kolegas v. Heftel Broad. Corp., 607 N.E.2d 201 (Ill. 1992) (explains community publication as factor in determining outrageousness in IIED claims).
- Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 798 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. 2003) (defines "severe emotional distress" under Illinois law).
- Bristow v. Drake St. Inc., 41 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 1994) (medical evidence not always required for IIED under Illinois law).