2024 IL App (1st) 221524
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- Bryan Younge was employed by Cushman & Wakefield from 2003 until his resignation in 2016, working within several practice groups including the Hospitality and Gaming Group (H&G) led by Eric Lewis.
- In 2015, Younge’s territory within the H&G group was significantly reduced by Lewis, and internal communications reflected concerns about Younge’s compliance with group protocols and company policies.
- These concerns, primarily raised by Lewis and another group leader, Andreasen, led to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) being issued to Younge in December 2015, which Younge disputed as inaccurate and harmful to his career.
- Younge accepted an offer from another company in February 2016 and ultimately resigned from Cushman in March 2016, asserting he was forced out by the actions of his supervisors.
- He filed suit against Cushman, Lewis, and Schaeffer alleging (1) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and (3) negligent supervision.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all counts; Younge appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference (against Lewis) | Lewis acted maliciously, providing false info to harm Younge and for self-interest | Lewis acted for legitimate business reasons, not solely self-interest | Reversed summary judgment—triable fact issue exists against Lewis |
| Tortious interference (against Schaeffer) | Schaeffer included fabricated info, complicit in harming Younge | Schaeffer relied on others, no malicious or self-serving intent | Affirmed summary judgment—no evidence of malicious/self-serving intent |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Defendants’ actions were extreme and outrageous enough for IIED | Conduct did not meet threshold for IIED; not sufficiently egregious | Affirmed summary judgment—conduct not extreme or outrageous |
| Negligent supervision (against Cushman) | Cushman failed to supervise Lewis and Schaeffer, allowing harm to Younge | No specific reason to supervise differently; PIP disputes not enough | Reversed summary judgment—triable issues on Cushman’s supervision |
Key Cases Cited
- Grako v. Bill Walsh Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc., 2023 IL App (3d) 220324 (outlines elements for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage in Illinois)
- DiPietra v. GATX Corp., 2020 IL App (1st) 192196 (IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct, intent, and severe distress in employment context)
- Doe v. Coe, 2019 IL 123521 (distinguishes between duty to supervise and duty to control in negligent supervision claims)
- Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352 (articulates findings of law and fact regarding negligent supervision)
- Harrison v. Addington, 2011 IL App (3d) 100810 (qualified privilege applies to corporate officers in interference claims, unless acting solely for self-interest)
- Fox v. Adams and Associates, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 182470 (officers/employees generally have qualified privilege unless acting maliciously)
- Schweihs v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2016 IL 120041 (defines standards for extreme/outageous conduct and severe distress for IIED claims)