Benitez v. KFC Nat. Management Co.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-97-1309, No. 2-98-0006. |
| Citation | 714 N.E.2d 1002,239 Ill.Dec. 705,305 Ill. App.3d 1027 |
| Parties | Reyna BENITEZ et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KFC NATIONAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee (Donald Binninger et al., Defendants-Appellants; Javier Deloya, Defendant). Reyna Benitez et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. KFC National Management Company, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant (Donald Binninger et al., Defendants). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Raymond A. Boldt, Mundelein, for Donald Binninger, Guillermo Castrejon, Lucio Castrejon, Ricardo Castro and Javier Deloya.
Steven M. Schwarzbach, Law Offices of Steven M. Schwarzbach, Twin Lakes, WI, Kevin E. Bry, Oak Park, for Reyna Benitez, Natalie Poyer and Maria Velasquez in No. 2-97-1309.
Eric J. Pelton, Kienbaum, Opperwall, Hardy & Pelton, PLC, Birmingham, MI, for KFC National Management Co. in No. 2-97-1309.
Steven M. Schwarzbach, Law Offices of Steven M. Schwarzbach, Twin Lakes, WI, for Reyna Benitez, Natalie Poyer and Maria Velasquez in No. 2-98-0006.
Eric J. Pelton, Kienbaum, Opperwall, Hardy & Pelton, PLC, Birmingham, MI, Daniel J. Sheridan, Dickinson Wright-Illinois, Chicago, for KFC National Management Co. in No. 2-98-0006. Justice COLWELL delivered the opinion of the court:
Reyna Benitez, Maria Velasquez, and Natalie Poyer (collectively, plaintiffs) worked with Donald Binninger, Ricardo Castro, Lucio Castrejon, Guillermo Castrejon, and Javier Deloya (collectively, employee-defendants) at a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Northbrook. Plaintiffs filed suit against employee-defendants and KFC National Management Company (KFC), alleging, inter alia, that employee-defendants engaged in a systematic spying operation on plaintiffs through a hole in the ceiling of the KFC women's bathroom. The circuit court of Lake County dismissed KFC from the lawsuit, and the case subsequently proceeded to trial against four of the five employee-defendants. After a bench trial, the circuit court entered judgments in favor of each plaintiff and against the four employee-defendants. Plaintiffs and employee-defendants appealed, and KFC filed a cross-appeal.
The issues on appeal are as follows: (1) whether the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against employee-defendants in plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint related back to plaintiffs' original complaint; (2) whether plaintiffs stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) whether plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations of section 13-201 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code)(735 ILCS 5/13-201 (West 1994)); (4) whether plaintiffs' claims were preempted by section 8-111(C) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/8-111(C) (West 1992)); (5) whether the circuit court improperly struck plaintiffs' second amended complaint; (6) whether the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 1992)) preempted plaintiffs' claims; (7) whether plaintiffs' claims against employee-defendants were res judicata; (8) whether plaintiffs proved their intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; and (9) whether the circuit court erred in denying KFC's motion for sanctions against plaintiffs. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are former female employees of KFC. They worked at KFC as cooks, cashiers, and food servers. Each employee-defendant worked for KFC in the same capacities as plaintiffs except for Binninger, who was plaintiffs' supervisor. On March 9, 1995, plaintiffs filed suit against employee-defendants and KFC for invasion of privacy and negligence. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that between October 1992 and December 1993 employee-defendants (a) poked holes in the ceiling of KFC's women's restroom, (b) observed plaintiffs disrobing and using the restroom facilities, (c) took pictures of plaintiffs through the hole in the ceiling, (d) described plaintiffs' private anatomies to others, (e) viewed and photographed female customers using the restroom, and (f) sold expired and tampered-with food to the general public. After KFC answered the complaint and raised several affirmative defenses, plaintiffs amended the complaint to include KFC's correct corporate name. All other allegations remained the same.
KFC subsequently moved to strike as irrelevant and scandalous the allegations that employee-defendants spied on female customers and sold expired and tampered-with food. While KFC's motion was pending, plaintiffs sought leave of court to file a second amended complaint. Judge William Block granted both motions, and plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint in August 1995.
The second amended complaint contained three counts: one against employee-defendants entitled "invasion of privacy," one against KFC entitled "negligent retention of employees," and one against KFC entitled "negligent hiring." Plaintiffs included the same facts that Judge Block struck from the first amended complaint and further alleged that employee-defendants locked one employee in a freezer and chased another with a butcher's knife. KFC moved to strike the second amended complaint on the grounds that it contained the same alleged scandalous and impertinent information as the first. Before Judge Block ruled on KFC's motion to strike, plaintiffs sought leave to file a third amended complaint, which was virtually identical to the second amended complaint. On October 3, 1995, Judge Block granted KFC's motion to strike, denied plaintiffs leave to file the third amended complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Referring to plaintiffs' customer-related allegations, Judge Block ordered plaintiffs to refrain from stating claims on behalf of third parties.
Plaintiffs filed their 12-count fourth amended complaint on October 23, 1995. Each of the three plaintiffs brought four causes of action. Counts I through III alleged invasion of privacy against employee-defendants. Counts IV through VI, entitled "invasion of privacy, willful and wanton," were also directed at employee-defendants. Counts VII through XII were against KFC. Counts VII through IX were entitled "invasion of privacy—respondeat superior," and counts X through XII, "negligent retention."
KFC subsequently moved to dismiss the counts against it pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 1996)). KFC maintained (a) that plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claims were barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 13-201 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/13-201 (West 1994)); (b) that section 8-111(C) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/8-111(C) (West 1992)) preempted the entire lawsuit; and (c) that the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 1992)) barred plaintiffs from going forward with their claims against KFC. Without stating his reasons, Judge Block ruled in January 1996. His order stated as follows: (Emphasis added.) The order contains no language indicating that the order was appealable.
Employee-defendants had not answered any of the complaints, and, on January 23, 1996, plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of default. Judge Block entered an order of default against employee-defendants on March 5 and, on April 25, 1996, entered a judgment against them.
Four days later, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. They sought review of Judge Block's October 1995 and January 1996 orders. Nonetheless, in May 1996, all but one (Deloya) of the employee-defendants filed motions to vacate the default judgment against them. The circuit court granted those motions. Plaintiffs advised the appellate court that the circuit court had vacated the default judgment and that the October 1995 and January 1996 orders were therefore no longer final. Thus, the appellate court determined that it was without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs' appeal at that time and accordingly dismissed that appeal.
The case proceeded against all of the employee-defendants except for Deloya. In November or December 1996, however, Judge Block died, and the case was reassigned to Judge Terrence Brady. Judge Brady dismissed counts IV through VI of the fourth amended complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to file a fifth amended complaint. On January 8, 1997, plaintiffs filed a two-count, fifth amended complaint in which plaintiffs alleged the same facts as they did in their prior complaints. Plaintiffs also alleged that Binninger was acting as the "alter ego" of KFC while the acts giving rise to the suit occurred. In both count I (invasion of privacy) and count II (intentional infliction of emotional distress), plaintiffs sought recovery from employee-defendants and from KFC.
On February 18, 1997, KFC, relying upon Judge Block's January 1996 order, moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against it. KFC also sought sanctions against plaintiffs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 (155 Ill.2d R. 137). Judge Brady initially denied both parts of KFC's motion in February 1997, and KFC thereafter moved for Judge Brady to reconsider his denial of KFC's motion to dismiss. In March 1997, Judge Brady vacated his February 1997 order, dismissed KFC from the lawsuit, and barred plaintiffs "from bringing further claims against KFC arising from the transactions and occurrences as set forth in Plaintiffs' various pleadings."
In February 1997, employee-defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 1996)) in which they raised the same issues that are the subjects of the instant appeals. Judge Brady denied the motion.
A bench trial began on November 24, 1997. On November 25, 1997, Judge Brady entered judgment against employee-defendants. The order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGreal v. AT & T Corp.
...mart Corp., 311 Ill.App.3d 573, 243 Ill.Dec. 591, 723 N.E.2d 1192, 1196 (1st Dist.2000); Benitez v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 305 Ill.App.3d 1027, 239 Ill.Dec. 705, 714 N.E.2d 1002, 1006–07 (2d Dist.1999); Davis v. Temple, 284 Ill.App.3d 983, 220 Ill.Dec. 593, 673 N.E.2d 737, 744 (5th Dist.1996)......
-
Messina v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 14 C 7099
...a private home, or making persistent and unwanted telephone calls. " (emphasis added) (quoting Benitez v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co. , 714 N.E.2d 1002, 1007, 305 Ill.App.3d 1027, 239 Ill.Dec. 705 (1999) )); Fisher v. Quality Hyundai, Inc. , No. 01 C 3243, 2002 WL 47968, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2......
-
Krause v. Turnberry Country Club
...1368, 2004 WL 1557817, at *2-3, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12171, at *7-8 (N.D.Ill. July 7, 2004); Benitez v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 305 Ill. App.3d 1027, 239 Ill.Dec. 705, 714 N.E.2d 1002, 1007 (1999). Krause's false imprisonment and assault and battery claims are also not preempted by the IHRA, ......
-
Schiller v. Mitchell
...it adopted the four-pronged test set forth in Melvin. This court recognized the tort in Benitez v. KFC National Management Co., 305 Ill.App.3d 1027, 1033-34, 239 Ill.Dec. 705, 714 N.E.2d 1002 (1999). In Johnson v. K mart Corp., 311 Ill.App.3d 573, 243 Ill.Dec. 591, 723 N.E.2d 1192 (2000), t......
-
Intrusion Claim Against Documentary Filmmaker Dismissed
...have included medical exam rooms, restrooms, and private homes. See, Acuff, 77 F.Supp 2d at 92 , Benitez v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 305 Ill.App.3d 1027, 1033 (2nd Dist. 1999), and Lovgren, 126 Ill.2d at 417. Further, Illinois courts have found tortious intrusion claims to exist where parties h......
-
The Illinois Appellate Court Issues Key Ruling On Statute Of Limitations In BIPA Class Actions
...of matter violating the right of privacy." Id. at ' 20. Relying on its decision in Benitez v. KFC National Management Co., 305 Ill. App. 3d 1027, 1033 (1999), the Appellate Court explained that Illinois trial courts have recognized two types of privacy interests in the right to privacy ' se......
-
The Illinois Appellate Court Issues Key Ruling On Statute Of Limitations In BIPA Class Actions
...of matter violating the right of privacy." Id. at ' 20. Relying on its decision in Benitez v. KFC National Management Co., 305 Ill. App. 3d 1027, 1033 (1999), the Appellate Court explained that Illinois trial courts have recognized two types of privacy interests in the right to privacy ' se......
-
Genetic Privacy: New Intrusion a New Tort?
...Sept. 22, 1998); Patterson v. Augat Wiring Systems, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 1509 (M.D. Ala. 1996). 228. Benitez v. KFC Nat. Management Co., 714 N.E.2d 1002, (Ill. App. Ct. 1999), appeal denied 723 N.E.2d 1161 (Ill. 1999); Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999); Tronc......
-
Genetic Privacy: New Intrusion a New Tort?
...Sept. 22, 1998); Patterson v. Augat Wiring Systems, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 1509 (M.D. Ala. 1996). 228. Benitez v. KFC Nat. Management Co., 714 N.E.2d 1002, (Ill. App. Ct. 1999), appeal denied 723 N.E.2d 1161 (Ill. 1999); Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999); Tronc......
-
Related State Torts
...e-mail and contact lists; • Placing cookies on a hard drive to track Website visits. See, e.g., Benitez v. KFC Nat. Management Co. , 305 Ill. App. 3d 1027, 714 N.E.2d 1002, 1033 (Ill. 1999) (finding that plaintiffs stated intrusion claim where coworkers poked holes in ceiling of women’s bat......
-
Protecting the press from privacy.
...unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. CONST. amend. IV. (29) See, e.g., Benitez v. KFC Nat'l Management Co., 714 N.E. 2d 1002, 1007 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (categorizing a former female employees' suit against the restaurant based on alleged spying through a hole in ......