Dobias v. Oak Park & River Forest High Sch. Dist. 200, 1–15–2205.

Citation57 N.E.3d 551,404 Ill.Dec. 792
Decision Date23 June 2016
Docket NumberNo. 1–15–2205.,1–15–2205.
Parties Danielle DOBIAS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. OAK PARK AND RIVER FOREST HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 200, Thomas Tarrant, and John Stelzer, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Nicholas F. Esposito, Bradley K. Staubus, and Brittany N. Bermudez, all of Burr Ridge, for appellant.

Rachel E. Lutner and Jennifer L. Jones, both of Chicago, for appellees.

OPINION

Justice ELLIS

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether any or all of the following statements made in writing by a high school coach about the plaintiff—one of his assistant coaches and also a teacher at the school—constitute defamation per se:

i. That the plaintiff [w]as rolling around on a bed in a hotel room alone with an athlete”;
ii. That the plaintiff visited athletes late one night while they were drinking alcohol and using drugs and “hung out” with them, later taking them home without informing the school or their parents about their behavior;
iii. That the plaintiff [c]elebrated an athlete's accomplishment by drinking alcohol”;
iv. That the plaintiff was “verbally and physically aggressive toward” him; and
v. That the plaintiff [p]hysically assaulted [him] by grabbing [his] arm and trying to force [him] into a room at the end of the school day.”

¶ 2 We hold that the first two statements constituted defamation per se, and we thus reverse the dismissal of the defamation claims to this extent. We hold that all other statements did not constitute defamation per se, and the claims relating to those statements were properly dismissed.

¶ 3 Plaintiff, Danielle Dobias, a schoolteacher and assistant coach at Oak Park and River Forest High School, sued her employer and her two supervisors, defendants Thomas Tarrant and John Stelzer, alleging defamation per se and false-light invasion of privacy based on a number of statements made by Tarrant about plaintiff concerning her interactions with athletes and with Tarrant himself. The circuit court dismissed the third amended complaint, ruling that the statements at issue were capable of innocent constructions, were nonactionable opinion, or were not highly offensive to a reasonable person.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Plaintiff filed her original complaint on October 23, 2013, followed by several amended complaints. She filed her third amended complaint on November 7, 2014. Count I alleged defamation per se; count II alleged false-light invasion of privacy; count III alleged willful and wanton misconduct against Tarrant; and count IV alleged willful and wanton improper supervision against the high school. Only counts I and II are before us; plaintiff has waived her claims in counts III and IV.

¶ 6 As the complaint was dismissed pursuant to section 2–615 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2012) ), we must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true. Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo's Designer Direct, Inc., 227 Ill.2d 381, 384, 317 Ill.Dec. 855, 882 N.E.2d 1011 (2008). Our review is limited to whether the third amended complaint stated a cause of action for defamation per se or false-light invasion of privacy. Because the context in which an allegedly defamatory statement is made must be considered as part of a court's analysis (see, e.g.,

Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill.2d 399, 415, 217 Ill.Dec. 720, 667 N.E.2d 1296 (1996) ), we include most of plaintiff's allegations. We also include the entire statements contained in the exhibits on which plaintiff bases her complaint.

¶ 7 According to the allegations in the third amended complaint, both plaintiff and Tarrant are schoolteachers for defendant Oak Park and River Forest High School District 200 (OPRF). Plaintiff is a special education teacher; Tarrant was a special education behavioral interventionist with OPRF's behavioral intervention program whose duties included assisting students and staff, including plaintiff, in maintaining discipline with disruptive and/or disorderly students. Tarrant's office was a short distance from plaintiff's classroom on the fourth-floor.

¶ 8 Plaintiff is the assistant coach of the boys' track and field team and was also a former assistant coach for the girls' cross-country team. Tarrant, as head coach for the girls' cross-country team, was plaintiff's supervisor. Defendant, John Stelzer, OPRF's athletic director, was also plaintiff's supervisor.

¶ 9 The complaint alleges that in March 2012, when plaintiff and Tarrant were both married to other individuals, Tarrant told plaintiff that he was in love with her. Plaintiff rejected his advances. In April 2012, Tarrant asked plaintiff about her marriage and told her he would be “the perfect match” for her. Tarrant also gave plaintiff a blanket, telling her it was “good for fertility.” Plaintiff again rejected his advances. She reported the incidents to OPRF officials but received no response.

¶ 10 In July 2012, Tarrant began a pattern of retaliation against plaintiff. This alleged retaliation involved Tarrant's role as a behavioral interventionist, as well as his role as plaintiff's supervisor for the girls' cross-country team.

¶ 11 A. Tarrant's Alleged Retaliation as Behavioral Interventionist

¶ 12 Tarrant began ignoring plaintiff's requests for special education behavioral intervention. These included her request that Tarrant meet with recently suspended students, who were being returned to her classroom, to counsel them about avoiding fights in her classroom. Tarrant also ignored plaintiff's request for help after one of her students sent her a “crude paper” and made a “sexual gesture” to her.

¶ 13 In September, plaintiff's seventh-grade students stopped doing their work and said to plaintiff: “You won't be here for much longer.” Plaintiff sent the students to Tarrant's office for discipline. They returned laughing and said, “Everyone says you are getting fired.” A few days later, Tarrant refused another request for help from plaintiff with students in her classroom. Tarrant also ignored plaintiff's e-mail request for help after a student walked out of her classroom after she reprimanded the student for discussing drugs.

¶ 14 Tarrant continued to ignore plaintiff's requests for behavioral intervention from October through December 2012. Plaintiff continued to complain to superiors and continued to request that Tarrant perform his duty. There was no investigation, corrective action, or response. In November 2012, plaintiff requested peer mediation through human resources regarding Tarrant's continued refusals to assist her in her job. Tarrant refused to participate.

¶ 15 B. Tarrant's Alleged Retaliation as Head Coach

¶ 16 Plaintiff also alleged that Tarrant retaliated against her in his role as her supervisor for the girls' cross-country team. Starting in July 2012, Tarrant, who had previously rated plaintiff as “excellent” in all of her coaching performance evaluations, began rating her as only “good” to “satisfactory.” Tarrant asked plaintiff if he needed to get another assistant coach for the girls' cross-country team. He also began refusing her requests for coaching schedule changes that he had previously allowed. He ignored plaintiff during girls' cross-country team matches and refused to meet with her for coach meetings, stating he would talk only with the other female assistant coach. He refused to provide plaintiff with a copy of his girls' cross-country team schedule. Plaintiff therefore had to, for the first time, create her own schedule.

¶ 17 In September 2012, plaintiff told Tarrant to stop asking other school personnel questions about her. Tarrant asked others where plaintiff was moving her residence. When plaintiff and the other female assistant coach took a weekend trip, Tarrant asked the other coach where plaintiff would be sleeping. He also told plaintiff she should not coach the cross-country team with him.

¶ 18 C. Alleged Retaliation Against Plaintiff by OPRF, Tarrant, and Stelzer

¶ 19 In October 2012, plaintiff complained to OPRF supervisors that Tarrant had made inappropriate romantic and sexually harassing overtures to her. Ten days later, in retaliation for her complaint about Tarrant, OPRF's human resource director ordered plaintiff not to attend the State cross-country match that plaintiff was supposed to coach.

¶ 20 1. Stelzer Fires Plaintiff as Assistant Head Coach

¶ 21 On January 15, 2013, two days after returning from Christmas break, Stelzer, the athletic director, told plaintiff she would be fired as assistant cross-country coach for the following year. This decision was based on a poor evaluation by Tarrant and caused plaintiff to lose her coach's stipend of approximately $6000 per year. Stelzer told plaintiff that she could reapply for the position if her relationship with Tarrant improved. Tarrant refused to go over the latest performance evaluation with plaintiff.

¶ 22 2. OPRF Reassigns Tarrant

¶ 23 In January 2013, plaintiff complained to school officials about having no behavioral interventionist support from Tarrant. A day later, she also complained that Tarrant stalked her while she coached the boys' track and field team.

¶ 24 In February 2013, Tarrant was removed as plaintiff's behavioral interventionist. Tarrant's office remained on the fourth floor near plaintiff's classroom, and plaintiff was told to call someone on the first floor if she needed assistance.

¶ 25 3. Plaintiff and Tarrant Sign No–Contact Agreements

¶ 26 In March 2013, plaintiff was told that, due to an investigation regarding her complaints against Tarrant, she was to stay away from the school until told to return. Five days later, both plaintiff and Tarrant signed documents that they would not talk to, or about, the other or park next to the other (signed written no-contact agreement).

¶ 27 4. Tarrant Refuses Plaintiff's Request for Assistance in Her Classroom

¶ 28 On March 15, 2013, one of plaintiff's special education students...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Reyes v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 28, 2019
    ...and so the matter is forfeited. See also Dobias v. Oak Park & River Forest High School District 200 , 2016 IL App (1st) 152205, ¶, 404 Ill.Dec. 792, 57 N.E.3d 551 118 n.2 (declining to address whether the action was barred by a section of the Act because, even though this court may affirm t......
  • Benton ex rel. Child v. Little League Baseball, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 2020
    ...or imprisonment as punishment. Dobias v. Oak Park & River Forest High School District 200 , 2016 IL App (1st) 152205, ¶ 87, 404 Ill.Dec. 792, 57 N.E.3d 551. If a defamatory statement is actionable per se , the plaintiff need not plead or prove actual damage to his reputation to recover. Bry......
  • Jaros v. Vill. of Downers Grove
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 25, 2020
    ...to be essential to job duties. Plaintiff notes Dobias v. Oak Park & River Forest High School District 200 , 2016 IL App (1st) 152205, 404 Ill.Dec. 792, 57 N.E.3d 551. In that case, Danielle Dobias, a high school teacher and coach, sued her supervisor, Thomas Tarrant, claiming that he made s......
  • Kozlowski v. Greenridge Farm, Inc., 18 C 147
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 22, 2018
    ......, Peter Mark Follenweider, DiMonte & Lizak, Park Ridge, IL, for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ... salary, but noted that she would receive a $200 bonus for each new store she opened and a ...303, 866 N.E.2d at 121 ); see also Dobias v. Oak Park & River Forest High Sch. Dist. 200 , ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT