Fascian v. Bratz
| Decision Date | 21 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-398,80-398 |
| Parties | , 51 Ill.Dec. 901 Kathy A. FASCIAN and Robert L. Modglin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Henry Richard BRATZ, Robert Eichler, Carole Vogelsang, and the Kroger Co., a Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William T. Makovic, East Peoria, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Donald G. Beste, Jerry T. Stafford, Peoria, for defendants-appellees.
This case arises out of an investigation of the theft of four money orders from a Kroger store. Kroger management suspected a Kroger employee, Kathy Fascian, and her boyfriend, Robert Modglin, a state policeman, of the theft. No charges being filed, Kathy Fascian and Robert Modglin, plaintiffs, brought a slander action against the corporate defendant, Kroger Company, and its employees, Henry Bratz, Robert Eichler, and Carole Vogelsang (Ms. Vogelsang is not a party to this appeal). In a bench trial at the close of plaintiffs' case, the trial judge granted the defendants' motion for judgment (Ill.Rev.Stat. (1980), ch. 110, § 64(3)). After an unsuccessful attempt to vacate that order and obtain a new trial, the plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
On June 10, 1975, Carole Vogelsang went to work at the Madison Park Kroger store in Peoria. Balancing the previous day's receipts, she found a $561 shortage. After accounting for $11, she informed Mr. Wooden, the store manager. He contacted Henry Bratz, a Kroger security employee. Robert Eichler, a risk manager, was called in from Indianapolis, Indiana. An investigation was undertaken.
Bratz determined the source of the deficit was stolen money orders. Money orders were issued only by office personnel. To issue one, the employee put the pre-printed form in a machine which recorded the amount, Kroger name, and store number, while imprinting a serial number on a tape. The tape was sent to the company who printed the forms; Kroger retained a carbon of the transaction. To negotiate a money order, the purchaser only had to write his name and address and the payee's name on the money order. When comparing the serial numbers from the tape and the individual cash amounts for money orders issued from the store on June 9, 1975, Bratz found: four money orders in sequential order totaling $550; the amounts of each of the four were unusually high; three of the four stolen money orders were negotiated in other Kroger stores by a man of similar description; the purchasers' names and addresses on those money orders could not be verified. Bratz concluded the four money orders were issued by an office employee who did not receive payment for them.
The Kroger investigation focused on Kathy Fascian. On June 9th she was working at the time of the theft. So were at least two other office workers. Earlier that day Ms. Fascian prepared a money order for her boyfriend, Robert Modglin, but later voided it since he bought one elsewhere before arriving at the store. Admittedly, she was familiar with issuing these money orders as was Modglin, who frequently purchased them. Modglin, a state policeman, fit the description of the person who negotiated the three stolen money orders.
In their investigation, Eichler and Bratz had several interviews with Kathy Fascian on Kroger premises. On July 1, 1975, with only Bratz present, Eichler said:
Similar accusations were made in other meetings. Steadfastly, Ms. Fascian maintained innocence.
On July 10, 1975, Eichler and Bratz met with Illinois State Police in their Springfield offices. Eichler felt that Modglin's employer should investigate the matter. The Illinois State Police agreed. First, the charge was undertaken as a personnel inquiry. Later, a full theft investigation was initiated. Modglin was cleared of any wrongdoing.
Both plaintiffs claim the investigation undermined their honesty and credibility. They still work for their respective employers and neither were suspended or lost wages.
Appellants present three issues for review: (1) whether the alleged defamatory statements were privileged; (2) whether such privilege was abused; (3) whether the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for judgment at the close of plaintiffs' evidence.
Both plaintiffs admit all challenged statements were made only in the presence of Kroger management employees or police officers investigating the theft. They contend these statements are slanderous per se since they accused them of the commission of a crime and that these statements were not privileged. They contend further that any conditional privilege defendants possessed was abused.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmidt v. Ameritech Illinois
...it was authorized by the employer/employee relationship that existed between Thomas and Ameritech. See Fascian v. Bratz, 96 Ill. App.3d 367, 369, 51 Ill.Dec. 901, 421 N.E.2d 409 (1981) (employer "had a qualified right to make appropriate internal checks concerning the job conduct of its emp......
-
Weber v. Village of Hanover Park, 90 C 2195.
...v. Simonaitis, 126 Ill.App.3d 157, 81 Ill.Dec. 335, 341, 466 N.E.2d 1137, 1143 (1st Dist.1984); Fascian v. Bratz, 96 Ill. App.3d 367, 51 Ill.Dec. 901, 903, 421 N.E.2d 409, 411 (3d Dist.1981); Judge v. Rockford Memorial Hospital, 17 Ill.App.2d 365, 377, 150 N.E.2d 202, 207 (2d Dist.1958). Ro......
-
Babb v. Minder
...Minder's privilege. A qualified privilege is an affirmative defense to a defamation claim. Fascian v. Bratz, 96 Ill.App.3d 367, 51 Ill.Dec. 901, 904, 421 N.E.2d 409, 412 (3d Dist.1981). The existence of such a privilege is a question of law for the court to decide. Myers v. Spohnholtz, 11 I......
-
Layne v. Builders Plumbing Supply Co., Inc.
...a crime and was made to the public authority charged with investigating such crimes. Plaintiff relies on Fascian v. Bratz (1981), 96 Ill.App.3d 367, 51 Ill.Dec. 901, 421 N.E.2d 409, to support her position that the statements in the case at bar were protected by a conditional, or qualified,......