Harrison v. Addington

• Decision Date: 06 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 3–10–0810.,3–10–0810.
• Citation: 2011 IL App (3d) 100810,955 N.E.2d 700,353 Ill.Dec. 233
• Parties: Andre HARRISON, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Michael ADDINGTON, James Olson, Roy DeVault, Sherri Martin, Jeff Chisholm, Steve Brockway, Mark Digney and Metroe Hornbuckle, Defendants–Appellees (Shawn Maddox, Defendant).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2011 IL App (3d) 100810

955 N.E.2d 700

353 Ill.Dec. 233

Andre HARRISON, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Michael ADDINGTON, James Olson, Roy DeVault, Sherri Martin, Jeff Chisholm, Steve Brockway, Mark Digney and Metroe Hornbuckle, Defendants–Appellees (Shawn Maddox, Defendant).

No. 3–10–0810.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Sept. 6, 2011.

Stephen T. Fieweger (argued), Katz, Huntoon & Fieweger, P.C., Moline, Cameron Davidson, Lane & Waterman, LLC, Davenport, for Andre Harrison.Nina G. Stillman (argued), Christopher J. Boran, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Chicago, for Michael Addington.

OPINION

Justice SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Appellant-plaintiff, Andre Harrison, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment on behalf of appellees-defendants, Michael Addington, James Olson, Roy DeVault, Sherri Martin, Jeff Chisholm, Steven Brockway, Mark Digney and Metroe Hornbuckle.

¶ 2 Counts II and IV of the third amended complaint allege that Olson and DeVault defamed appellant by repeating the false statements that appellant committed a sexual assault and that there was a warrant for Harrison's arrest.

¶ 3 Counts VI through XIII of the third amended complaint allege that Addison, Olson, DeVault, Martin, Chisholm, Brockway, Digney and Hornbuckle each intentionally interfered with appellant's employment by improperly using a company investigation as an opportunity to terminate appellant's employment with Deere & Co.

¶ 4 Counts I, III, and V are not at issue in this appeal. Counts I and V are claims of defamation and intentional interference against Shawn Maddox and are not involved in this appeal. Count III is a claim of defamation against Michael Addington; appellant conceded the motion for summary judgment.

¶ 5 For the reasons that follow, we hold that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of each defendant, and we affirm the judgment.

¶ 6 FACTS

¶ 7 I. The Parties on Appeal

¶ 8 Appellant began working for Deere in 1999 as an industrial relations representative. Prior to his termination in 2009, Deere promoted him five times and increased his salary on more than 10 occasions.

¶ 9 When terminated, appellant was the operations manager at John Deere Seeding Group (Seeding). At that time, each of the defendants was employed by Deere. Their respective titles, and work relationship to appellant, if any, were:

— Roy DeVault, global director, Seeding (appellant's second-level supervisor);

— James Olson, factory manager, Seeding (appellant's immediate supervisor);

— Jeff Chisholm, global director, Deere worldwide security;

— Steven Brockway, regional director, Deere worldwide security;

— Mark Digney, investigator, Deere worldwide security;

— Metroe Hornbuckle, vice president, Deere human resources;

— Michael Addington, director, Deere human resources; and

— Sherri Martin, director, Deere human resources.

¶ 10 Other Relevant Individuals

— Shawn Maddox, Seeding employee, only remaining defendant after the trial court granted summary judgment to appellees, father of Alissa Maddox;

— Alissa Maddox, Seeding mail room employee, daughter of Shawn Maddox;

— Denny Black, Deere industrial relations administrator;

— Heather Thielbert, Seeding contingent employee, appellant's subordinate (employed by Volt); and

— Angie Soliz, Deere employee, neither a supervisor nor subordinate of appellant; married to an employee appellant managed.

¶ 11 II. Allegations

¶ 12 On Sunday, August 30, 2009, Shawn Maddox called Denny Black and asked him what would happen if he assaulted someone at work. Black informed him of the consequences. Recognizing an underlying issue, Black asked Shawn why he had asked. Shawn informed Black that his daughter, Alissa Maddox, told him that appellant raped her the previous night. Shawn said that Alissa obtained medical help, filed a report with law enforcement, and either that there was or might be a warrant for appellant's arrest. Shawn also told Black that Alissa claimed appellant was forcing Heather Thielbert to continue a sexual relationship with appellant by threatening her position at Seeding. Shawn explained that Thielbert was at appellant's home at the time of the attack. Black recommended that Shawn contact Seeding global director, DeVault.

¶ 13 Later that day, Shawn Maddox spoke with DeVault, who was out of the country. After speaking with Shawn, DeVault called Seeding factory manager James Olson, appellant's direct supervisor. DeVault told Olson about his conversation with Shawn Maddox, including the allegations made against appellant. Since DeVault was scheduled to be out of the country for the week, Olson agreed to contact Black for more information so that he could formulate a recommendation on how to proceed.

¶ 14 Olson and DeVault agreed that appellant should work from home pending further investigation. They felt that as a management employee, appellant could easily work offsite. They also determined that Deere worldwide security should be notified, in accordance with company policies that required the reporting of potential incidents of workplace harassment or violence.

¶ 15 On Monday morning, Olson met with appellant at Seeding. He told him that Shawn Maddox had reported to the company that appellant sexually assaulted his daughter and that there was, or might be, an arrest warrant for appellant. Olson told appellant to work from home and that he should take care of any supposed warrant that might exist.

¶ 16 After meeting with appellant, Olson contacted Deere worldwide regional security manager Stephen Brockway; he informed Brockway of the allegations made against appellant. Brockway then assigned worldwide security investigator Mark Digney to conduct an investigation at Seeding.

¶ 17 Later in the morning, Brockway and Digney met with Jeff Chisholm, the global director of worldwide security. Chisholm instructed Digney to focus the investigation on the Seeding work environment due to the concern for potential workplace harassment and violence. Chisholm told Digney to avoid the specific facts of the alleged assault to avoid interfering with any criminal investigation conducted by law enforcement.

¶ 18 Still on Monday, sometime after meeting with Brockway and Digney, Chisholm met with Sherri Martin and Michael Addington, both human resources directors. He informed them of the allegations made against appellant and that Digney was leading the investigation.

¶ 19 At some point on Monday, appellant's security badge was deactivated, denying him access to company facilities.

¶ 20 On Monday, appellant sent Olson an e-mail that stated neither the Moline nor Davenport police department had any record of a complaint against appellant, nor was there a warrant for his arrest. Olson passed this information to Digney. It was later learned that this statement was only half true. Alissa had filed a sexual assault complaint against appellant with the Davenport police.

¶ 21 III. Digney's Investigation

¶ 22 Digney investigated the allegations from Monday, August 31, to Wednesday, September 2. On Monday, he first met with Olson and Black to learn about the allegations made against the appellant. Later on Monday, after obtaining approval, Digney began reviewing appellant's work e-mail account. He found two sexually explicit text messages appellant received on his company-issued Blackberry, which he forwarded using his work e-mail account. Initially, he did not know who sent the text messages because the messages only included a phone number.

¶ 23 Digney conducted the following relevant interviews:

— Shawn Maddox, approximately 11 a.m. on September 1;

— Alissa Maddox, approximately 1:30 p.m. on September 1;

— Heather Thielbert, approximately 3:15 p.m. on September 1;

— Angie Soliz, approximately 9:15 a.m. on September 2;

— Appellant, approximately 11:30 a.m. on September 2.

[353 Ill.Dec. 238] ¶ 24 Thielbert admitted that she and appellant were involved in a sexual relationship that began several months earlier. She denied that appellant threatened her position with Deere. She recognized the phone number of the sexually explicit text messages received by appellant as that of Angie Soliz.

¶ 25 Soliz admitted that she had been involved in a “personal” relationship with appellant. She told Digney that she sent the two inappropriate text messages to appellant. The text messages described a sex act she would perform on him. She said that she did not know the phone number she sent the messages to was registered to a Deere phone. These text messages from Soliz were those that Digney found from appellant's Blackberry. Appellant admitted that he was in a relationship with Thielbert. He explained that he forwarded the text messages “to retain[ ] evidence of a consensual relationship.” At that time, appellant knew that Soliz was married to a factory worker whom he managed at Seeding.

¶ 26 Appellant also admitted that he had been involved in a sexual relationship with the wife of another Seeding employee. He defined the relationship as “sporadic.” Digney understood this to mean the relationship was ongoing, but appellant has since claimed the relationship ended years ago, prior to the woman's marriage to a Deere employee.

¶ 27 Following his interview, appellant sent an e-mail to Addington, who attended the interview. It stated, “I understand the seriousness of the situation. I wanted to assure you I have taken all the steps to end those relationships to better ensure that no future issues arise. * * * It was far below the professional standard I expect for myself.”

¶ 28 IV. Digney Reports

¶ 29 On September 2, Digney summarized his findings to Chisholm, Martin, and Addington. He later completed a 21–page formal report. Digney did not make any recommendations regarding disciplinary action; his sole responsibility was to investigate and report.

¶ 30 V. Decision to Terminate Appellant

¶ 31 On September 2, a conference call occurred among human resources directors...