Prakash v. Parulekar

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
• Citation: Prakash v. Parulekar, 2020 IL App (1st) 191819, 177 N.E.3d 1, 448 Ill.Dec. 495 (Ill. App. 2020)
• Decision Date: 30 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1-19-1819,1-19-1819
• Parties: Jai PRAKASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Satish PARULEKAR, Defendant-Appellee.

2020 IL App (1st) 191819

177 N.E.3d 1

448 Ill.Dec. 495

Jai PRAKASH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Satish PARULEKAR, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-19-1819

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Opinion filed September 30, 2020

Modified upon denial of rehearing December 3, 2020

Jai Prakash, of Naperville, appellant pro se.

William T. Eveland, Hal R. Morris, and Elizabeth A. Thompson, of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, of Chicago, for appellee.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Jai Prakash, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County that dismissed with prejudice his two-count amended complaint, which alleged claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and defamation per se against defendant Satish Parulekar.

¶ 2 On appeal, plaintiff argues that he sufficiently pled his IIED and defamation claims, he did not release those claims in a settlement agreement with the university, and he produced clear and convincing evidence that defendant's acts were not immunized from liability.

¶ 3 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court.¹

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Plaintiff and defendant were both tenured professors of chemical engineering at Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT). In 2008, plaintiff eliminated the position of associate chair of the chemical and biological engineering department, which at the time was occupied by defendant. Later, in 2011, defendant became the department's acting chair, and plaintiff reported to him. Also in 2011, plaintiff appointed a research professor who worked on plaintiff's off-site research project.

¶ 6 According to plaintiff, defendant retaliated against him for eliminating the associate chair position by severely harassing plaintiff in 2011 and 2012. This alleged harassment included defendant, as the department chair, initiating in 2012 an investigation of plaintiff's research projects.

¶ 7 In August 2013, IIT's dean and a past provost removed defendant from the acting department chair position. On November 6, 2013, that past provost and IIT's general counsel sent defendant e-mails that stated IIT, after a six-month-long investigation, found no misconduct by plaintiff.

¶ 8 Also, on November 6, 2013, plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with IIT to resolve several claims, including the unauthorized reduction of his salary and his proper actions concerning the appointment of the research professor. Under this agreement, plaintiff received $37,990.55 and other benefits and released IIT and its current and former employees from every waivable claim, damage and liability that he had as a result of any matter from the start of his employment with IIT through November 6, 2013, arising out of or based upon any act, omission or event that occurred or should have occurred prior to November 6, 2013, including, without limitation, any allegation of defamation, IIED, workplace harassment, retaliation, whistleblowing, invasion of privacy, and negligence or any other tort.

¶ 9 In February 2014, defendant made complaints to federal agencies and Argonne National Laboratory, plaintiff's key research funding agency, raising the same allegations against plaintiff of fraud and criminal misuse of federal funds that defendant had raised in IIT's 2012 investigation. Thereafter, Argonne National Laboratory discontinued plaintiff's research project and federal agents conducted a comprehensive investigation, which included inspecting documents, interviewing administrators of IIT and Argonne National Laboratory, and interviewing plaintiff at his home. On February 21, 2014, IIT's general counsel sent a litigation hold letter to IIT individuals, informing them that a federal agency was investigating plaintiff regarding his research projects. When the federal agency concluded its investigation, it found no wrongdoing by plaintiff.

¶ 10 On August 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, alleging claims of IIED and defamation per se and "seek[ing] redress for a prolonged pattern of misconduct * * * spanning over seven (7) years."

¶ 11 Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2016) ), arguing that (1) plaintiff's pleading could not rely on any events before November 6, 2013, because his settlement agreement with IIT limited the time and scope of his claims, (2) any defamation claims before August 8, 2017 were barred as outside the one-year statute of limitations, and (3) plaintiff's alleged embarrassment was not sufficient to plead an IIED claim.

¶ 12 On March 7, 2019, the trial court granted the section 2-615 portion of defendant's motion to dismiss, reserved ruling on the section 2-619 portion of the motion, and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

¶ 13 Plaintiff's amended complaint alleged against defendant (count I) a claim of IIED based on defendant's pattern of egregious misconduct each year from 2011 to 2018, which was intended to destroy plaintiff's research, projects and career, was extreme and outrageous and intended to inflict severe emotional distress, and caused plaintiff to suffer extreme emotional, mental, physical and financial distress.

¶ 14 Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant's conduct before November 6, 2013 (the effective date of the settlement agreement) included making false statements and maliciously providing false information about plaintiff's employment contracts and changing the contract language without justification or notice to reduce plaintiff's $130,000 nine-month base salary to $118,755; harassing plaintiff by questioning his 2011 appointment of the research professor and falsely stating to IIT's dean, officials, past provosts, counsel, faculty and others that plaintiff had engaged in fraudulent conduct and criminal activity by misusing federal funds when he appointed the research professor; initiating in 2012, pursuant to defendant's authority as the department chair, a false, selective and retaliatory investigation by IIT of plaintiff's research projects; sending to the home dean and colleagues of the appointed research professor malevolent e-mails that disclosed his private and confidential family information and caused him to resign from his position as a key member of plaintiff's research group; and in May 2013 sharing with two IIT professors, who had no role in and were unaware of IIT's investigation of plaintiff, a confidential letter from a past provost to plaintiff that contained defamatory information about plaintiff regarding the investigation.

¶ 15 Furthermore, plaintiff alleged that defendant's conduct after the November 2013 effective date of the settlement included knowingly making false complaints in February 2014 to federal agencies and Argonne National Laboratory that accused plaintiff of fraud and misusing federal funds when he appointed the research professor in 2011, despite defendant's knowledge that IIT's investigation had found no wrongdoing by plaintiff; in 2015 making false and defamatory statements about plaintiff to IIT faculty members who were not aware of IIT's prior investigation of plaintiff; in February 2016 sending to 23 individuals a letter alleging that defendant had received an anonymous threat letter and alluding to the federal investigation of plaintiff; in August 2016 sending to 28 people a letter falsely accusing "individual C," whom the letter recipients would understand to be plaintiff, of sending the anonymous threat letter to defendant, invading defendant's home and accessing his computers; in 2017 falsely blaming plaintiff for sending defendant a letter; and sending 26 people an e-mail on March 4, 2018, that stated that a federal agency was investigating federal grants awarded to an individual, and including attachments to ensure the recipients would identify plaintiff as the subject of the investigation. Plaintiff asserted that defendant's false 2014 complaints to federal agencies resulted in federal agents interviewing plaintiff at his home for over one hour in front of his family, which was the most embarrassing, humiliating and traumatic event plaintiff or his family ever endured, destroyed plaintiff's mental and physical health, and caused him to have recurring nightmares and seek medical help.

¶ 16 Plaintiff also alleged against defendant (count II) a claim of defamation per se , based on false statements defendant made about plaintiff in defendant's March 4, 2018 e-mail and attached March 2, 2018 letter. Plaintiff alleged that this e-mails imputed to him the commission of an indictable criminal offense, prejudiced him in his profession, and suggested that he lacked integrity in the performance or discharge of his employment duties. Furthermore, defendant published this correspondence to numerous third parties and caused plaintiff to suffer emotionally and financially.

¶ 17 Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint under section 2-619.1 of the Code, arguing plaintiff's amended complaint should be dismissed under (1) section 2-619(a)(6) of the Code because his claims based on conduct before November 6, 2013 were released under the terms of his settlement agreement; (2) section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2016)), because plaintiff's attempt to sue defendant for reporting him to the federal government constituted retaliation against defendant for engaging in his right to petition the government, which was protected conduct under the Citizen Participation Act (Act) ( 735 ILCS 110/1, et seq. (West 2016)); and (3) section 2-615 of the Code because plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a cause of action for IIED.

¶ 18 In his response, plaintiff argued that (1) he did not release any claims against defendant, who was neither a party to nor a third-party beneficiary of plaintiff's settlement agreement with IIT; (2) the Act did not bar plaintiff's claims because defendant's...