Attorney Code #70753
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
RAYMOND L. HUGLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 98 L 8352
THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO, an )
Illinois not-for-profit corporation, )
and MARION ELLIS, )
)
Defendants. )
)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION PER SE
Plaintiff, RAYMOND L. HUGLEY, by his attorney Ronald B. Schwartz,
complains against Defendants, THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO, an Illinois
not-for-profit corporation, and MARION ELLIS, an individual who works and
resides in Chicago, Illinois:
Introduction
1. Raymond Hugley was hired in February 1987 as a locksmith in
the Department of Protection Services of Defendant, The Art Institute of
Chicago (hereinafter "Art Institute").
2. Hugley was promoted to lead locksmith, a position Hugley held
until his termination on November 21, 1995.
3. Hugley had an outstanding reputation at the Art Institute
and within the community as a good citizen and excellent employee.
4. The Art Institute is a not-for-profit Illinois corporation
which operates a museum and employs more than 1,000 individuals full time.
5. Marion Ellis is employed by the Art Institute as a security
guard.
The Confrontation
6. On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, in the North Wing of
the museum, a confrontation occurred involving Hugley and Richard Hall,
then a custodian at the Art Institute.
7. Hall initiated the confrontation by pacing back and forth
outside Hugley's office where Hugley was working at his desk. Hugley
and Hall exchanged words in the hallway. Hugley told Hall to leave him
and his wife, who was Hall's supervisor, alone. Hall mumbled and cursed
in response.
8. Hall reacted to the confrontation by falsely stating that
Hugley made a death threat against Hall during the confrontation. Hall
communicated this false accusation to the management of the Art Institute.
Ellis' False Statements
9. Defendant, Marion Ellis, at all times relevant to this action,
has been employed as a security guard by the Art Institute.
10. On November 17, 1995, Ellis stated, both verbally and in
writing, that she heard Hugley make a death threat against Hall during
the afternoon of November 15, 1995. This was the first time that Ellis
made such statements.
11. Ellis made the statements and published them knowing that
they were false.
12. Ellis made these statements and published them while acting
within the scope of her employment with the Art Institute. Said
statements were also made in accordance with her job description.
13. Ellis made and published the statements to Robert Koverman,
the Art Institute's Executive Director of Protection Services and to
Fred Venhuizen, Hugley's immediate supervisor.
14. Ellis told Koverman and Venhuizen that Hugley said to Hall
that "I'll bust a cap on you." She said that these words meant that
Hugley "was going to kill him, shoot you or do something with a gun."
15. The defamatory statements are contained in a signed
statement by Ellis dated November 17, 1995 and Q & A signed by Koverman
and Venhuizen, a true and correct copy of which is attached and
incorporated as part of this complaint as Exhibit A [omitted here].
16. Ellis subsequently testified under oath that she was
escorting a worker who was working on door frames when she heard but
did not see the alleged death threat being made.
17. Ellis further testified under oath that when she heard
the threat she was standing in Gallery 50 next to the door between
Gallery 50 and the private area of the North Wing. This doorway is
approximately 85 feet from the entrance to Hugley's office. Ellis
indicated where she and the worker were standing by placing an "E"
for herself and "JD" for the worker on a floor plan of the North Wing,
a copy of which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B [omitted
here].
Abuse of Qualified Privilege
18. On November 15, 1995, Ellis' security guard assignment
was to provide an escort for Jay Dee General Contractors, Inc. or its
sub-contractor Door Tech, Inc., whose job was to work on door frames in
the North Wing.
19. On November 15, 1995, no other contractor was working on
door frames in the North Wing of the Art Institute.
20. The form memorandum transmitted to the Art Institute's
Department of Protection Services regarding the door frame work to be
performed on November 15, 1995, did not reference or include the door
frame between the private area of the North Wing and Gallery 50, as an
area where work would be performed on November 15, 1995.
21. Outside contractors must sign a Contractor Access Register
and note the time when they enter or leave the Art Institute.
22. The name of Rob Wisniewski, an employee of Door Tech, Inc.,
appears on the Goodman Dock Contractor Access form for November 15, 1995.
23. The only other individual from Jay Dee General Contractors,
Inc. or its sub-contractor Door Tech, Inc. who is listed on the
Contractor Access Register forms for November 15, 1995, is Robert
Mateja. He was the foreman of the project.
24. According to the Contractor Access Register, Mateja signed
in at 10:52 a.m. and signed out at 12:10 p.m.
25. Ellis did not escort Mr. Mateja during the afternoon of
November 15, 1995.
26. Mr. Wisniewski was escorted by Ellis during the afternoon
of November 15, 1995.
27. On November 15, 1995, Wisniewski did not perform any work
on the door frame between the private area of the North Wing and
Gallery 50.
28. Wisniewski signed out of the Art Institute at 2:20 p.m.,
on November 15, 1995.
29. Hall testified under oath that Hugley made the alleged
death threat around 2:45 p.m., on November 15, 1995.
30. Ellis abused her qualified privilege by falsely stating
that she heard Hugley make a death threat against Hall during her
security guard shift. Ellis knew that the statements were false at
the time that she first made them. Consequently, her communications
with Koverman, Venhuizen and others are not privileged.
Defamation Per Se
31. Said statements by Ellis are libel per se and slander per se
because the statements accuse Hugley of committing an act which is a
crime and which injured his reputation in his occupation and resulted in
the loss of his job at the Art Institute.
32. As a result of the above described defamation, Plaintiff has
suffered harm to his personal and occupational reputation, humiliation,
extreme emotional distress and mental suffering.
Art Institute's Liability for Ellis' Defamatory Statements
33. Defendant, Art Institute, is jointly and severally liable
for the defamatory statements of Ellis because she was acting within
the scope of her employment in furtherance of the Art Institute's
business.
34. A second, and independent, basis for the abuse of its qualified
privilege is that the Art Institute failed to properly investigate the
accusations against Hugley in that:
a. Koverman, who spearheaded the investigation,
accepted that Ellis was present to hear the
threat without any investigation as to whether
she was there;
b. Ellis' location, when she allegedly heard the
threat, was never determined;
c. Hugley was never asked during the investigation
if Ellis was present during the afternoon
confrontation;
d. The Contractor's Access Register sheets for
November 15, 1995 were not examined;
e. The worker escorted by Ellis the afternoon of
the confrontation was not contacted; and
f. Richard Hall's personnel file was not reviewed
to determine if he had a discipline record.
In fact, Hall had a previous write-up by a
supervisor for using foul and abusive language.
35. A third, and independent basis, for the abuse of its
qualified privilege is that the Art Institute engaged in the spoliation
of evidence.
36. A videotaped statement of Mr. Hall was presented by the
Art Institute at Hugley's grievance hearing. The version of the
videotape shown to the grievance committee omitted a question by
Koverman as to whether others might have heard the confrontation between
Hugley and Hall, and Hall's response to that question.
37. Defendant, Art Institute, ratified and condoned Ellis'
false statements and defamation by discharging Hugley from his employment
with the Art Institute. Therefore, the Art Institute is liable not only
for compensatory damages, but also for punitive damages.
Limitations Period
38. This action is timely filed in that the United States
District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to this
defamation claim in a decision issued on April 24, 1998.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, RAYMOND L. HUGLEY, prays for judgment
in a sum in excess of $50,000 for compensatory damages and $500,000 in
punitive damages against Defendants, THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO,
an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and MARION ELLIS.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by jury of the allegations contained
in this complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Attorney for Plaintiff
AFFIDAVIT
Raymond L. Hugley on oath states that the allegations
in this complaint are true.
____________________
RAYMOND L. HUGLEY
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of 1998
_______________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Ronald B. Schwartz #70753
HEDBERG, TOBIN, FLAHERTY & WHALEN
Three First National Plaza, Suite 1950
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 726-0236
Attorney Code #70753
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
RAYMOND L. HUGLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 98 L 8352
THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO, an )
Illinois not-for-profit corporation, )
and MARION ELLIS, )
)
Defendants. )
)
RULE 222(B) AFFIDAVIT OF DAMAGES SOUGHT
The total monetary damages sought in this matter does exceed
the sum of $50,000.
___________________
RAYMOND L. HUGLEY
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of 1998
_____________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Ronald B. Schwartz #70753
HEDBERG, TOBIN, FLAHERTY & WHALEN
Three First National Plaza, Suite 1950
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 726-0236
Nothing on this page or any of the pages constituting this web site should be construed as offering legal advice.