Find Legal Information

SECOND DIVISION
December 11, 2001

Plaintiff Marvie Achanzar appeals a judgment for defendants and the denial of his motionfor a new trial. The main issue we address is a contention of the plaintiff that whether a qualifiedprivilege exists as a defense in a workplace defamation action is a question of fact for the jury. Thetrial court believed that the existence of circumstances creating a qualified privilege in the workplaceis a question of law and that the question of whether the privilege has been abused is a question offact for the jury. We agree and affirm.

Plaintiff worked as a medical technologist for defendant Ravenswood Hospital and LoyolaUniversity Medical Center. He was fired from his position at Ravenswood Hospital in January 1998,after allegedly threatening to kill hospital employees. Plaintiff then sued defendants Leticia Garcia,his supervisor, Elvira Berganos, a coworker, and Ravenswood Hospital for defamation. Thefollowing evidence was taken at trial.

Plaintiff worked full time at both Ravenswood Hospital and Loyola Medical Center, a totalof 16 hours a day. Plaintiff testified that he is a peaceable man, actively involved in his church. Plaintiff denied that he threatened to kill anyone. He also denied spelling the word "kill" in front ofdefendants Berganos and Garcia. Plaintiff received a letter from Ravenswood Hospital on January28, 1998, notifying him that he had been suspended for making threats. Plaintiff said he was stunnedwhen he received the letter because he had not made threats.

Plaintiff spoke with the human resources department at the hospital and learned thatdefendants Berganos and Garcia said that plaintiff threatened to kill someone at the hospital. Plaintiff denied making threats. Plaintiff could not remember if he had said his remarks weremisunderstood.

On cross-examination, plaintiff said he was not sure if defendants Garcia and Berganos were friends. Plaintiff admitted that Garcia helped him in getting his job at Ravenswood. He said that,in January 1998, Garcia and Berganos "turned on" him, but that he did not know why. Plaintiff alsodescribed an incident with Nemira Grigaliunas, a blood bank supervisor, in September 1997. Grigaliunas came to the lab and asked plaintiff to help her. Plaintiff pushed a chair and toldGrigaliunas not to treat him like an "alley dog." Plaintiff said he became upset, not angry, and thathe used the same tone of voice as he was using in court. He denied telling Grigaliunas that he wasgoing to kill her.

Plaintiff described another incident in October 1997, involving Nancy Vruno, a microbiologytechnician. Plaintiff was sorting through lab coats, looking for his, while Vruno watched. He didnot remember what was said. Plaintiff denied yelling at her. He asked why she did not let him usea certain hanger and then left. Plaintiff did not remember returning and yelling at Vruno. Plaintiffdid not say he was going to kill Vruno.

Plaintiff described another incident in January 1998. Darien Sayfi called from the emergencyroom for test results on a critical patient. Plaintiff told Sayfi he was busy and would call when theresults were ready. He then hung up the phone. Sayfi came to the laboratory and asked who had justhung up on him. Plaintiff approached Sayfi but did not yell at him. Plaintiff did not ask him to fightand also denied telling Sayfi he would kill him. Security was called but Sayfi left before theyarrived. Plaintiff met with defendant Garcia about the Sayfi incident. Garcia prepared a reportwhich included a statement that plaintiff had an "emotional outburst." Plaintiff asked Garcia toremove these terms from the report but he did not believe she did. Plaintiff did not rememberreceiving a revised report.

Nemensia Achanzar testified she was plaintiff's wife. Nemensia was at Ravenswood Hospitalon January 19 and 20, 1998, with her daughter Nina, who was ill. Garcia and Berganos came toNina's hospital room and told Nemensia that her husband had threatened someone in the hospital. Nemensia said she did not believe it. Nemensia denied saying that her husband had a gun and wouldshoot Garcia and Berganos. Neither Garcia nor Berganos asked how Nemensia's daughter wasfeeling. They left after making the accusation about her husband.

On cross-examination, Nemensia denied calling the police about her husband. Defendantswere precluded from impeaching Nemensia with a prior inconsistent statement when plaintiff'sobjection was sustained.

Coworkers Dante Yague, Nestor Aconce, Barbara Duck and Mark Trevino each testified thatplaintiff was a peaceable, gentle man. Duck witnessed the incident with Sayfi and said that securitywas called because of Sayfi's behavior, not plaintiff's.

Leticia Garcia testified she heard that plaintiff had made two earlier threats to hurtRavenswood employees. She also witnessed plaintiff's altercation with Sayfi and decided to file areport. Garcia granted plaintiff's request to remove the term "emotional outburst" and filed a revisedreport. Plaintiff then told Garcia that if he was written up, he would kill someone. Plaintiff laterrepeated the threat in front of Garcia, Berganos and other witnesses while in a break room, implyingthat he had killed someone in the past and spelling out the word "kill." Garcia had filed writtenreprimands about plaintiff before for tardiness and inaccurate test results. Ravenswood had aprogressive disciplinary system at that time. Written reprimands did not result in termination. Discipline was determined case by case.

Nemira Grigaliunas is a blood bank supervisor. She said that plaintiff became enraged whenshe tried to get his attention. Grigaliunas described plaintiff's behavior as that of a "raging animal." Grigaliunas said plaintiff later apologized, but she could not finish her shift because the incident lefther unsettled.

Elvira Berganos testified that, while she was in a break room in the hospital, she heardplaintiff say he was going to kill someone. Berganos heard plaintiff use the word "kill" three times. She witnessed the incident between plaintiff and Grigaliunas. Plaintiff became angry and kicked achair that almost hit Berganos.

Nancy Vruno, a microbiology team leader, said she told plaintiff he could borrow a lab coatif he asked permission to do so. Plaintiff became angry and started yelling at her. He left the roomand came back five minutes later. Vruno said plaintiff was extremely agitated, intimidating andthreatening. Vruno was afraid plaintiff was going to hit her. Vruno denied that plaintiff said he wasgoing to kill her.

Darien Sayfi, an emergency room clerk, testified that he confronted plaintiff after plaintiffhung up on him. Plaintiff asked Sayfi if he wanted to fight him. Duck called security while Aconcetried to calm plaintiff. Sayfi then left. Sayfi denied hearing that plaintiff threatened to kill him oranyone else. Garcia testified that she reported the threats to her supervisor, Jim Fortier, who thencontacted the human resources department. Plaintiff was suspended pending investigation of theallegations against him. Eric Benson, vice president of the human resources department, interviewedplaintiff, Garcia and Berganos. Plaintiff admitted involvement in an argument with Sayfi and usingthe words "kill" and "killing fields," but later claimed that he was misunderstood. He denied allwrongdoing. Benson asked plaintiff to name witnesses who could support his claims. No witnesseswere named. Benson concluded that plaintiff's conduct threatened the safety of RavenswoodHospital employees and terminated him.

Plaintiff's defamation suit against Ravenswood, Garcia and Berganos alleged that he had beenfalsely accused of threatening to kill someone at the hospital. At the end of evidence, the trial courtinstructed the jury that the defendants were privileged to publish the statements about plaintiff andthat the jury must then decide whether defendants' conduct abused that privilege. Plaintiff objectedto these instructions. The jury returned a verdict in defendants' favor.

Plaintiff frames two issues on appeal: (1) the question of whether a privilege exists is for thejury to decide; and (2) plaintiff was prejudiced by one question posed to his wife during cross-examination. Plaintiff contends that these errors require a new trial.

Plaintiff claims that the jury was improperly instructed when the trial court told the jury thatdefendants' communication was privileged and the jury need only decide if defendants abused theprivilege. Plaintiff claims that the jury should have decided whether the privilege applied as wellas whether the privilege was abused. He argues that Kuwik v. Starmark Star Market &Administration, Inc., 156 Ill. 2d 16, 619 N.E.2d 129 (1993), supports his position. Plaintiff misreadsKuwik and overlooks established law.

Kuwik held that the issue of whether a qualified privilege exists is a question of law for thecourt. Kuwik, 156 Ill. 2d at 25. A privilege exists when: (1) a statement is made in good faith bythe defendant; (2) the defendant has an interest or duty to uphold; (3) the statement is limited in itsscope to that purpose; (4) it is made in a proper occasion; and (5) the statement is published in aproper manner to the proper parties. Kuwik, 156 Ill. 2d at 25, citing Zeinfeld v. Hayes Freight Lines,Inc., 41 Ill. 2d 345, 349, 243 N.E.2d 217 (1968), and Mittelman v. Witous, 135 Ill. 2d 220, 237, 552N.E.2d 973 (1989). The Kuwik court then set out how a trial court is to decide the legal questionof whether a privilege existed and adopted the approach taken in the Restatement (Second) of Torts(Restatement (Second) of Torts