september fourteenth two thousand and ten were that we had not shown sufficient facts to create an image issue a material fact as to the existence of malice on the part of the individual ever mr harrison had a reasonable expectation of continued employment with your company based on his performance cited the record is clear here that he was a good managerial soily who continued to be promoted through the ranks up until this incident occurred beginning august thirty first two thousand and ten then he was trying within two days he was turning me based on the recommendations o supreme court cases both say that we don't have to prove actual ill will all we have to prove for the allegation malice is that the conduct is not not justified and is not justified to record the minute determination of a senior manager is based on your own belief that it's improper for him to have been gauged in the consensual relationship with  said we can fire him because we don't like the fact that he's having an affair well you separated from his wife at the time getting a divorce and the look of the investigation showed that none of that contact between omar personal records review acts as an employer isn't to keep track of people's personal associations and off work activities unless the employer can show that somehow it's impacted the itself for the community commission and determines as a matter of law and general policy with the commission created some recognized duty your interest to make the communication so it was a privilege but when you they didn't have a duty to read falsely report this information that there was a warrant in fact by seven thirty in the morning room august thirty first mr harrison sent an e mail to mr represented separately and he went to trial there is a separate appeal mr harrison's work and so there are a total of nine defendants in case i would also like to introduce the court to my colleague mr warren and you of the staff he had been sent to harvard executive program what happened your honor was that the undisputed facts show it was his home loss only poor judgment that led to his determination there is no defamation here and there is no intentional interference i would like to just make clear because this name to counsel's argument there's a blur in here that there were an eight distinct defendants here and  each defendant a case has to be proved against each of those defendants and i would request john's think about counsel's argument there is no real parsing out of who did what he did it just stress that the eight defendants fall into three buckets here there are the two operations managers there are the three a members of worldwide security who did the investigation and then there are the huge three human resources individuals in this sure all said and th full two operations managers are the ones for whom there's a defamation claim i'm not going to take the court's time in the brief time we have to address the argument that we made in our brief that in fact nothing that they said even defamation as a matter of law because all they said was it was reported or it was alleged that this had occurred but as i say your honor certainly have read the briefs in can see that argument there so what i'd like to really turn to is in many ways the issue of whether they abused that privilege because counsel doesn't really contest that there is an issue that morally the communications from the managers to the olson said i've heard that these claims by mr maddox against mr harrison i'm in germany you take care of this and deal with this reporting it to the appropriate people that's the sum and substance of mr devolves involvement home mr olson in turn spoke to only two people he spoke to mr harrison himself the next morning to say these allegations the navy against you nice day will work and work from home and see what's going on try to get  cleared out and he contacted worldwide security which he is obligate do you when you see a serious complaint of this kind or a serious allegation and the important thing here also is that it wasn't just it's reporting what had happened to his daughter over the weekend and is it significant that there was a police report despite the fact that mr harrison said there was not and that she had had a rape kit the gets mr dignity to do the investigations to dig with the experience investigator he came from law enforcement and he proceeded with the investigation also willing in accordance with your policies and practices worldwide security notified human resources that how this martin gets into the case as a defendant she alerts her to colleagues mr addington and mr horne so these are the eight defendants each of them was appropriate person to do that investigation he is not trained to do it and as a corporation the size of the dealer cannot have individual operations managers doing their own investigations especially when they're not trained to do it because the company needs to filed six years ago indeed your honor if that was the case and this was retaliation that we would argue that the illinois human rights act pre amps a common will claim for intentional and ference and that argument set forth maliciously and solely for their personal interests and against the interests of the year because that is what plaintiffs need to show nice investigation that was conducted by a completely different department worldwide security and there is nothing in this record and indeed plaintiff admitted in his deposition that they he has nothing to show that they influenced the  investigation on it's also clear that the plaintiff has offered nothing in this record to implicate in any way or to show any kind of malicious intent with respect to six defendants your honor the argument about the concern from six years earlier also belies logic i mean it length of time usually roots in a necklace nexus for the purpose of retaliation but here there is evidence that mr horrible for example had been a mentor to mr powers had helped him in those six years to move up to out of human that there is no definition by mr olson or his to the full and finding that the eighteen and independents did not act maliciously or solely for personal reasons against yours interests when they carried out the dut they were supposed to do in conformance with years policy i responding to a report that mr harrison may have been sexually harrah saying a subordinate and carrying that through in a professional manner that this whole theory for terminating mr harrison was created out of whole cloth this simply is not the case and in fact the record is undisputed and are enjoying your honour's attention to them are nothing david as well as to the had to be made by both in that case the medical department and only bill department what happened was is that the legal department didn't make the decision it relied solely on the medical so that the company's policy had been finally did and as a result the defamation  start backwards from the last argument the court needs to look at the case and versus filibusters and in that case in the managerial employ he was falsely report prepared by mr davis it doesn't couch it in terms of and mr olson told me that he had a report from somebody that is a warrant for a harassed the statement was that there was a managerial employer can't tell the water to go violate the law that's not justified thank you