carmody in his complaint alleges malicious acts done by the fund it that made this case distinct of them was when an employee asked maliciously as stated in management association of illinois complaint was that false accusations were made knowing that they were untrue or that the person making the statements acted with reckless disregard they related to sexually harassing a female looking back it was hard information believe there was some financial connection well i do you pop on the information and believe that only goes the allegations that there was a business relationship between mr goldberg and mr thompson filing a lawsuit against mr thompson's friend and this is partner david goldberg in litigation that has nothing to do with this mr thompson had the opportunity to to make knowingly fal statements to harm mr carmody for his own personal benefit the allegations and bosie act do not touch upon any allegations of acting malicious acting out of personal interest outside the interest of the moment yes the first level has three elements the defendant must meet all three elements if one element is not addressed or absent that force level moment is not satisfied by the defendant well that they would be true but there's the second level moment where if the foundation meet that then the state is brought in as a defendant and also in the motion to dismiss by the defending you never dresses that second level of  because the plaintiff powerful lawsuit against the defendants friend had nothing to do with his employment it's this brings up a policy issue if we allow public employees to hide under the guise of want to address another case which is similar to the facts here it's o'connor piece met it is brought up in our brief it was a court of claims case somewhat facts here it was a state employee suing another state employee for this case differs from wise yeah and some of the other cases that the defendant has mentioned those cases like the fence as much it doesn't go into the why or ties how they're acting outside their scope but it o'connor taken true in favor of the point of it all reasonable inferences given the relationship between the fund and mr goldberg and the allegations that the defendant knowingly made false statements in the only made them should be brought in the case here in rome and it's on the fender to meet those two levels not the plaintiffs but the complaint does suffice and that we do so have those allegations here now th the the defend it tries to you know cause a diversion with these actions it's this positive when a defendant doesn't meet that first level of moment and that second level moment the analysis stops it's on the defendant i mean that  management association of illinois pers the region ors and also another case hochman be yeah it says malicious ass are done by an employee they're not they're not done in the scope of employment we allege that with knowingly false relationship between goldberg and i and the fund it but he does have a plan that's the whole reason for him taking the action to terminate this your client it is a reasonable inference on that and improper as a matter was that's an abuse of discretion bus we should have been able to please have the opportunity to smit oppose and then you complain and have the judge rule based on that now if you would have granted it would have all the the money plate if not maybe here maybe you weren't but that's what should happen another point that i do want to address here with my time is going back to that public policy issue the plaintiff years or twenty two years in this position or it over twenty years for the state of illinois he should be able to see justice when another state employee knowingly and willfully makes malice it could just be you know a different defamation case of just negligence here it was a purpose only to harm my client to serve his interests definitely not to serve the state's interest if it's not serving the state's interests the state should not be brought into these actions in the or please the court this is a case that goes to the core of the state's ability to control its own affairs the plaintiff does not dispute that the defendant charles thompson was his properly drafted terminations letter would be within the scope of the authority of the offending the terminations letter whether or not the fed then had improper motives was clearly implementing employment  decision it was implementing a decision that had been recommended by the human resources department of the university it was a managerial act that the defendant was authorized to carry out by reason of the supervisor of the pla to allow personal suit against the supervisor employee of the state would act to control the actions of the state because it would affect the way supervisors make employment decisions it would affect the way supervisors communicate employment he worked in the office of information services university brought charges and conducted an investigation as to whether he had improper access to e mails of other persons and whether the use of those e mails improper the defendant participated in their investigation but the findings made and then investigation the conclusions made them best occasion and the recommendation for terminations made in that investigation was by others not by the stated what the findings were on the investigation and notified plaintive that he was terminated if you look at the terminations letter which is part of the record there is nothing in that letter that is defamatory there is nothing in that letter that evidences improper motives and so the plaintiff in the complaint was left with characterizing and pleading conclusions with respect to the statements made in the terminations whether the conclusionary allegations of malice are immaterial under the case law where the fenton is acting within bounds of this official authority as plaintiff's supervisor and as the director of information services in this case now t forcing the argument on the claim that there is no sovereign immunity because the duty to refrain from defamation the duty to refrain from interference with a contract is a duty owed to the general public and  although the duties to refrain from intentionally interfering with contracts and afflicting inflicting emotional distress are owed to the general public the kelly alleges no facts from which it may be inferred that defendants treat their duties for reasons other than what they perceived to be the best interests of the mental health case we have a similar situation here with the conclusion or pushing very allegations there is no facts plaited that show that the defendant there is a duty to refrain from intentional interference with contract if a judgement for plaintiff could control the state's actions the suit is against the state and goes on to articulate how the judgment in how supervisors carry out their duties and supervising employees and this or stated was the eck a staff the threat of private suits against supervisors for work related statements about those and pending personal decisions the suit necessarily threatens to control the actions of the state does not matter if as here the plaintiff alleges the statements were knowingly false that the relevant inquiry in said is whether the supervisor would be acting the scope of his duty by making truthful statements of the general type allege that's what was the case holds i think that the plaintiff is over simplifying this case by failing to distinguish between work related statements from contract in that case the statements were not work related cases they were slanderous statements that were made but they had no relationship to an employment context in this case as in the this also didn't inform him or that he was going to file some suit involving another type of claim other words for example some claim that did not involve terminations point contract so long as their procedures that they can't talk about employees we're not asking for that we're just asking for minor time and story damages from the defendant and that's it we're not asking for the state here the school to change its to change anything that they're doing another issue i'd like to address it is defense counsel mentioned that there was no malice in the terminations letter with the status in most defamation cases you're not going to see the malice on the false defamatory statements there's there's background behind that and that's what our complaint alleges and i don't want to go to the point where the pundits counsel mentioned you know the two allegations that were upon information case stating that you know her personal animosity is immaterial in that case i think it's a stink wish just here we're not just you know alleging that there's personal animosity  why i know that mr thompson was part of it i do believe he gave his input on that i do not know if he was the final person on that but the issue here is that in that can you add i mean i'm not a magician i'm not a contrary i could come up with i'm right on that point but that but the law is clear that does not deny my client an opportunity to have the right to amend his complaint or he asked the cour