we don't know the reason there was a reasoning that was given during unemployment proceedings but there was a different reason that was given actually in written documentation as personnel file one of the documents that attached is the exhibit is called corrective been a violation of he was never provided there was never any proof that he was physically in violation of that i mean mousy that gets to count two intentional and various in the middle of these proceedings not as counsel that was that was me communicated that in his personnel file this would be really indicating regarding why he was terminated was was much different than what they were indicating in unemployment and the unemployment rece those reasons for whatever they are or were communicated to third parties we were obviously in disagreement with those reasons we communicated that to the employee and as such that that forms the basis that trick his  us is that they allowed to continue to drive for eight hours after the truck was towed out and even when he gassed you bastard that facility they asked to fill out post accident for prior to forming him that he needed to go in that if you refuse to go it is it is determined to be a positive result however it was never that simple was never a forest fire with an actual policy and that's one of the things that we attempted to ascertain in the ministry of proceedings what exactly what of and it was actually one of the letters was actually delivered to diana davis who's who is the contact person on his background us to gauge so she was aware she had direct correspondence and i actually asked for that correspondence an employee at will and there are a couple of reasons why first of all there was no handbook this is not like most of the cases where the issue is whether or not there is a policy that stated i keep employment at will is an accident policy which first of all does not say that certain procedures have to be followed before someone would be disciplined it only says that after three you for sure will be disciplined and second of all this is now clickable to this case because he was not terminated because he was in an accident he was terminated for insubordination because he refused to follow company procedures and go for the test when requested the other basis that playing to seems to argue is that he was previously disciplined without having been terminated as to why plaintiff was terminated obviously for the safety of the world there are federal regulations that require that former employers be contacted and the former employer respond to queries  a drug test as soon as he was instructed on these are these are issues which pretty clearly describe a situation which is made by playing to that he came back from his terminating people just because employees are out will does that mean that employers arbitrarily decide to terminate people you know to ensure that there are proper personnel policies employees generally do good lawyers in my opinion  investigate allegations and they look into a situation at the reason for terminating someone but with regards to the the stated reason the reason that that the respondents to the period was exactly the reason that he was given and was stated that he didn't follow company post accident policy and this is correct the employer did not go on and say he didn't follow post accident policy by refusing to go for a drug test it didn't write a narrative which could have been more harmful it gave the bigger goals information as it was required to do if the employer given any other response to that employer would have been whining and would have you know subject to recourse as a result of giving false information this was you know a  the general but accurate statement as to what happened and the accuracy of that statement is actually supported by the very documents that plaintiff attached to his complaint and the so on allegations because the reason was the reason that occurred that he didn't want to go at all and the question with regard to tortious interference isn't it's not a question of whether plaintiff agrees with the reason for his discipline the question is whether the reason that was given in response to the query was the actual reason and in this case that was absolutely what happened here  is attached to these sorts of communication both under the federal regulations and also under illinois come on it's a qualified proof pledge that even if this was not severity that there is going to be some discipline that accident policy does not state that in the event of an accident you will not be terminated until x y z happens it does not say that we will not and stated you have to show that plead actual malice that there were no facts to support it which are necessary in order to overcome the privilege even on a pleading and i believe the judge further noted that the stated reason was true it was true by virtue of the plaintiff's own pleadings the documents that he had hatched this complaint as well as his pleadings where he admitted that he didn't go cheap alleged that after i mean the story goes that she refused to go through the drug test and after she refused the employer said ok well then just go you know we'll deal with this policy in favor of employers of truck drivers disclosing information to prospective employers wants to encourage the disclosure of the same permission with our employers having to concern themselves with liability by freezing everything with specific particularity and that's why every employer who responds to one of these requests has to go through discovery or senate trial it defeats the purpose and that's why we have specific then you can do a contractual right that you can't be terminated unless you have a right to go through whatever process to specify but that in this case isn't what happened in fact the primary reason that he was terminated w of the things that kind of gets convoluted in the breeze is the application of this photo water safety administration and one of the one of the points that i try to bring bring out is the fact that we didn't even get to stuff a as far as this act even apply here in order for in order for the for more safety administration provision that insulates these employers from from meeting the types of statements that were made here is that you lawyer to say does this actually come within the parameters of the statute and therefore we have to respond the way we say the statute doesn't apply therefore we're not going to respond reckless disregard of what what is known regarding what happened at that time that yes you could if it could be ac might constitute an admission of just interest correct