business relationship and based on the injurious also heard and the question becomes does that injurious falsehood rise to the level of an illegal laugh now these claims would have hit much more comfortably under total said with a nod yes your honor they would have but it's in the timeline of events mr pearce turned in her complaint to h r who said hold on we're investigating it it was almost six months to the day when she was fired and the statute of limitations for title seven and for the indiana civil rights law is six months before she could have just filed a complaint with the indiana agency and or the e e o c even though h r was looking at it yes your honor that is true but she believed that she had followed her book she was doing what she was supposed to as an employee and reported to h r and let them to investigate they asked her not to do anything further do you have any concrete evidence of cuny ery injury or harm to sales rising from an economic tort yes yes it's not defamation and it's not any of the relatives of defamation injurious falsehood sometimes is functionally defamation sometimes if there's an economic element to it it's different but as a standalone i don't see how you can proceed it really all you have is her argument that she's been  honor we of course this is a twelve b six motion so no discovery was made where we could show canary losses but they need to be at least to be alleged i don't see where even can i ask if what the statements by ms to kirk were were they in the scope of her or her work as as a supervisor at the at the company and so if we're talking about tortious interference as a a third party interfering with a relationship she's acting as a supervisor of the different companies and it's really not as a third party interfering with with a relationship yes your honor i agree  e she was making comments inappropriate comments as miss pierce's supervisor to say that a sexual harassing and sexually inappropriate comments are within the scope of the employment of the supervisor i don't believe that it extends to her duties as a supervisor to violate what would be title seven  her sexually hostile work environment or through the comments but that's the problem isn't it i mean that's why there's this back door issue the indiana courts seem pretty clearly to say that if you've got a problem  civil rights law there are procedures that are important to indiana exhaustion procedures they're very common they exist at the federal level as well the other things that hoover did like increasing her sales quotas and so on may have been unfair but they were surely the kinds of things she could do as a supervisor yes your honor i agree that it hurst sales quote unquote a levels or part of the duties the comments however  i just have to ask you if you could ever receive jenny just for the area action as a result of her she did john of claim i believe it was added because the courts are making distinctions between intentional interference with a contract relationship and when you don't have a contract relationship and it's a third party who's into the inning and and has been upheld as an element of tortious interference and indiana state law since since that time so is the word illegal understood to mean civil criminal both it hasn't been define what the courts have done is they've looked at what doesn't necessarily constitute an illegal act and in one of the cases that the chain of cited in the lower court cited levy they specifically have the defamation even though in of itself i so they added the legality as an element but to what end what what were they trying to what distinction were they trying to draw between a contractual relationship in a non contractual relationship that even gallery was doing some work contract whether the contract has been breached here it's just an interference with the business relationship in especially in the context of the employment relationship where it's not necessarily a third party but it's in the context of a supervisor and employee if they do require that they're there is supposed to be that that additional element and here regardless of whether she had satisfied illegality which we maintain she hasn't because there is no cure narry loss and a coworker what of the two abuse leaping in the same room you're always together the way that that comment somehow injured miss the injured the plaintiff and was made with the intent which is required through the made with the intent that some somehow the person who heard that comment would take action that would result in her terminations how much higher were her sales quot the the second aspect of our argument is that even if miss even if misfortune was acting illegally the acts were within the scope of her employment setting quotas you know putting the interference even if they don't notify motivated by personal bias or just jealousy or revenge they still do not take it outside the scope of the employment because to do so would basically just started the indiana would it be possible for someone to make a personal attack on another maybe about i don't know their trustworthiness order or something similar which would also just like with the title seven claim that's not before the school before the court she's trying to back door and some type of defamation claim through by claiming that the actually had a inordinate amount of rays on her clothes but again she was off work at that time due to surgery so she couldn't she wouldn't reach or hold of any how and in indiana insurance company vs north vermaelen the court stated that a personal injury disparagement included damage to his good reputation in the community by harassing embarrassing and subjecting him to ridicule and humiliation by others no where in that case did it state that it had to be commercial products for that type of defamation and these types of statements also miss abraham's touch on something that i think is quite important which is that indiana has been very protective of its employment will doctrine and it has not recognized many also freestanding common law based exceptions to that apart from say workers compensation and maybe another small  one and it who said instead you know that you've got a problem under some of it's for the legislature to to establish these exceptions and if the legislature has done so you have to follow their rules and so that leaves her and out there trying to say hurtful and inappropriate things were said about me but how do how we fight how we link that up with the right not to lose the jobs stop yes your honor i agree it is tough and i think  that the plaintiffs position in this case is that where where do you draw the line as to where the supervisor reason duty and ability to make statements and sexually harass an employee ok