Court Opinion

ID: 9717830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:11:01.341799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:55.678761
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 2 — 615) admits to all facts well pleaded and is to be decided on the face of the pleadings. Exhibits attached to a complaint become a part thereof for all purposes and factual matters contained in exhibits which are inconsistent with allegations of the complaint serve to negate such allegations. Sharkey v. Snow (1973), 13 Ill. App. 3d 448. An essential element of tortious interference with contractual relations is defendant’s intentional and unjustified inducement of a breach of a contract between plaintiff and another. The plaintiff alleges this element in paragraph 25 of her complaint. However, the terms of her employment contract with defendant contradict her claim that defendants’ actions were unjustified. Paragraph 6 of the complaint incorporates the contract by reference. Therefore, the contradictory terms of the contract should be considered in reviewing the trial court’s decision to grant the defendants’ 2 — 615 motion to dismiss. According to the contract, the defendants reserved the right to report the unprofessional conduct of a teacher to the appropriate educational authorities, thereby subjecting the offending teacher to a possible suspension of her teaching certificate. The plaintiff’s employment contract incorporated by reference the Diocesean personnel policy handbook. The handbook states that a teacher who terminates employment not in accord with Diocesean policy is guilty of unprofessional conduct. It is clear from the complaint and exhibits in the present case that the plaintiff breached her contract by unilaterally terminating her employment in violation of Diocesean personnel rules. This action by the plaintiff triggered defendants’ right to report plaintiff’s unprofessional conduct to the proper authorities in accord with its personnel policy. Defendants were justified in contacting the principal of the Shabbona School to inform him of plaintiff’s breach and of defendants’ decision to enforce its rights under the contract. Plaintiff’s allegation of unjustified interference by defendants is contradicted by the exhibit attached to the complaint. The majority chooses to ignore the ramifications of this conflict by restricting its attention to the allegations of the complaint. The trial court properly considered the complaint and exhibit as a whole and concluded that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a crucial element of a cause of action for tortious interference with contract. I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Will County.