From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
Frierson v. University of Chicago
Illinois Appellate Court
2015 Ill. App. 151176 (2015)
Cynthia Frierson (plaintiff) was employed as the financial-aid director for the medical school of the University of Chicago (the university) (defendant). However, after Frierson’s supervisor, Sylvia Roberson, provided a negative assessment of Frierson on a performance review and recommended her termination, Frierson was fired. Frierson filed a suit against the university for tortious interference with future financial benefit. Frierson alleged that Roberson acted for her own benefit and with the single purpose of hurting Frierson. Frierson offered no facts to support this assertion. Frierson’s suit against the university was based on the theory of respondeat superior, by which an employer may be held vicariously liable for the malicious actions of its workers, for conduct committed within the scope of their employment that caused damage to others. After Frierson submitted her second amended complaint, the university filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Frierson had failed to state a cause of action. In order to state a cause of action for tortious interference, a plaintiff had to show that a defendant intentionally interfered with and destroyed a business relationship, resulting in damages to the plaintiff. Typically, such interference had to be aimed at a third party, because an employer was not able to interfere with its own employment relationship with its workers. However, there existed an exception that provided that if an officer of a company interfered with a worker’s employment and acted in the officer’s sole interest or simply to hurt an employee, this malicious behavior might sustain a claim for tortious interference. The qualified privilege that covered a supervisor’s comments could be overcome with a showing of specific acts of malice or unjustified acts. Frierson’s claim was based on this exception and a claim that Roberson’s act was malicious, for personal gain, and without justification. A trial court granted the university’s motion for dismissal. Frierson appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Mason, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 631,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.