Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—N.D. Ill.: Machinery company’s qualified privilege defense defeats former employee’s tortious inference claim, (Oct 28, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The company only asserted its rights under a noncompete agreement after learning the employee had accepted a job with a company it considered a competitor.

A company that sent a letter to its former employee’s prospective employer regarding his noncompete agreement was entitled to summary judgment on the employee’s tortious interference claim, a federal district court in Illinois ruled. The company was entitled to a qualified privilege where its actions were taken in the proper manner, to the proper parties, at the appropriate time. In addition, the employee failed to show the company acted with malice or without justification in sending the letter where it was entitled to protect its rights on the good faith belief that the employee’s employment with the prospective employer would violate the agreement (Ellicson v. Oden Machinery, Inc., No. 22 cv 02113 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2025)).

Oden hired the employee as a regional sales manager in 2020. Upon his hiring, he executed a confidentiality, noncompetition, and nonsolicitation agreement (Agreement). In January and February 2022, the employee had at least three interviews with another company, NJM Packaging, which Oden considered to be a competitor. Around March 1, 2022, NJM offered him the position of regional sales manager, and a few days later, the employee resigned from Oden.

Letter sent. On March 15, 2022, Oden delivered a letter to the employee and certain NJM executives. The letter included a copy of the Agreement and a reminder of the noncompete provisions. Following receipt of the letter, NJM was still interested in hiring the employee if he could obtain some release from the Agreement’s restrictions. However, the parties were unsuccessful in negotiating a resolution, and the employee ultimately took a job at another company.

Complaint filed. The employee filed a complaint, alleging Oden tortiously interfered with his prospective employment with NJM by sending the letter. Oden filed this motion for summary judgment.

Qualified privilege. Granting summary judgment in Oden’s favor, the court found the company was entitled to a qualified privilege, which is a defense to tortious inference claims in Illinois. The court explained that a defendant’s statement is privileged if the defendant acted in good faith to protect an interest or uphold a duty. The statement must be limited in scope and made in the proper manner, to the proper parties, at the appropriate time.

Here, Oden established that its communication in the form of the letter was entitled to qualified privilege. After learning that the employee had accepted employment with a company that Oden considered to be a competitor, Oden sent the letter to assert and protect its rights pursuant to the Agreement. The letter was two pages long and discussed the employee’s noncompetition and confidentiality obligations under the Agreement. The letter was delivered to the employee and certain NJM executives along with a copy of the Agreement itself. These facts, the court said, demonstrated that Oden’s actions were made in the proper manner, to the proper parties, at the appropriate time.

No evidence of malice. Although Oden was entitled to a qualified privilege, the employee could still prevail by showing the company acted with malice or without justification in sending the letter. However, the court found he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that Oden acted without justification or with malice.

The court rejected the employee’s argument that Oden acted in bad faith because the letter misrepresented the scope of the Agreement by asserting that he was subject to a nationwide prohibition from working for any competitor, including NJM, despite language in the Agreement to the contrary. The court agreed that the noncompetition provision did not, on its face, have a nationwide application. However, to the extent the letter misstated the scope of the Agreement, Oden’s actions were not automatically deemed unjustified under the law, the court said. “Courts have found that defendants are not liable for tortious interference based on actions taken to enforce rights in which they hold a mistaken belief that they possess, provided that the mistaken belief is held in good faith,” the court wrote.

Here, Oden was entitled to protect its rights under the Agreement on the good faith belief that the employee’s employment with NJM would violate it. There was no evidence that Oden acted in bad faith. The company established that it was acting pursuant to an existing Agreement that expressly gave it rights related to the employee’s ability to compete, and it only asserted its rights after learning he had accepted a job with a company it considered a competitor. In addition, nothing in the letter itself or the surrounding circumstances demonstrated that Oden believed the letter was inaccurate or that Oden knowingly advanced a frivolous interpretation of the Agreement.

Sale of competing products. In another attempt to show that Oden was acting without justification, the employee argued the company was aware that he would not be selling competing products. The court found there was no admissible evidence to support this argument. The statements supporting Oden’s motion for summary judgment established that the company viewed NJM as a competitor, both companies produced liquid filling and packaging equipment and sold liquid filling and packaging lines, NJM is and was in the same industry as Oden, and the two do and did sell to the same customer base. The argument that Oden was aware that he would not be selling competing products was conclusory and unsupported by admissible evidence.

Thus, the court found the employee failed to present evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Oden acted maliciously or without justification when sending the letter. He also failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on those issues. Because Oden was entitled to a qualified privilege for the letter, it cannot form the basis of a tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim. Accordingly, the court granted Oden’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 22 cv 02113.

Judge: Harjani, S.

Attorneys: Joseph Arthur Smith, III (Smith Law Firm) for Adam Ellicson. Jeremy Paul Kreger (Dickinson Wright) for Oden Machinery, Inc.

Companies: Oden Machinery, Inc.

Cases: TortClaims StateLawClaims IllinoisNews