Appeals court upholds dismissal of defamation complaint against Metropolis

An Illinois appellate court has upheld a Cook County judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit claiming the Metropolis Performing Arts Centre in Arlington Heights is liable for statements employees made about the theater’s former artistic director.

Joe Keefe served as artistic director for nearly six years before his ouster in September 2021, following an investigation into accusations of verbal abuse and other misconduct.

The allegations included a letter posted on a theater website by a former Metropolis director, claiming Keefe had engaged in inappropriate behavior with staff members and theater artists.

Keefe subsequently sued Metropolis and the president of its board of directors, alleging “a smear campaign.” According to the appellate court opinion, Keefe claimed employees made defamatory statements about him that damaged his reputation and made it impossible for him to find work in the theater industry.

His complaint alleged Metropolis was “directly and vicariously liable for defamation … false light invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress.” Keefe’s litigation also claimed “Metropolis was responsible for the anonymous Facebook post, the director’s open letter, and actions by other purported Metropolis employees to defame him,” according to the appellate opinion.

Metropolis filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which a county court granted with prejudice. Dismissing a lawsuit with prejudice effectively prohibits a plaintiff from refiling litigation on the same claim.

Keefe appealed that ruling, arguing in part that the county judge failed “to provide a full and fair hearing on the motion to dismiss by being unprepared and unfocused on the arguments.”

He also argued the trial court erred by dismissing his claims that Metropolis was liable for its employees’ conduct and in dismissing claims of direct liability against Metropolis.

In affirming the lower court ruling, the appellate court noted that Keefe waived his argument regarding the way the trial court conducted the hearing by failing to provide a transcript or a bystander’s report of the proceedings.

“In the absence of that record, the law requires us to assume the trial court’s ruling conforms to the law and has a sufficient factual basis,” Justice Michael B. Hyman wrote in the unanimous decision. “Lacking a transcript or bystander’s report, we have no grounds to question how the trial court conducted the hearing.”