SIXTH DIVISION

JUSTICE BUCKLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Troy L. Vickers, brought suits against Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) and Abbott employees Debbie Lindberg-Geiser, Nellie Lopez, Jeanice Walker, Diane Mielke, Rudy Sundberg, and Don Albert. Plaintiff alleged defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interfer-ence with prospective economic advantage due to an Abbott investiga-tion into allegations that he exhibited sexually harassing behavior. The circuit court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's suit with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals and maintains the following: (1) the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for defamation because no qualified privilege existed, and if a privilege did exist, defendants abused it; (2) the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of employment contract claim because defendants conducted an unfair investigation into the sexual harassment allegations; (3) the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the evidence demonstrated outrageous conduct on the part of the defendants; (4) the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for intentional interference with economic advantage; and (5) the circuit court erred by refusing to allow plaintiff leave to supplement the record.

FACTS

The pleadings and depositions reveal the following facts relevant to this appeal: In May 1967, plaintiff began work with Abbott as a technical advisor earning approximately $14,000 per year. Over the next 25 years, he received a number of promotions and eventually attained the position of manager of the microbials department in Abbott's chemical and agricultural products division (CAPD), earning an annual salary of $103,662.

On September 30, 1992, Debbie Lindberg-Geiser, a secretary in plaintiff's division, e-mailed a female manager, Janet Dewitt, about a manager who had been making remarks of a sexual nature to her. Later, while discussing the matter in person, Lindberg-Geiser told Dewitt that plaintiff was the manager who had told her how she looked in her clothing, talked of nude beaches in California, said that she "made him hot," and made other comments of a sexual nature.

Dewitt informed Lindberg-Geiser's manager, Sheldon Bernsen, about the issue. Bernsen contacted Lindberg-Geiser to discuss the matter and then notified defendant Rudy Sundberg, the divisional vice president for CAPD, who was both Bernsen and plaintiff's supervisor. Pursuant to Abbott policy, Sundberg met with CAPD human resources director Jeff Hogenmiller, who assigned defendant Don Albert to investigate the matter.

On October 7, 1992, Albert scheduled a meeting with Lindberg-Geiser to discuss her concerns. At this meeting she told Albert about plaintiff's conduct. He asked if anyone could corroborate any of plaintiff's statements, and Lindberg-Geiser replied that defendant Diane Mielke was present for some of the remarks. Albert also told her that he would be available to listen if other employees wished to speak with him.

After her meeting with Albert, Lindberg-Geiser contacted several of plaintiff's former secretaries, including Donna Brown, defendant Nellie Lopez, defendant Jeanice Walker and Nancy Ashley, to see if they would like to speak with Albert about their experiences with plaintiff. Defendants Walker, Lopez and Mielke indicated that they would speak with Albert. Then, as part of the Abbott investigation, Albert interviewed Dewitt, Bernsen, Walker, Mielke and Lopez concerning plaintiff's conduct. Plaintiff was in Africa on a business trip at this time.

In separate meetings with Albert, Walker and Lopez described numerous instances of plaintiff's sexually harassing conduct and of his abusive behavior toward subordinates, such as yelling and throwing objects. Albert also met with Mielke and learned that she had witnessed both the sexual remarks plaintiff made to Lindberg-Geiser and his abusive behavior.

At this time, Albert was aware that other Abbott employees had also experienced problems while working with plaintiff. In fact, prior to the Abbott investigation, several of plaintiff's subordinates (John Kane, Jim Brookshire, Ralph Hodash, Fred Woodman and Donna Brown) sought Albert's informal advice regarding plaintiff's management style. Each individual requested that the conversations be confidential and that no official action be taken. Albert had never pursued any of these complaints because none involved allegations of sexual harassment or discrimination.

On October 23, 1992, Albert met with Sundberg, Hogenmiller and Tom McNally, president of CAPD, to advise them of the status of the investigation. They discussed several options, including termination, suspension and removal from management, but decided to wait and gather more information. Pending resolution of the investigation, however, Albert and Sundberg suspended plaintiff with full pay and benefits. The record does not show that they revealed the identity of any witnesses interviewed to plaintiff.

On October 28, 1992, Albert and Sundberg met with plaintiff at his request. Plaintiff provided a rebuttal and identified the individuals he thought might have had problems with him. While almost every person plaintiff named had already given statements to the investigators, Albert and Sundberg still had not yet revealed their identities to plaintiff.

Upon completion of the Abbott investigation, Albert, Sundberg, Hogenmiller and McNally met and concluded that there was ample evidence supporting Lindberg-Geiser's allegations. According to CAPD management, this conduct constituted a violation of Abbott's sexual harassment policy warranting disciplinary action. Management also concluded that plaintiff's harsh treatment of subordinates had been improper.

Consequently, on November 2, 1992, Albert and Sundberg met with plaintiff and advised him of their decision. They told plaintiff that he could not remain in his current position as manager of the microbials department, or any other similar "Grade 20" position, because such positions required the supervision of other employees. Therefore, they offered plaintiff a senior planning position, which did not require the supervision of other employees.⁽¹⁾

On November 30, 1992, pursuant to Abbott personnel policy number 222 (policy 222), plaintiff appealed his reassignment directly to Robert Beck, corporate vice president-personnel, the highest stage of Abbott's five-level appeal process. Beck contacted McNally and Charles Brown to form a committee that could review the appeal. The committee issued a decision on January 19, 1993, and determined that the transfer of plaintiff to a nonsupervisory position was appropriate.

Plaintiff initially filed an Illinois Department of Human Rights claim but then dismissed it and filed a verified complaint in the circuit court of Cook County on June 15, 1993. On September 30, 1993, plaintiff filed a first amended verified complaint alleging defamation (count I) against all defendants, breach of an implied contract (count II) against Abbott, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (count III) and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (count IV) against Abbott, Albert and Sundberg. In addition, paragraph 42 of the complaint alleged that the defendants "were motivated to harm Plaintiff's reputation and professional career *** because Plaintiff is a Black African American."

On April 24, 1997, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005(c) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 1996)), that stated the following: (1) all of plaintiff's claims were linked to his claim for race discrimination and were preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act ()775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 1996), and (2) if the claims were not preempted, there were no genuine issues of material fact and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On June 30, 1997, the circuit court dismissed plaintiff's lawsuit because it contained repeated and specific allegations of race discrimination and was preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act. However, the court did allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.

On July 9, 1997, plaintiff filed a second amended verified complaint. This complaint attempted to substantively change counts III and IV by adding the secretaries as defendants.⁽²⁾ However, on July 11, 1997, the trial court entered an order nunc pro tunc stating that its June 30 ruling should instead be treated as a ruling pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 1996)) and that it would consider the remainder of defendants' summary judgment arguments.

On July 18, 1997, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment for all defendants as to each count of plaintiff's first and second amended verified complaints. Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, which the circuit court denied on October 15, 1997, and this timely appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment shall only be granted if the pleadings, depositions and admissions, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 1996); see Bass v. Prime Cable of Chicago, Inc., 284 Ill. App. 3d 116, 121 (1996). However, where material facts are disputed, the trial court must view all evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences from the facts presented in favor of the nonmovant. In re Estate of Hoover, 155 Ill. 2d 402, 410-11 (1993). While "the summary judgment procedure is to be encouraged as an aid in the expeditious disposition of a lawsuit [citation], it is a drastic means of disposing of litigation and therefore should be allowed only when the right of the moving party is clear and free from doubt. [Citations.]" Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229, 240 (1986). We review the circuit court's grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Estate of Hoover, 155 Ill. 2d at 411.

II. DEFAMATION

Plaintiff first contends that the circuit court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment as to count I of plaintiff's complaint because the evidence conclusively revealed that the statements made by defendants Walker, Lopez, Lundberg-Geiser and Mielke were defamatory per se, and even if a privilege was applicable under the facts of this case, the issue of whether defendants abused the qualified privilege presented a question of fact for a jury.

A. Defamation per se

To prove defamation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant made a false statement about him, that there was an unprivileged publication to a third party with fault by the defendant, and that the publication damaged plaintiff. Cianci v. Pettibone Corp., 298 Ill. App. 3d 419, 424 (1998); Pandya v. Hoerchler, 256 Ill. App. 3d 669, 673 (1993). Proof of publication requires that the defamatory statements were communicated to some person other than the plaintiff. Beauvoir v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, 137 Ill. App. 3d 294, 300-01 (1985). Published statements can be either defamatory per quod, i.e., requiring extrinsic facts to explain the defamatory character of the state-ments, or defamatory per se. Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp., 154 Ill. 2d 1, 10 (1992). A statement is defamatory per se if the words used are obviously harmful to the plaintiff's reputation because they impute to the plaintiff the commission of a criminal act, the lack of ability in a person's performance of his profession or business, or a want of integrity in the discharge of his office or employment. See Costello v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 125 Ill. 2d 402, 414 (1988). Since we are reviewing the circuit court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment, we will view the facts in favor of the plaintiff and assume that statements made by the defendants during the course of the Abbott investigation were defamatory per se. However, as the trial court granted summary judgment on count I because the statements at issue were privileged and there was no evidence presented that the privilege was abused, we will now proceed to the issues of qualified privilege and whether the privilege was abused.

B.Qualified Privilege

Plaintiff argues that there "is no privilege which permits an employee to defame and intimidate another under a guise of unlaw-fully interfering with another's prospective economic advantage." This argument assumes bad faith on the part of defendants.

" 'A privileged communication is one which, except for the occasion on which or the circumstances under which it is made, might be defamatory and actionable ***.' " Kuwik v. Starmark Star Marketing & Administration, Inc., 156 Ill. 2d 16, 24 (1993), quoting Zeinfeld v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 41 Ill. 2d 345, 349 (1968), quoting Judge v. Rockford Memorial Hospital, 17 Ill. App. 2d 365, 376 (1958). The qualified privilege, in particular, effectuates the policy of facilitating a free flow of information so that correct information may ultimately be attained. Kuwik, 156 Ill. 2d at 24. Where no qualified privilege exists, the plaintiff only has to show that the defendant acted negligently in making defamatory state-ments. Kuwik, 156 Ill. 2d at 24. However, once a defendant establishes a qualified privilege, to prevail the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either intentionally published the material in question and knew the matter was false, or displayed a reckless disregard as to the falsity of the matter. Kuwik, 156 Ill. 2d at 24.

The Illinois Supreme Court has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts approach to determining whether a qualified privilege exists.⁽³⁾ Kuwik, 156 Ill. 2d at 25-27; Restatement (Second) of Torts