| 
		Supreme Court to consider whether former Super Bowl MVP has right to 
		know accuser’s identity
		 Send a link to a friend 
		[September 24, 2021] 
		By JERRY NOWICKICapitol News Illinois
 jnowicki@capitolnewsillinois.com
 
 
  SPRINGFIELD – A case before the Illinois 
		Supreme Court centers on whether a former Super Bowl MVP has a right to 
		learn the identity of a woman who accused him of sexual harassment, 
		allegedly leading to the termination of contracts between his energy 
		services company and a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation. 
 Richard Dent, a Pro Football Hall-of-Famer and Chicago Bears defensive 
		lineman from 1983 to 1993, is the proprietor of RLD Resources LLC, a 
		business specializing in energy products and services, according to its 
		website. RLD had several energy supply and marketing contracts with 
		Constellation NewEnergy Inc. and related companies, according to court 
		documents. Constellation is a subsidiary of Exelon.
 
 But Dent’s lawyers, led by in-house attorney Paul G. Neilan, alleged 
		that those contracts were terminated on Oct. 1, 2018, after Dent was 
		informed in a Sept. 14, 2018, meeting with two of Constellation’s 
		lawyers that he was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint by a 
		female employee of Constellation.
 
		
		 
		A letter sent from Constellation to Dent’s lawyers in December 2018 
		concluded that “although Mr. Dent denied the allegations, his denials 
		were not credible and the investigation concluded that the reports 
		accurately described behaviors that were, at a minimum, in violation of 
		Exelon's code of business conduct, completely outside the norms of 
		socially acceptable behavior, and demeaning to Constellation employees.”
 Now, the court is asked to decide whether the employee – identified in 
		Dent’s court petition as Person A – and a witness to separate “drunk and 
		disorderly” conduct by Dent at a different location than where the 
		alleged harassment occurred – identified as Person B – are protected by 
		the court principle of “qualified privilege,” allowing for their 
		anonymity in a sexual harassment case.
 
 Dent’s lawyers argued that he’s entitled to know the identities and 
		locations of Person A and Person B through the pre-suit discovery 
		process because their statements were false and defamatory. The 
		individuals, not Constellation, are the publishers of the defamatory 
		claims, his lawyers argued.
 
 Constellation’s lawyers argued the employees should remain anonymous 
		because their statements were made as part of a privileged confidential 
		workplace investigation of sexual harassment.
 
 Specifically, Person A alleged that Dent told her at a 2016 
		Constellation-sponsored golf outing that she had “a butt like a sister.” 
		Then, at a pre-golf outing party held at the Shedd Aquarium in July 
		2018, Dent allegedly groped the woman, according to court documents.
 
 Person B, the witness cited by Constellation, allegedly noted he 
		observed that Dent was “drunk and disorderly” while picking up golf 
		materials at the nearby Marriott Hotel in Chicago at an event related to 
		the 2018 outing but separate from where the alleged harassment occurred.
 
		 
		Dent’s petition is also seeking the identity of Person C, which his 
		legal team identified in the court filing as an “investigator” examining 
		the harassment claims on behalf of Constellation.
 In their own court filings, Constellation’s lawyers noted that the 
		investigators were in fact Grace Speights and Theos McKinney, the two 
		lawyers that spoke to Dent during the Sept. 14, 2018 meeting.
 
 Constellation’s lawyers argued that because Dent now knows the identity 
		of Person C, he can file a defamation suit against them and later seek 
		the identities of Persons A and B.
 
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
            
			Former Chicago Bears defensive lineman Richard Dent, 
			seated front row left, watches as his lawyer, Paul G. Neilan, argues 
			before the Illinois Supreme Court Wednesday. Dent is seeking to have 
			the identity of a sexual harassment accuser revealed so he can 
			pursue a defamation claim. (Credit: Blueroomstream.com) 
            
			
			 
            But Dent’s team said McKinney and Speights did not 
			identify themselves as investigators to Dent at the meeting, and 
			Person C’s identity was not known when the petition before the court 
			was filed, meaning it’s outside of the scope of what the court 
			should consider. 
            “In order to use the qualified privilege of an 
			employee to report workplace harassment to the employer, 
			Constellation needed to have more facts than it had divulged in the 
			September 2018 meeting, and more facts than it had stated in the 
			December 2018 letter,” Neilan said. 
 The case started in 2019 in Cook County Circuit Court, which sided 
			with Constellation. But the 1st District Court of Appeals sided with 
			Dent, which led Constellation’s legal team to bring the challenge to 
			the Supreme Court.
 
 Constellation’s attorney, J. Timothy Eaton, of Taft, Stettinius & 
			Hollister LLP, urged the court in oral arguments Wednesday to 
			reverse the appellate court’s decision, saying the “chilling effect” 
			would be “obvious” if Constellation was forced to divulge the 
			identity of the alleged victim and the witness.
 
 “This court must balance a potential defamation plaintiff’s right to 
			redress against the danger of setting the standard to prove an abuse 
			of privilege so low that it effectively chills the victim’s right to 
			speak confidentially and exposes the victim to a retaliatory 
			response,” Eaton argued.
 
 The fact that Dent denies the allegations was not enough to overcome 
			the qualified privilege because Dent did not provide facts to show 
			that the allegations were made “in bad faith,” Eaton said.
 
 
            
			 
			But Justice Rita B. Garman questioned whether someone in Dent’s 
			position could ever “gain enough info to overcome” qualified 
			privilege if the identity of the accuser remains unknown.
 
 Eaton reiterated the court must balance Dent’s rights to redress 
			“with the rights of the victim who, in an interview, assumed 
			confidentiality.”
 
 “The studies have shown that in combating sexual harassment in the 
			workplace, less than 14 percent of the workplace sexual harassment 
			victims report their harassers,” he said. “Most of them don't report 
			because they fear retaliation and because confidentiality concerns 
			are part of why they don't come forward to complain.”
 
 More than 30 organizations, including ACLU Illinois, Women Employed 
			and the National Women’s Law Center, filed a brief in support of 
			Constellation’s argument.
 
 Dent’s team argued in court filings that because the contracts were 
			at-will, Constellation could have protected the identities of 
			persons A, B and C by terminating the contracts without mention of 
			sexual harassment. That they did not do so means “Constellation’s 
			actions repudiate its own warning” regarding fears of retaliation, 
			according to a court filing.
 
 Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 
			news service covering state government and distributed to more than 
			400 newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois 
			Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
 |