A Cook County judge has unplugged a lawsuit from a former Chicago sports radio broadcaster who sued a Niles high school teacher and her employer on allegations she enabled a smear campaign after he questioned her social media posts regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riots in support of election fraud claims promoted by former President Donald Trump.
In January 2022, Matthew Rodewald sued Niles West High School teacher Patti-Anne Davis Ford; her husband, Corey Ford; Niles Township High School District 219; Niles West Principal Karen M. Ritter; and another woman, Dena Crissie.
Rodewald has been represented by attorney John C. Kreamer, of the Kreamer Law Group, of Naperville.
Rodewald is a former reporter and announcer for Chicago sports radio station The Score 670 AM. He most recently worked in media as a reporter for Arizona television station FOX 10 in Phoenix.
According to the complaint, Rodewald’s interaction with the Fords and District 219 began in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot staged by supporters of Trump, seeking to disrupt congressional certification of the vote to elect Joe Biden as the next president. Patti-Anne Davis Ford allegedly posted a message to Facebook attacking Trump supporters over the riot.
In that message, as described in Rodewald's complaint, Davis Ford allegedly demanded all Trump supporters call out “the vile, disgusting, and utter ridiculous White Supremacist Trump supporters,” not only on social media, but in person, at all available opportunities.
“If you stand by and say nothing, your silence creates support,” Davis Ford wrote in her message, adding “You may as well string up the noose yourself.”
The message also included one use of the obscenity “F---,” in all uppercase.
According to the complaint, the post was written and published while Ford was “publicly online while on duty and working inside Niles West High School, … and constituted a misuse of public school resources for personal political purposes and benefits,” which “could substantially disrupt the work and discipline” of the school.
Rodewald said he called school officials, asking to remain anonymous, and expressing hope District 219 “would address the post itself,” without taking “any negative action toward Davis Ford or her employment with the district.”
However, according to the complaint, Ritter allegedly forwarded his message, name and contact information to Davis Ford, “without any explanation of the matter to Davis Ford.” After that, according to the complaint, Davis Ford and her husband allegedly began subjecting Rodewald to “direct and unwanted harassment and berating messages.” According the complaint, the Fords allegedly placed harassing calls and text messages to both Rodewald and his wife for months.
Esrig opened his analysis by explaining Ritter, in her role as principal, has legal immunity for conduct considered an exercise of discretion and determination of formal policy. The choice to forward the message to Davis Ford was an exercise of discretion, Esrig wrote, and she made a policy determination to disclose Rodewald’s identity. Only a school superintendent is allowed to promise anonymity or confidentiality, he added. The district is similarly immune, Esrig added.
The judge dismissed the allegations against Ritter and District 219 with prejudice, meaning Rodewald will not be allowed to attempt to amend his complaint to resurrect his claims against those defendants.
The defamation and false light claims against Davis Ford, Corey Ford and Crissie, Esrig wrote, failed for lacking adequate allegations the posts they made following Rodewald’s phone calls “harm (Rodewald’s) reputation, particularly with respect to (his) capacity to perform his professional duties.”
In a Facebook comment, Crissie branded Rodewald a “staunch defender of racism,” but Esrig said that statement neither questions his professional integrity nor can it be the basis of a defamation claim. He pointed to a 1988 U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Stevens v. Tillman, in which the court held accusations of racism don’t necessarily harm a reputation as the word has “been watered down by overuse, becoming common coin in political discourse.”
Esrig likewise tossed a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress, saying Rodewald advanced “bare, conclusory allegations” and that count specifically is “plainly deficient of any facts” supporting the claim. He further said the alleged conduct isn’t outrageous or extreme “as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency” nor did Rodewald sufficiently plead the distress he suffered was severe beyond reason.
The count of negligent infliction of emotional distress failed for lack of allegations of contemporaneous physical injury, Esrig wrote, and the allegation of interference with prospective economic advantage, against Davis Ford and Ford, lacks a link of the couple’s conduct to any “prospective employer or employment opportunity in denying (Rodewald) any employment,” he said.
Esrig will allow Rodewaled to attempt to amend his complaint with regards to Davis Ford, Ford and Crissie, and set a June 21 deadline.