A tech company and its executive are embroiled in a legal battle over defamation and wage disputes, resulting in mixed outcomes. On June 11, 2024, the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld a $235,000 jury verdict for defamation against Project Resource Solutions, LLC (PRS) and Iven Rosheim but reversed an additional $24,000 awarded for quantum meruit/unjust enrichment.
The complaint was filed by Brian D. Finn and North American Install, LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook County against PRS and Rosheim on November 2015. Finn alleged that he was owed unpaid commissions and expenses under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage Act) after his termination from PRS in mid-2015. The case also included claims of defamation per se based on statements made by Rosheim during a company-wide meeting on December 15, 2015.
Finn worked at PRS from 2005 until his termination in 2015, eventually becoming Vice President of National Accounts. He claimed that his dismissal was due to confronting Rosheim about unpaid commissions. After his termination, Finn founded North American Install (NAI) and recruited clients he had brought to PRS. During the December meeting, Rosheim allegedly accused Finn of not showing up for work, making unauthorized purchases on the company credit card, plotting to create his own company while still employed at PRS, violating noncompete agreements, and warned contractors against working with NAI.
In January 2016, Finn filed a second lawsuit alleging defamation per se among other claims. Over several years, most claims were dismissed except for the defamation per se claim and the Wage Act claim which proceeded to trial.
Defendants argued that the jury verdict should be overturned due to improper instructions regarding qualified immunity in defamation law. They also contended that awarding damages under quantum meruit was inappropriate as it was not pleaded by Finn. The justices Ellis, Howse and McBride and appellate court agreed with defendants on the latter point but upheld the jury's decision on defamation due to forfeiture of their challenge to jury instructions.
Plaintiffs sought compensation for unpaid wages under the Wage Act but failed to prove an employment contract existed. Despite this failure, the trial court awarded damages based on quantum meruit/unjust enrichment for services rendered in 2014-2015—a decision later reversed by the appellate court because it was not part of Finn’s original pleadings.
Attorneys involved include Michael A. Munson and Grant O. Jaskulski representing appellants (defendants), while Laurie E. Leader and Michael Lee Tinaglia represented appellees (plaintiffs). Judges presiding over lower courts of this case were Diane Shelley and Thomas Donnelly with Case Nos. 15 L 11963 & 16 CH 165.