Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois considered CVS Health Inc. and Caremark LLC's motion to dismiss Mona Malhotra's second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court denied dismissal of Malhotra's defamation per quod claim but dismissed her civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. The ruling was without prejudice to the extent the court discussed a pro se litigant's opportunity to amend, although Malhotra had already amended her complaint.
Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Decision date
March 27, 2026
Docket number
No. 23-cv-15429
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether Malhotra plausibly pleaded defamation per quod based on allegedly false corrective-action documents, including publication and special damages.
- Whether the alleged defamatory statements were protected by qualified privilege at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- Whether Malhotra plausibly pleaded civil conspiracy despite the intracorporate-conspiracy rule governing a corporation and its employees.
- Whether the alleged retaliatory falsification of disciplinary documents and termination constituted extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient for an Illinois intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- Whether Malhotra's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was preempted by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act.
Holdings
- Malhotra plausibly alleged a defamatory statement because she identified specific allegedly false statements concerning her disciplinary history, workplace conduct, warnings, training, and mentoring, and alleged extrinsic facts explaining their defamatory meaning.
- Malhotra plausibly alleged publication of the allegedly defamatory statements because she alleged that they were communicated to persons other than herself, including CVS employees, the EEOC, and the Illinois Department of Labor.
- Malhotra sufficiently pleaded special damages by alleging the loss of a specific Walgreens job opportunity caused by the allegedly defamatory statements.
- The court declined to dismiss the defamation claim on qualified-privilege grounds because Malhotra plausibly alleged that the corrective-action documents were fabricated in retaliation for her harassment complaint and therefore were not made in good faith.
- Malhotra's civil conspiracy claim was barred by the intracorporate-conspiracy rule because she did not allege facts showing that the employee defendants acted outside the scope of their employment or for interests distinct from CVS's interests.
- Malhotra failed to state an Illinois IIED claim because the alleged falsification of corrective-action letters and subsequent termination, even if wrongful and retaliatory, did not constitute conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous.
- Malhotra's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed as preempted by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…