The Michael J. Bilandic Building, Chicago, home of the Illinois First District Appellate Court
CHICAGO — An Illinois state appeals panel has agreed the owners of the former Chicago Ace Hotel can sidestep a lawsuit from a former employee who claims the company president told all of her coworkers in 2020 the woman was being investigated for racial discrimination, but chose to never tell the workforce the investigation had turned up nothing, because management believed it wouldn't matter amid the racially charged environment created by the Black Lives Matter movement.
According to court documents, Claire Henry began working for Ace Hotel Group in 2017 as a "cultural engineer," a position that involved coordinating public events for the West Loop facility. According to court records, Ace furloughed Henry and numerous other employees in March 2020 as Covid mitigations forced business closures. But in May the chain secured a federal payroll loan allowing certain workers to return for eight weeks.
In June 2020, hotel general manager Jesse Boles emailed all hotel staff to address concerns employees posted on social media aligning with the company's focus on the Black Lives Matter movement. That night, another employee, who didn’t work in management, responded to Boles’ email, while including an email address that distributed the message to roughly 1,000 Ace employees beyond the West Loop location.
That email, according to court records, contained screenshots of social media comments alleging discrimination and a link to an online petition that included among its demands that Henry be fired and her department be reformed.
The next day, Ace Hotel President Brad Wilson emailed the same broad group and wrote, among other responses, that the company would “fully investigate the ‘Cultural Engineering’ department and current head at Ace Hotel Chicago, Claire Henry, and if an independent investigation shows any inappropriate bias or racism we will demand her removal.”
Later that week Henry’s lawyers sent Ace a letter seeking a discussion to amicably resolve her employment status. In late August, after the investigation cleared Henry of bias or racism, the company told Henry it was eliminating two positions, hers and that of social media manager, and combining the two. She declined to apply for the new job, and in September 2020 she also declined a $3,900 severance agreement.
When asked later under oath why he refused to share the results of the investigation with the hotel chain's workforce, according to court documents, Wilson said: "'The environment at that time was not going to accept the fact that our third-party independent findings were valid.' (The compay president) believed that making further reference to it 'would not result in people being, like, ‘Oh, Claire is cleared,’' but would instead result in a 'second round of deeper attacks on Claire and others in the hotel.'”
Henry initially sued in Cook County Circuit Court in January 2022, alleging defamation, corporate negligence and infliction of emotional distress.
That April, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Kubasiak denied a motion to dismiss the complaint, but ordered Henry to amend her filing. She did so, adding a breach of contract claim.
In January 2023, Kubasiak dismissed the bulk of the complaint with prejudice, but allowed Henry to replead the breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. She did so, citing to an employee handbook provision about investigating complaints with confidentiality and calling Wilson’s initial email, and the following choice not to notify her coworkers that the investigation found no wrongdoing, “extreme and outrageous conduct.”
In October 2024, Kubasiak granted summary judgment to the hotel, finding that although it was bound to the handbook as a personal contract, the corporation didn’t breach any of its policies or terms.
Henry challenged that ruling before the Illinois First District Appellate Court. Justice Aurelia Pucinski wrote the panel’s opinion; Justices Michael Hyman and Celia Gamrath concurred.
Pucinski highlighted handbook language showing Ace pledged to keep investigations and complaints confidential “to the extent possible,” and the panel agreed with Kubasiak that the employee’s email blast justified Wilson’s response as a commitment to adhering to policies to look into allegations and not an implied finding of wrongdoing.
Henry argued that questions over whether Wilson’s email violated confidentiality, or if she wasn’t treated with respect and dignity, were equally disputed and therefore deserved to advance beyond a summary judgment ruling. But the panel said Henry failed to demonstrate a breach of company policy.
“Henry makes no allegation that the contents or substance of the investigation was disclosed,” Pucinski wrote. “We agree with defendants that Wilson’s email did not breach the handbook’s confidentiality provisions, as the handbook did not promise that ‘the fact of an investigation, i.e., that an investigation would be conducted’ would be kept confidential. Moreover, we note that the handbook clearly stated defendants’ policy was to investigate ‘any’ complaints. Wilson’s email thus publicly acknowledged that defendants would comply with that obligation with respect to the complaint about Henry.”
The panel further said the email demanding Henry’s termination didn’t come from the company, meaning Ace can’t be liable for the public nature of that complaint, and reiterated the phrase “to the extent possible” is an indefinite or uncertain promise that can’t sustain the bulk of a contract breach claim.
Pucisnski likewise said a “dignity and respect” statement in the handbook is overly vague, and even if the statement were enforceable it clearly applies to a promised not to engage in employment discrimination, which is not an aspect of Henry’s litigation.
As to emotional distress, the panel said it wouldn’t condone the company’s actions and recognize they “may very well have been distressing,” but nonetheless didn’t find anything that reached the level of “extreme and outrageous” nor could it find sufficient evidence to show corporate intent.
“We find it significant that defendants did not initiate any discussion of Henry among her peers, nor did they actually accuse Henry of any wrongdoing,” Pucinski wrote. In deposition testimony, Wilson said his “response did not suggest that Henry had done anything improper. He explained: ‘We are responding to a specific demand that Claire Henry be terminated by saying we would investigate her.’ Wilson’s testimony — which is not directly contradicted — undermines any suggestion that defendants’ conduct reached the threshold of outrageous conduct to support an IIED claim.”
The panel said Wilson’s choice to name Henry “could be seen as careless or insensitive” but not “egregious or outrageous. We keep in mind that even dishonest or wrongful conduct does not necessarily cross the line into the outrageousness to support an IIED claim, especially in the employment context.”
Henry made no showing of an obligation to release investigation results. The panel noted Wilson testified to a belief critics wouldn’t accept the findings and corporate concern that a statement regarding Henry could yield a “second round of deeper attacks” targeting Henry and others.
“While reasonable people might disagree as to the wisdom of that decision, the evidence indicates that defendants simply did not want to draw further attention to the allegations of racism that had been raised,” Pucinski wrote. “Although we recognize that this decision may have caused Henry some distress, we see no evidence from which a jury could infer that defendants acted with the requisite intent or reckless disregard sufficient to support an IIED claim.”
Ace Hotel Chicago closed in January 2026. The property now operates as the Emily Hotel, with no connection to the Ace Hotel chain. Ace Hotels does not operate a property in Chicago.
Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this report.
