Date post: | 08-Feb-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | true-news-usa |
View: | 11,162 times |
Download: | 0 times |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TAMARA WUERFFEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14 CV 3990
COOK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
THOMAS DART, in his individual and
official capacity, RONALD ZYCHOWSKI,
ZELDA WHITTLER, DANA WRIGHT,
MARLON PARKS, and HELEN BURKE in
their individual capacities, and the
COUNTY OF COOK, a unit of local
Government,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Demands Trial by Jury
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff TAMARA WUERFFEL, through her undersigned counsel, complaining
against Defendants, COOK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, THOMAS DART, in his
individual and official capacity, RONALD ZYCHOWSKI, ZELDA WHITTLER, DANA
WRIGHT, MARLON PARKS, and HELEN BURKE, in their individual capacity, and
the COUNTY OF COOK,1/ a unit of local Government, states as follows:
1. Plaintiff TAMARA WUERFFEL (“Wuerffel”) brings this action to redress
acts of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
1/ Cook County is named only as an indispensable party for purposes of indemnification.
See Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle Co., 324 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2003).
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1
2
in violation of Plaintiff’s rights to free political association (Count I); to redress acts of
gender discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count II); to
redress acts of retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count III);
for violation of Plaintiff’s equal protection rights guaranteed under the United States
Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count IV); and for intentional infliction of
emotional distress under Illinois law (Count V).
Jurisdiction and Venue
2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
3. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c)
because Plaintiff and all Defendants either reside in this district or have their principal
place of business in this district, and all events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred
within this district.
Parties
4. Plaintiff Wuerffel has been employed with the Cook County Sheriff’s
Office since 1998 and holds the rank of Sergeant.
5. Defendant COOK COUNTY is a municipality incorporated under the
laws of the State of Illinois. Cook County administers itself through departments, one of
which is the Cook County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office” or “CCSO”).
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:2
3
6. Defendant COOK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE is a department of
COOK COUNTY.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant THOMAS DART (“Sheriff Dart”) served
in the elected position of Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. Sheriff Dart is sued in her
official and individual capacity.
8. Defendant Dart was a policy maker for the Sheriff’s Office and has final
policy making authority with regard to conduct alleged herein.
9. Defendant RONALD ZYCHOWSKI, (“Zychowski”) is sued in his
individual capacity. Defendant Zychowski is a Commander for the Cook County
Sheriff’s Police Department (“CCSPD”).
10. Defendant Zychowski was delegated with final policy making authority
with regard to his acts and conduct alleged herein.
11. Defendant Zychowski acted under color of law.
12. Defendant ZELDA WHITTLER (“Whittler”) is sued in her individual
capacity. Defendant Whittler is the Undersheriff of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office.
13. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Whittler has served in the position
of Undersheriff solely at the discretion and pleasure of the Sheriff. Defendant Whittler is
a final policy maker and/or was delegated with final policy making authority and was a
decision maker for the Sheriff’s Office and with regard to the conduct alleged herein.
14. Defendant Whittler acted under color of law.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:3
4
15. Defendant DANA WRIGHT (“Wright”) is sued in her individual capacity.
At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Wright served as First Deputy Chief of Police.
16. Defendant Wright was delegated with final policy making authority with
regard to her acts and conduct alleged herein.
17. Defendant Wright acted under color of law.
18. Defendant MARLON PARKS (“Parks”) is sued in his individual capacity.
Defendant Parks is a Chief for the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department (“CCSPD”).
19. Defendant Parks was delegated with final policy making authority with
regard to her acts and conduct alleged herein.
20. Defendant Parks acted under color of law.
21. Defendant HELEN BURKE (“Burke”) is sued in her individual capacity.
At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Burke served as Chief, Bureau of
Administration.
22. Defendant Burke was delegated with final policy making authority with
regard to her acts and conduct alleged herein.
23. Defendant Burke acted under color of law.
Administrative Proceedings
24. On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff Sergeant Wuerffel filed a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
alleging discrimination based upon her sex and alleging retaliation.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:4
5
25. On or about March 3, 2014, Plaintiff received a notice of right to sue from
the EEOC on her charge.
26. Plaintiff’s gender discrimination claims are timely filed within 90 days of
the receipt of the notice of right to sue.
Facts Upon Which Claims Are Based
27. Plaintiff Wuerffel has had an exemplary record with the Sheriff’s Office
for over 15 years. Sergeant Wuerffel is a highly decorated Sergeant and received letters
and commendations for her outstanding performance as a supervisor with the Sheriff’s
Office.
28. Plaintiff Wuerffel has never been disciplined.
29. At all relevant times, Sergeant Wuerffel satisfactorily fulfilled her assigned
duties.
30. Sergeant Wuerffel scored second in rank after the Lieutenants
promotional process in or about December 2012.
31. There are only 4 female sergeants on the Cook County Sheriff’s Police out
of 55 sergeants and there are no female Lieutenants.
32. Four days after the promotional interview for lieutenant, Commander
Zychowski began harassing Sergeant Wuerffel about her overtime for court
appearances.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:5
6
33. On November 18, 2012, Commander Zychowski denied paying Sergeant
Wuerffel the full overtime request for the court appearance on the Coulter case.
However, he paid two male officers who also attended court for their full overtime.
34. On December 26, 2012, Commander Dwyer made comments in roll call
that they were watching Sergeant Wuerffel.
35. In January 2013, Commander Zychowski began singling Sergeant
Wuerffel out, stating only he could approve benefit time for her to use, even though he
was not her immediate supervisor, and he refused to approve overtime for her, whereas
similarly situated male employees were able to have their overtime cards approved by
their immediate supervisor.
36. On January 12, 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel complained to Chief Parks
regarding Zychowski harassing her.
37. Commander Zychowski did not permit Sergeant Wuerffel to adjust her
schedule to reduce overtime, whereas other male employees were permitted to adjust
their schedules.
38. On January 19, 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel complained again to Chief Parks.
39. In June 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel was denied being a Field Training Officer
supervisor by Chief Parks.
40. On June 25, 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel learned that Chief Parks initiated a
complaint against Wuerffel with the Sheriff’s Office of Professional Review (“OPR”) in
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:6
7
January, falsely accusing her of submitting improper overtime requests, even though he
had admitted to her that he knew she did nothing wrong.
41. All of Sergeant Wuerffel’s overtime requests were signed off on and
approved by her supervisors, including Chief Parks and Commander Zychowski.
42. In August 2013, Commander Zychowski denied permitting Sergeant
Wuerffel to work a roadside safety check and regular overtime, while two male
sergeants with less seniority than her were allowed to work overtime.
43. Sergeant Wuerffel was again denied the opportunity to work a roadside
safety check on August 28, 2013.
44. In August 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel complained to OPR about being
harassed by Commander Zychowski. OPR did not take any steps to investigate her
complaints.
45. In September 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel was denied training for the Hostage
Negotiations team that she had been a part of since 2003.
46. On October 11, 2013, Sheriff Dart promoted four male employees to
lieutenant. Sergeant Wuerffel was passed over for promotion even though she scored
higher than three of the males promoted.
47. Defendants passed Plaintiff over in favor of a less‐qualified candidate for
the promotion to lieutenant.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:7
8
48. Defendants passed Plaintiff over in favor of a candidate who was
politically connected, had “clout,” and/or contributed to Dart’s political campaign.
49. The promotions decisions for the Cook County Sheriff’s Police for
positions of Lieutenant are ultimately made by Defendant Dart.
50. Defendants Burke and Wright participated in and approved the
promotion of less qualified and politically connected employees over Sergeant
Wuerffel.
51. Sergeant Wuerffel is objectively more qualified than other individuals that
Defendants promoted to Lieutenant.
52. Defendants initiated the false OPR investigation against Sergeant
Wuerffel, in part, in order to promote male employees and employees with clout
instead of her.
53. On November 20, 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel requested to meet with
Defendant Wright to discuss the false OPR investigation and discrimination. Defendant
Wright refused to meet with Sergeant Wuerffel.
54. On or about December 3, 2013, Commander Zychowski again denied
Sergeant Wuerffel overtime by taking her off a scheduled hire back.
55. On December 4, 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel contacted Sergeant Little from
her Union regarding Commander Zychowski removing her from the scheduled
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:8
9
overtime assignment. Sergeant Little informed Sergeant Wuerffel that he would contact
Chief Parks regarding the ongoing issue with Commander Zychowski.
56. On December 5, 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel was told there would be a
meeting to address the issues of harassment with Zychowski on December 11, 2013 in
Chief Parks’ office.
57. Instead, on December 5, 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel was suspended with pay.
58. On December 20, 2013, Sergeant Wuerffel was placed on leave without
pay by Defendants Whittler and Wright. Similarly situated males, have not been
suspended without pay.
59. Male officers worked more overtime in 2012 than Sergeant Wuerffel did,
but they have never been investigated.
60. Sergeant Wuerffel was questioned four times during the OPR
investigation. Sergeant Wuerffel was told during these interrogations that she could not
have a Union Representative and an attorney present during the interrogation. OPR
refused to let Sergeant Wuerffel make changes to her statement that had been
incorrectly summarized by investigators.
61. Sergeant Wuerffel had valid rights under Weingarten, the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, and the Illinois Uniform Peace Officer’s Disciplinary Act to
have both her Union Representative and her attorney present during the interrogation.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:9
10
62. Sergeant Wuerffel informed the Sheriff’s Office command staff, including
Undersheriff Whittler, of the discrimination and retaliation. To date, Sheriff Dart and
his command staff, including but not limited to Defendants Parks, Whittler, and Wright,
have not responded to Sergeant Wuerffel’s complaints of the ongoing discrimination
and retaliation.
63. No investigation was made into Sergeant Wuerffel’s complaints of
discrimination.
64. Defendants did absolutely no investigation into the complaints made by
Sergeant Wuerffel that she was being retaliated against by the OPR investigation.
65. Defendants have subjected Sergeant Wuerffel to further retaliation by
bringing additional investigations against her in an effort to find something to
terminate her for.
66. Defendants have manufactured charges against Sergeant Wuerffel and
others to retaliate against them for their political affiliation and/or complaints of
political discrimination and retaliation.
67. Defendants with the knowledge and/or consent of Defendant Dart have
also engaged in selective enforcement of charges against employees based on political
affiliation or non‐affiliation and those who have complained of discrimination.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:10
11
68. Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of retaliation against
employees based on their political affiliation and in response to their complaints about
discrimination.
69. Defendants and Defendants’ command staff and supervisors had
knowledge of the complained of conduct and refused or failed to take action to
terminate or correct such conduct, although they had the power and authority to do so.
COUNT I
(§ 1983 – Political Discrimination)
70. Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 as if
fully set forth herein against all Defendants.
71. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted as employees, supervisors,
and final policymakers for the Cook County Sheriff’s Office and its respective agencies.
72. The First Amendment protects a wide spectrum of free speech and
association, including a public employeeʹs right to free association, to support or not
support a political candidate of their own choosing, and to speak out and oppose
political discrimination.
73. Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff for the exercise of her
rights under the First Amendment, by including but not limited to the following:
Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unwarranted discipline, denying her
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:11
12
right to counsel during OPR interrogations, denying her promotion to Lieutenant, and
issuing charges for her termination on baseless OPR investigations.
74. Defendants have acted under color of state law at all material times
hereto.
75. The conduct of Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights to free association as
secured by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
76. Defendants are aware that it is unlawful to retaliate or discriminate
against someone because of their political affiliation and/or perceived political
affiliation.
77. Defendants know that employees must be treated equally regardless of
their political affiliation and/or perceived political affiliation.
78. On September 4, 2012, a federal jury found that Defendant Cook County
Sheriff’s Office and Defendant Dart in his official capacity, along with Scott Kurtovich,
who was the First Executive Assistant in the Sheriff’s Office, violated the 21 plaintiffs’
First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution in the case of Burruss, et
al. v. Cook County Sheriff’s Office, et al., Case No. 08 C 6621 (N.D. Ill.). The jury awarded
$1,560,000 in compensatory (not including back pay or front pay) and punitive damages
to the 21‐plaintiff employees of the Sheriff’s Office. Defendants filed a post‐trial motion
to vacate the verdict, which the District Court denied. The District Court upheld the
jury’s verdict, and held in relevant part: “The County is liable under section 1983, just as
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:12
13
Kurtovich is individually, because the jury found that the County made an official
decision to disband SORT in retaliation against Plaintiffs. . . . The court therefore will
not set aside the jury’s liability findings against Defendants.”
79. The jury in the Burruss case found that Defendants’ Director Scott
Kurtovich violated federal law and the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution by retaliating against Plaintiffs.
80. Despite this finding and the District Court’s affirmation of the jury’s
verdict, Defendants in this case have not disciplined or terminated Scott Kurtovich’s
employment from the Sheriff’s Office.
81. Defendants have not disciplined or terminated Scott Kurtovich’s
employment despite Defendant Dart’s own “written policy” that political retaliation
will not be tolerated in the Sheriff’s Office and will be subject to termination.
82. Instead, after the jury’s verdict, Defendant Dart promoted Scott Kurtovich
to be the Director over the Training Academy and in charge of training, including
training on the Sheriff’s policy on political discrimination and retaliation in the
workplace.
83. Despite Shakman, Defendant Sheriff’s Office is still not investigating or
turns a blind eye to complaints of political discrimination and retaliation. The
investigations are superficial and intended to exonerate command staff, supervisors,
and the Sheriff’s Office of complaints of political discrimination and retaliation.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:13
14
Employees who violate the law and the Sheriff’s written policy against political
discrimination are not disciplined, and the message is sent that such conduct is
condoned and tolerated within the Sheriff’s Office.
84. The actions of the Defendants in violating Plaintiff’s and other employees’
Constitutional rights under the First Amendment were intentional, willful, and
malicious and/or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights as secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
85. Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiff damages, including but not limited
to: loss of income, back pay, front pay, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation,
degradation, inconvenience, lost benefits, loss of job advancement, future pecuniary
losses, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and other consequential damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the following relief as to Count I of the Complaint:
A. All wages and benefits Plaintiff would have received but for the
retaliation, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, future
pecuniary losses, and pre‐judgment interest;
B. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
C. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from engaging in
the retaliatory practices complained of herein;
D. A permanent injunction requiring that the Defendants adopt
employment practices and policies in accord and conformity with
the requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and further requiring that Defendants adopt and initiate effective
remedial actions to ensure equal treatment and non‐retaliation of
employees;
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:14
15
E. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ actions violate the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution;
F. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is
assured that the Defendants have remedied the policies and
practices complained of herein and are determined to be in full
compliance with the law;
G. Punitive damages as allowed by law as against the individual
Defendants only;
H. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation
expenses; and
I. Such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable.
COUNT II
(Title VII – Gender Discrimination)
91. Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 above
as though fully set forth herein.
92. The actions of Defendant Cook County Sheriff’s Office as perpetrated by its
agents and as described and complained of above, are unlawful employment practices
in that they likely have the effect of discriminating against, depriving and tending to
deprive equal employment to, and otherwise adversely affecting Plaintiff because of her
sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq.
93. Defendant Cook County Sheriff’s Office has engaged in a policy, pattern,
and practice of discrimination against women.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:15
16
94. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender
by denying her equal opportunities, including but not limited to: being subject to a
hostile work environment, denying her employment opportunities, pay increases,
overtime and special assignments.
95. Defendants treated similarly situated males better than Plaintiff because of
her sex.
96. The actions of Defendants in intentionally discriminating against Plaintiff
have caused Plaintiff great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and
emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary
losses, and other consequential damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
A. All wages and benefits Plaintiff would have received but for the
discrimination, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, future
pecuniary losses, and pre‐judgment interest;
B. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial to
compensate Plaintiff for the depression, humiliation, anguish, and
emotional distress, caused by Defendant’s conduct;
C. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the
discriminatory practices complained of herein;
D. A permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to adopt employment
practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements
of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.;
E. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured
that Defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of
herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law;
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:16
17
F. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses;
and
G. Such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable.
COUNT III
(Title VII – Retaliation)
97. Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 above
as though fully set forth herein.
98. The actions of Defendant Cook County Sheriff’s Office as perpetrated by its
agents and as described and complained of above, are unlawful employment practices
in that they likely have the effect of retaliating against, depriving and tending to
deprive equal employment to, and otherwise adversely affecting Plaintiff because of her
complaints of discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
99. Defendant Cook County Sheriff’s Office has engaged in a policy, pattern,
and practice of retaliating against employees who complain of discrimination.
100. Defendants intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff because of her
complaints by denying her equal opportunities, including but not limited to: being
subject to a hostile work environment, denying her employment opportunities, pay
increases, overtime and special assignments.
101. Defendants treated similarly situated males better than Plaintiff because of
her complaints of discrimination.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:17
18
102. The actions of Defendants in retaliating against Plaintiff have caused
Plaintiff great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain
and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and
other consequential damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
A. All wages and benefits Plaintiff would have received but for the
discrimination, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, future
pecuniary losses, and pre‐judgment interest;
B. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial to
compensate Plaintiff for the depression, humiliation, anguish, and
emotional distress, caused by Defendant’s conduct;
C. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the
discriminatory practices complained of herein;
D. A permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to adopt employment
practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements
of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.;
E. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured
that Defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of
herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law;
F. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses;
and
G. Such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable.
COUNT IV
(§ 1983 Violation of Equal Protection)
103. Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 above
as though fully set forth herein.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:18
19
104. Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory
treatment that altered the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.
105. The actions of Defendants against Plaintiff violate her equal protection right
to be free from gender discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
106. Defendant Cook County Sheriff’s Office failed to provide proper training to
its managers, supervisors, and employees to prevent gender discrimination.
Defendant’s failure to train was deliberately indifferent to the rights of employees
within its purview.
107. The actions of Defendants were intentional, willful, and malicious and/or in
deliberate indifference for Plaintiff’s rights as secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
108. The actions of Defendants in intentionally engaging in and condoning
discrimination against Plaintiff based on her gender caused Plaintiff great mental
anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering,
inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other
consequential damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
A. All wages and benefits Plaintiff would have received but for the
discrimination, including pre‐judgment interest;
B. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
C. Defendants be required to pay pre‐judgment interest to Plaintiff on
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:19
20
these damages;
D. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from engaging in
the discriminatory practices complained of herein;
E. A permanent injunction requiring the Defendants adopt
employment practices and policies in accord and conformity with
the requirements of the United States Constitution and pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983;
F. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is
assured that Defendants have remedied the policies and practices
complained of herein and are determined to be in full compliance
with the law;
G. Punitive damages as allowed by law against individual
Defendants;
H. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation
expenses; and
I. Such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable.
COUNT V
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
109. Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 above
as though fully set forth herein.
110. The intentional acts of Defendants constitute extreme and outrageous
conduct, beyond the bounds of decency, which inflicted severe emotional distress and
mental anguish on Plaintiff.
111. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff has suffered
severe mental anxiety and emotional and physical distress.
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:20
21
112. Defendants acted willfully and maliciously with respect to their treatment of
Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
A. Compensatory damages;
B. Economic losses Plaintiff sustained and will sustain as a result of
the intentional infliction of emotional distress, including
prejudgment interest on such amounts;
C. Punitive damages as allowed by law;
D. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation
expenses; and
E. Such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Heidi Karr Sleper
Plaintiff’s Attorney
Electronically filed on May 29, 2014
Dana L. Kurtz, Esq. (6256245)
Heidi Karr Sleper, Esq. (6287421)
KURTZ LAW OFFICES, LTD.
32 Blaine Street
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Phone: (630) 323‐9444
Fax: (630) 604‐9444
E‐mail: [email protected]
E‐mail: [email protected]
Case: 1:14-cv-03990 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:21