Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
`
`No. 21-cv-3273
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`STELLA SOSA WOLF,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL,
`an Illinois corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Stella Sosa Wolf, by and through her attorneys Loftus & Eisenberg,
`
`Ltd., and for her cause of action against Defendant Saint Anthony Hospital states
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Stella Sosa Wolf (“Wolf”) joined Saint Anthony Hospital (“SAH” or the
`
`“Hospital”) as its Chief Human Resource Officer (“CHRO”) and Vice President,
`
`Human Resources in 2016 prepared to lead and support the organization in
`
`fulfilling its vision “to inspire change through services that improve the overall
`
`health of our community.” Despite her outstanding performance and service to the
`
`Hospital, Wolf could not overcome SAH’s gender biased, politically corrupt, and
`
`retaliatory employment practices, which ultimately resulted in her termination
`
`from the Hospital following her complaints about the President and Chief Executive
`
`Officer (“CEO”) Guy Medaglia’s (“Medaglia”) inappropriate and illegal behavior
`
`towards women and insistence on hiring politically connected employees and
`
`vendors in a seeming exchange for state funding and other support. Wolf brings this
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
`
`No. 21-cv-3273
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`STELLA SOSA WOLF,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL,
`an Illinois corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Stella Sosa Wolf, by and through her attorneys Loftus & Eisenberg,
`
`Ltd., and for her cause of action against Defendant Saint Anthony Hospital states
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Stella Sosa Wolf (“Wolf”) joined Saint Anthony Hospital (“SAH” or the
`
`“Hospital”) as its Chief Human Resource Officer (“CHRO”) and Vice President,
`
`Human Resources in 2016 prepared to lead and support the organization in
`
`fulfilling its vision “to inspire change through services that improve the overall
`
`health of our community.” Despite her outstanding performance and service to the
`
`Hospital, Wolf could not overcome SAH’s gender biased, politically corrupt, and
`
`retaliatory employment practices, which ultimately resulted in her termination
`
`from the Hospital following her complaints about the President and Chief Executive
`
`Officer (“CEO”) Guy Medaglia’s (“Medaglia”) inappropriate and illegal behavior
`
`towards women and insistence on hiring politically connected employees and
`
`vendors in a seeming exchange for state funding and other support. Wolf brings this
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2
`
`action to vindicate not only her own rights, but the rights of the Hospital’s staff and
`
`patients as well as those of all Illinois residents to be free from political corruption.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`2.
`
`Wolf’s claims arise under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29
`
`U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.; as well as the Illinois Whistleblower Protection Act
`
`(“Whistleblower Act”), 740 ILCS 174/1 et seq.; Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”),
`
`775 ILCS 5/1 et seq.; and common law. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.1 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction
`
`over the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Hospital is located in this District and maintains its hospital
`
`in this District, where the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint occurred in
`
`this District.
`
`Parties
`
`4.
`
`Defendant SAH is an independent community hospital located on
`
`Chicago’s southwest side. According to its most recently published Annual Report
`
`(2017), the Hospital employs over 1000 employees at its primary location as well as
`
`at five other satellite clinics and wellness centers.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Wolf
`
`resides in Oakbrook Terrace,
`
`Illinois. Wolf
`
`is a
`
`66-year-old, Hispanic woman who worked for Defendant SAH from June 6, 2016,
`
`1 Plaintiff cross filed her Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC),
`No. 21BA 10769, which remains pending. Plaintiff intends to amend her Complaint to add claims under Title VII of
`the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
`(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, after
`obtaining the Right to Sue from the EEOC.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3
`
`until she was unlawfully terminated on June 18, 2020, as a part of a purported
`
`reduction in force (“RIF”).
`
`Factual Allegations
`
`6.
`
`Wolf joined SAH as its CHRO on June 6, 2016, reporting directly to
`
`Medaglia, after the Hospital recruited her away from Exchange Services in Dallas,
`
`Texas, where she had served for five years as the Vice President, Human Resources.
`
`She brought with her three decades of experience as a human resource professional.
`
`7.
`
`As her career progressed at SAH, Wolf began to observe Medaglia’s
`
`hostile behavior towards his female subordinates. Medaglia frequently subjected his
`
`female subordinates to explosive tirades and outbursts creating a work environment
`
`beset with fear and intimidation.
`
`8.
`
`In addition, other female employees, especially those who worked
`
`closely with Medaglia, confided in Wolf about their experiences with his verbal
`
`abuse, requesting her confidentiality out of fear of losing their jobs.
`
`Wolf Complains About the Hostile Work Environment For Women at SAH
`And Objects to Perceived or Actual Political Corruption
`
`9.
`
`Stunned by Medaglia’s hostility towards a female subordinate at an
`
`April 2019 executive committee meeting, Wolf called Medaglia to discuss his
`
`behavior. Wolf told Medaglia that his employees, in particular his female employees,
`
`were fearful of him as a result of his outburst. Medaglia cut Wolf off, making
`
`excuses for his behavior. Medaglia then told Wolf she was the “best HR person [he
`
`had] ever had,” and assured her he had a “great deal of respect for” her, and “didn’t
`
`want to lose her,” or words to that effect. Medaglia further told Wolf “not to take it
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4
`
`[his comments] from a sexual harassment perspective” but he found her “extremely
`
`attractive, smart, confident, and the kind of woman [he] would be interested in
`
`pursuing on a personal level,” or words to that effect. Shocked and extremely
`
`uncomfortable, Wolf attempted to ignore Medaglia’s comments.
`
`10. Medaglia ended the call with a request for Wolf—he asked her to figure
`
`out how her “colleagues” could better prepare in order to avoid his wrath since he
`
`could not promise that his outburst would not happen again.
`
`11.
`
`After their conversation regarding the April 2019 executive committee
`
`meeting incident, Medaglia and Wolf’s professional relationship deteriorated.
`
`Medaglia undermined, marginalized, and belittled Wolf. Medaglia often yelled at
`
`Wolf about business issues, blamed her for problems beyond her control, for
`
`example, the lack of state financial support, and began excluding her from
`
`HR-related decisions.
`
`12.
`
`Nevertheless, Wolf continued to object to what she believed were
`
`Medaglia’s illegal actions. For example, Wolf opposed Medaglia’s June 2019
`
`instruction to create two unnecessary positions for Senator Martin Sandoval’s two
`
`adult children and daughter’s boyfriend (Jennifer Sandoval, Martin Sandoval, Jr.,
`
`(“Sandoval II”), and Matthew Castillo) in exchange for a $5,500,000 state grant
`
`Sandoval secured for the Hospital. At the time, Sandoval was already under
`
`investigation for public corruption and has since pleaded guilty to federal charges
`
`before dying on December 5, 2020.
`
`13.
`
`Faced with Wolf’s opposition, Medaglia circumvented her and ordered
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5
`
`a Director of HR to draft offer letters with salaries for Ms. Sandoval, Sandoval II,
`
`and Castillo, which were not consistent with their positions. SAH then employed all
`
`three.
`
`14.
`
`SAH was awarded a second $5,500,000 state grant that summer, which
`
`was paid out September 17, 2019.
`
`15. Medaglia made frequent, publicly reported contributions to Sandoval
`
`family political campaigns.
`
`16.
`
`Later that summer, Medaglia explained that then-Speaker of the
`
`Illinois House of Representatives Michael Madigan had requested that his son,
`
`Andrew Madigan, replace the Hospital’s existing insurance broker. To that end,
`
`Medaglia instructed Wolf to share the Hospital’s current rates with the younger
`
`Madigan so he could undercut them.
`
`17. Wolf objected to the Madigan scheme, noting that their current broker
`
`had been providing exemplary service and significant savings. Despite Medaglia’s
`
`insistence that in Chicago you “pay to play” and this was one of those times it was
`
`necessary to play, or words to that effect, Wolf
`
`insisted on securing three
`
`competitive bids. As a result of that process, Wolf recommended remaining with the
`
`Hospital’s current broker.
`
`18. Medaglia blamed Wolf for a lack of financial support from the State in
`
`a leadership meeting, noting that Senator Sandoval was by then under indictment
`
`for political corruption and Madigan was “not happy with us,” or words to that
`
`effect.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6
`
`19.
`
`Similar schemes have since come to light related to Senator Sandoval
`
`and Speaker Madigan.
`
`See, e.g., Gress v. Reg. Transp. Auth., et. al., No.
`
`17-cv-08067, Dkt. 80 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2020) (alleging a “Sandoval Racketeering
`
`Conspiracy” including conditioning state action on securing patronage jobs for
`
`Sandoval II); Gress, et. al, v. Commonwealth Edison Co. and Exelon Corp., Nos.
`
`1:20-cv-04555, 1:20-cv-04980, Dkt. 75 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2021) (alleging a bribery
`
`scheme in which ComEd jobs were given to Madigan’s friends in exchange for
`
`favorable legislative treatment).
`
`SAH Retaliates Against Wolf for her Protected Conduct and Treats Her
`Less Favorably Than Similarly-Situated Men.
`
`20.
`
`After Wolf began working from home to recover from a November 2019
`
`surgery, Medaglia canceled his biweekly one-on-one meetings with her and largely
`
`stopped responding to her emails.
`
`21. While Wolf was working remotely, the Hospital
`
`initiated a sham
`
`investigation into a complaint made against Wolf to set her up for termination. SAH
`
`notified Wolf that SAH had received a complaint from Wolf’s former executive
`
`assistant, whom Wolf had recently terminated for poor performance during the
`
`assistant’s probationary period. The former employee had alleged that Wolf was
`
`“condescending and verbally abusive toward employees,” or words to that effect.
`
`22.
`
`SAH explained that it would conduct a formal investigation into the
`
`complaint even though the assistant’s performance issues were well-documented,
`
`and the termination had been approved by Medaglia. Investigations into complaints
`
`of this nature were rare at SAH but Medaglia insisted on this investigation to
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7
`
`“convey the right message,” or words to that effect.
`
`23.
`
`The investigation was completed by SAH’s outside employment counsel
`
`while Wolf worked remotely. Wolf participated in two hour-long interviews with the
`
`investigator, who focused on Wolf’s demeanor and tone as it related to security
`
`personnel with whom Wolf did not have direct supervisory authority.
`
`24.
`
`During the interview, Wolf pointed to examples of men, especially
`
`those close to Medaglia like Vice President of Community Relations James
`
`Sifuentes and Dr. Romeen Lavani, whose past inappropriate behavior has gone
`
`largely unchallenged by the Hospital.
`
`25.
`
`Sifuentes remains on SAH’s leadership team, and the Hospital recently
`
`promoted Lavani to Vice President and Chief Medical Officer.
`
`26.
`
`During the course of the investigation into Wolf’s conduct, she learned
`
`that only two of her eight direct reports were interviewed—an employee she was
`
`coaching for ongoing performance issues and an office manager. Wolf believes the
`
`interviewees were selected to elicit negative feedback and set her up for
`
`termination.
`
`27. Medaglia continued to discriminate and retaliate against Wolf during
`
`the investigation. Among other
`
`things, Medaglia excluded Wolf
`
`from an
`
`investigation into Sifuentes’ behavior, publicly disparaged Wolf’s HR team at the
`
`SAH holiday event by blaming them for poor turnout to attendees, ignored Wolf’s
`
`requests for feedback, circumvented her authority with her own team, and
`
`disinvited Wolf from the SAH executive holiday dinner.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8
`
`28.
`
`Just days after Wolf was interviewed, SAH canceled her yearly review
`
`meeting.
`
`29. Medaglia excluded Wolf from all Hospital employees’ merit review
`
`process, working through his administrative assistant and Ms. Wolf’s team to
`
`finalize the merit proposals without her.
`
`30.
`
`SAH’s investigation into Wolf stood in stark contrast to treatment of
`
`Sifuentes, whose sexual harassment investigation was opened and closed within a
`
`week of the complaint.
`
`31. Wolf informed Medaglia on December 22, 2019, that she intended to
`
`return to the office the next day. Wolf informed Medaglia that her doctor still
`
`required her to complete physical therapy, which might necessitate some scheduling
`
`accommodations.
`
`32.
`
`Instead of engaging in an interactive process, Medaglia discouraged
`
`Wolf’s request for reasonable accommodation and suggested she switch to an onsite
`
`SAH therapist.
`
`33. Wolf’s repeated requests for updates regarding her investigation went
`
`unanswered. Instead, Medaglia and Chmura avoided Wolf, even dodging her
`
`attempts
`
`for meetings and calls necessary to perform her duties and
`
`responsibilities.
`
`34.
`
`At the end of 2019, despite her excellent performance, Wolf was the
`
`only member of the executive team who did not receive a merit increase.
`
`35.
`
`On or about January 14, 2020, almost two months after the HR
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9
`
`investigation began, Medaglia finally met with Wolf to share the results. Medaglia
`
`claimed the interviews revealed a pattern of “harshness” in Wolf’s communications
`
`with employees and offered for her to engage an executive coach to improve her
`
`“sensitivity.”
`
`36.
`
`Although she accepted his offer to engage an executive coach, Wolf
`
`pointed out to Medaglia that the outside investigator interviewed a selection of
`
`employees with performance issues who she either progressively disciplined or
`
`counseled out and thus were likely to consider her behavior befitting a CHRO to be
`
`“harsh.”
`
`37.
`
`After Wolf scheduled her first coaching session, Medaglia reneged on
`
`his offer and directed Wolf to cancel it.
`
`38.
`
`By mid-March 2020, the country was facing the Covid-19 pandemic.
`
`Wolf worked around the clock to ensure sufficient essential worker staffing and
`
`compliance with Governor JB Pritzker’s emergency stay-at-home order.
`
`39.
`
`At the same time, Wolf feared for her own health given her age and
`
`pre-existing conditions including high blood pressure, which the Centers for Disease
`
`Control considers a potential aggravating condition for Covid-19 patients, and
`
`requested to work from home as a reasonable accommodation.
`
`40.
`
`By then Wolf had created and implemented a remote work operational
`
`plan that ensured continued productivity and garnered successful results.
`
`Regardless, Medaglia disparaged Wolf for working remotely on a March 26, 2020,
`
`executive committee video conference. He insisted that HR and other non-essential
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10
`
`staff return to the Hospital to perform tasks outside their job descriptions (in
`
`violation of the Hospital’s union contract with the Hospitality and Dietary workers).
`
`41.
`
`During this same time, Wolf received confidential calls from female
`
`employees to inform her that Medaglia had become increasingly hostile and
`
`harassing towards them but that they felt powerless to complain internally because
`
`of Medaglia’s position. Wolf, who like these women had no place to turn, offered
`
`information to the women about their rights to file a charge of discrimination or
`
`seek external legal counsel.
`
`42. Wolf suffered physical manifestations of emotional distress as a result
`
`of SAH’s discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of her. She had trouble sleeping,
`
`lost approximately twenty pounds, and suffered from headaches and heart
`
`palpitations. Wolf was anxious, overwhelmed, and exhausted.
`
`43.
`
`By March 26, 2020, Wolf’s blood pressure had spiked to concerning
`
`levels. She has since been diagnosed with Malignant Hypertension, Post Traumatic
`
`Stress Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder, for which her doctor prescribed
`
`medication.
`
`44.
`
`The emotional distress required Wolf to take a twelve-week protected
`
`medical leave of absence, under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), beginning
`
`on March 30, 2020.
`
`45.
`
`Even during her absence, Wolf’s HR team continued to work at a high
`
`level remotely. However, on April 24, 2020, Medaglia mandated that non-medical
`
`Hospital staff either work two eight-hour shifts of hospital assignments a week
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11
`
`without additional compensation or exhaust their paid time off before being
`
`furloughed without health benefits.
`
`46.
`
`All but two members of the HR staff—both women of color—signed up
`
`for these extra hospital shifts, one of whom was high risk. Medaglia terminated
`
`both women.
`
`47. Medaglia, however, did not enforce the mandate as it applied to several
`
`white men who continued to work remotely and are still employed by SAH: Vice
`
`President of Finance Jamie Mack, Director of Revenue Randy Stein, Executive Vice
`
`President Chief Financial Officer Bob Enkema, and Vice President & Chief
`
`Information Officer Mark Jennings.
`
`SAH Fires Wolf in a Pretextual Reduction in Force
`
`48.
`
`In a letter dated June 10, 2020, while Wolf was still on protected leave,
`
`SAH terminated her effective June 18, 2020, the day she was to return to work.
`
`49.
`
`The Hospital claimed her position had been eliminated as part of a RIF
`
`but did not provide Wolf with required disclosures under the Older Workers Benefit
`
`Protection Act (“OWBPA”).
`
`50.
`
`In the months that followed, it became clear that her position still very
`
`much existed and was instead given to a substantially younger woman who had not
`
`pushed back against Medaglia’s instructions and behavior.
`
`51.
`
`SAH targeted Wolf for the termination in retaliation for having raised
`
`legitimate complaints of discrimination against women,
`
`including herself,
`
`in
`
`violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12
`
`and/or for refusing to participate in activities that she believed violated Illinois law
`
`including 720 ILCS 5/33-1.
`
`52.
`
`SAH has a pattern or practice of discriminating against women. Wolf
`
`knows of additional
`
`female managers at SAH who have been subjected to
`
`gender-based discrimination and retaliation by Medaglia, including a Director of
`
`Marketing and Public Relations, a Vice President of Community Development, a
`
`Chief Nursing Officer, and a Physician Recruiter.
`
`53.
`
`After a distinguished career and just under four years of devoted
`
`service to SAH, today Wolf is unemployed at age 66 during a worldwide pandemic.
`
`The discrimination and retaliation that Wolf faced during her career negatively
`
`affected her experience at SAH and stunted her professional growth. It disrupted
`
`her career and interrupted the development, success, and overall compensation that
`
`she would have enjoyed had she been allowed to work in an environment free of
`
`such discrimination and retaliation.
`
`54. Wolf has fully exhausted her administrative remedies related to her
`
`civil rights claims. Wolf timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Illinois
`
`Department of Human Rights and opted out of their investigation. She received
`
`notice of her right to sue from the IDHR and timely filed this action. Her EEOC
`
`charge remains pending.
`
`Wolf Has Suffered Damages
`
`55.
`
`As a result of SAH’s unlawful treatment of her, Wolf has suffered
`
`significant wage and financial losses and irreparable damage to her career.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13
`
`56.
`
`As a result of SAH’s unlawful treatment of her, Wolf has suffered
`
`emotional and mental distress, embarrassment and humiliation, loss of enjoyment
`
`of life, inconvenience, and other non-pecuniary losses.
`
`COUNT I
`RETALIATION AND FAILURE TO RESTORE
`IN VIOLATION OF THE FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (“FMLA”)
`
`57. Wolf realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by reference as
`
`though fully stated herein as part of Count I of this Complaint.
`
`58.
`
`The FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., requires employers to provide up to 12
`
`weeks unpaid leave for employees who give birth to a child. 29 U.S.C. §
`
`2612(a)(1)(A).
`
`59.
`
`The FMLA requires employers to restore eligible employees who take a
`
`protected leave “to the position of employment held by the employee when
`
`leave commenced; or” “to an equivalent position.” 29 U.S.C § 2614(a)(1).
`
`60.
`
`The FMLA makes it unlawful to retaliate against individuals who engage in
`
`protected activities under the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a).
`
`61. Wolf engaged in activity protected by the FMLA’s anti-retaliation provision
`
`when she requested and took FMLA leave.
`
`62.
`
`SAH failed to restore her to the position she held when her leave commenced
`
`and instead terminated Wolf as a result of her protected activities.
`
`63. Wolf has suffered damages as a result of SAH’s unlawful actions.
`
`COUNT II
`ILLINOIS WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14
`
`64. Wolf realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by
`
`reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count II of this Complaint.
`
`65. Wolf was an employee of Defendant, and Defendant was her employer
`
`as defined by the Act. 740 ILCS 174/5.
`
`66.
`
`Defendant tasked Wolf with hiring unqualified applicants associated
`
`with Senator Sandoval in exchange for his financial support in Springfield.
`
`67. Wolf refused to participate in what she believed to be a violation of the
`
`law, including the criminal law prohibiting bribery, 720 ILCS 5/33-1. 740 ILCS
`
`174/20.
`
`68.
`
`SAH retaliated against Wolf for her refusal to participate in what she
`
`believed was a violation of law as described above and replaced her with someone
`
`who had demonstrated her willingness to participate in what Wolf believed was a
`
`violation of law.
`
`69. Wolf has suffered damages as a result of SAH’s unlawful actions.
`
`COUNT III
`RETALIATORY DISCHARGE AT COMMON LAW
`
`70. Wolf realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by
`
`reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count III of this Complaint.
`
`71.
`
`“A discharged employee may sue her employer for the common law tort
`
`of retaliatory discharge if her discharge was in retaliation for certain actions that
`
`are protected by the public policy of Illinois, including retaliation for complaints
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15
`
`about an employer’s unlawful conduct.” Brandon v. Anesthesia & Pain Mgt.
`
`Associates, Ltd., 277 F.3d 936, 940–41 (7th Cir. 2002).
`
`72. Wolf complained about what she believed in good faith to be violations
`
`of state and federal civil rights and anti-corruption laws.
`
`73.
`
`SAH terminated Wolf
`
`for her refusal to participate in what she
`
`believed was a violation of the law.
`
`74. Wolf has suffered damages as a result of SAH’s unlawful actions.
`
`COUNT IV
`GENDER DISCRIMINATION
`IN VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
`
`75. Wolf realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by
`
`reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count IV of this Complaint.
`
`76.
`
`The Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq., makes it
`
`unlawful for “any employer to refuse to hire, to segregate, to engage in harassment .
`
`. . or to act with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment,
`
`selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure or terms,
`
`privileges or conditions of employment on the basis of unlawful discrimination . . . .”
`
`775 ILCS 5/2-102(a). “Unlawful discrimination” includes discrimination based on
`
`sex. 775 ILCS 5/1-103(Q).
`
`77.
`
`SAH violated Wolf’s right to be free from discrimination based on her
`
`sex and attendant stereotypes.
`
`78. Wolf has suffered damages as a result of SAH’s unlawful actions.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16
`
`COUNT V
`AGE DISCRIMINATION
`IN VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
`
`79. Wolf realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by
`
`reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count V of this Complaint.
`
`80.
`
`The Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq., makes it
`
`unlawful for “any employer to refuse to hire, to segregate, to engage in harassment .
`
`. . or to act with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment,
`
`selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure or terms,
`
`privileges or conditions of employment on the basis of unlawful discrimination . . . .”
`
`775 ILCS 5/2-102(a). “Unlawful discrimination” includes discrimination based on
`
`age. 775 ILCS 5/1-103(Q).
`
`81.
`
`SAH violated Wolf’s right to be free from discrimination based on her
`
`age.
`
`82. Wolf has suffered damages as a result of SAH’s unlawful actions.
`
`COUNT VI
`RETALIATION
`IN VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
`
`83. Wolf realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by
`
`reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count VI of this Complaint.
`
`84.
`
`The Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq., makes it
`
`unlawful to “[r]etaliate against a person because he or she has opposed that which
`
`he or she reasonably and in good faith believes to be unlawful discrimination, . . .
`
`because he or she has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17
`
`participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act . . . .” 775
`
`ILCS 5/6-101(a).
`
`85. Wolf engaged in activity protected by the Illinois Human Rights Act’s
`
`anti-retaliation provision.
`
`86.
`
`SAH took adverse actions against Wolf as a result of her protected
`
`activities.
`
`87. Wolf has suffered damages as a result of SAH’s unlawful actions.
`
`WHEREFORE, Wolf requests the entry of judgment in her favor, and
`
`against Defendant as follows:
`
`a. Declare that the acts and conduct of Defendant are unlawful and
`
`violate the FMLA, Whistleblower Act, IHRA, and common law;
`
`b. Award Wolf the value of all compensation and benefits lost as a result
`
`of Defendant’s unlawful conduct;
`
`c. Award Wolf the value of all compensation and benefits she will lose in
`
`the future as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct;
`
`d. Award Wolf compensatory damages,
`
`including but not limited to
`
`damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish,
`
`loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses;
`
`e. Award Wolf prejudgment interest;
`
`f. Award Wolf liquidated damages under the FMLA;
`
`g. Award Wolf punitive damages under the IHRA;
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-03273 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18
`
`h. Award Wolf attorneys’ fees and costs; and
`
`i. Award Wolf such other make-whole equitable, injunctive, and legal
`
`relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Gail S. Eisenberg
`One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
`
`Gail S. Eisenberg
`David A. Eisenberg
`Alexander N. Loftus
`LOFTUS & EISENBERG, LTD.
`161 N. Clark, Suite 1600
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`T: 312.899.6625
`gail@loftusandeisenberg.com
`david@loftusandeisenberg.com
`alex@loftusandeisenberg.com
`
`Dated: June 18, 2021
`
`18
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
