Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`ANNA PINSONEAULT,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No. 1:21-cv-5839
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`LUNDBECK PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`COMPLAINT AT LAW
`
`Plaintiff, Anna Pinsoneault (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Pinsoneault”) by and through her attorney,
`
`Timothy A. Scott of Fegan Scott LLC, and for her Complaint against Defendant Lundbeck
`
`Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Defendant” or “Lundbeck”) (all allegations being made on information
`
`provided to counsel by Plaintiff), states as follows:
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Over the course of her employment with Lundbeck, Ms. Pinsoneault was repeatedly
`
`subjected to a discriminatory and hostile work environment created by her manager, Crystal Fitch
`
`(“Ms. Fitch”), and fostered by her employer, Defendant Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals LLC. Despite
`
`multiple complaints to Lundbeck’s HR Department (“HR”) about Ms. Fitch’s behavior, Lundbeck
`
`failed to alleviate the problem. As a result of Lundbeck’s inaction, a work environment was created
`
`that was replete with hostility towards Ms. Pinsoneault and one that was inherently discriminatory
`
`toward Ms. Pinsoneault based on her race and gender. Moreover, after Pinsoneault discussed her
`
`issues with HR, Ms. Fitch engaged in retaliatory conduct against Pinsoneault and ultimately had
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
`
`
`
`
`
`her terminated for failing to meet visit quotas during a pandemic. Ms. Fitch’s retaliatory conduct
`
`also served to prohibit Ms. Pinsoneault from finding alternate work within the tight Chicago Life
`
`Sciences community.
`
`2.
`
`Ms. Pinsoneault filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity
`
`Commission on February 5, 2021 (EEOC NO.: 440-2021-02270), raising claims of race
`
`discrimination, fostering a hostile work environment, and retaliation. A copy of the charge letter
`
`is attached as Exhibit A. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter dated Wednesday,
`
`August 4, 2021. The right to sue was delivered by electronic mail to counsel for Plaintiff on
`
`August 4, 2021. A copy of the notice letter is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`3.
`
`Ms. Pinsoneault timely brings this action against Defendant to recover for damages
`
`that she suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory and abusive
`
`practices.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Jurisdiction for these causes of action is invoked by 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are authorized by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000e-(5) (“Title VII).
`
`5.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims (Illinois
`
`Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`6.
`
`Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(1), (2), and (3), and under
`
`the civil rights statute set out above, including 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f).
`
`III. THE PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff, Anna Pinsoneault, is a 51-year-old white female and a resident of
`
`Chicago, Illinois.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Ms. Pinsoneault was employed by Lundbeck from January 7, 2019, through August
`
`27, 2020.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant, Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals LLC, is a worldwide pharmaceutical
`
`company based out of Delaware, with its United States’ headquarters located at 6 Parkway North
`
`in Deerfield, IL 60015. According to its website, Lundbeck has more than 900 employees.
`
`IV.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`10. Ms. Pinsoneault was hired by Lundbeck as a neuroscience account manager on
`
`January 7, 2019.
`
`11.
`
`In this role, she served as the primary customer contact for medical professionals
`
`engaged in the neurosciences.
`
`12.
`
`As part of a team, she was responsible for sales in Lundbeck’s Chicago market,
`
`with a focus on Lundbeck’s North Shore clientele.
`
`13.
`
`Early in her tenure with Lundbeck, Ms. Pinsoneault received the highest marks a
`
`field-based employee could get.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`She never had any issues with management, co-workers, or any of her customers.
`
`In March of 2019, Crystal Fitch became Ms. Pinsoneault’s area business manager.
`
`16. Ms. Fitch is a black woman.
`
`17.
`
`Immediately upon her arrival, it became clear that Ms. Fitch had a tendency to treat
`
`male and black female employees differently than and similarly situated, non-black women.
`
`18. Ms. Fitch immediately took a hostile position against Ms. Pinsoneault and other
`
`white female employees at Lundbeck.
`
`19.
`
`In 2019 a white female co-worker of Pinsoneault made a formal charge for race-
`
`based discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation against Ms. Fitch.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
` Shortly after her co-worker’s complaint, Ms. Pinsoneault was contacted by
`
`Lundbeck’s Human Resources department regarding Ms. Fitch’s treatment of that employee.
`
`21. Ms. Pinsoneault was hesitant to speak with Lundbeck’s Human Resources
`
`department regarding the Complaint in fear of retaliation by Ms. Fitch.
`
`22.
`
`Indeed, Ms. Pinsoneault was in constant fear of retaliation from Ms. Fitch, and
`
`Lundbeck due to the unabashed favoritism of other employees on the basis of race.
`
`23. Ms. Pinsoneault voiced those fears and was assured that the meeting would be
`
`confidential and that there would be no retaliation for her involvement.
`
`24.
`
`Taking stock in Lundbeck’s assurances, Ms. Pinsoneault spoke to HR and mirrored
`
`her co-worker’s concerns.
`
`25.
`
`Lundbeck’s assurances of confidentiality were clearly overstated; however, shortly
`
`after her interview with Human Resources, Ms. Fitch’s hostility toward her increased, and she
`
`became the target of Fitch’s retaliatory conduct.
`
`26. Ms. Pinsoneault complained of Ms. Fitch's hostility and retaliatory conduct to both
`
`Human Resource and Ms. Fitch's supervisor, which resulted in a meeting with Ms. Pinsoneault,
`
`Ms. Fitch, and Ms. Fitch’s supervisor at the end of 2019.
`
`27.
`
`From that point on, with the cloak of confidentiality no longer in place, Ms. Fitch’s
`
`hostility toward Ms. Pinsoneault became even more intense.
`
`28. Ms. Fitch constantly showed favoritism for male and black female employees,
`
`which created a hostile work environment for similarly situated non-male and white female
`
`employees.
`
`29.
`
`After Ms. Pinsoneault complained to HR, Fitch targeted her even more than before.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
`
`
`
`
`
`30. Ms. Fitch would consistently offer praise to others, for non-“best practices” actions,
`
`but rebuked Ms. Pinsoneault in front of co-workers for asking whether particular actions
`
`conformed with company policy. Fitch questioned Pinsoneault’s ability to work well with others.
`
`31. When Ms. Pinsoneault voiced her concerns, Ms. Fitch would verbally attack with
`
`phrases such as “that never happened,” “you always misinterpret things,” “your perception of what
`
`occurs is way off, and you have a wacked sense of reality,” and “you make things up.”
`
`32.
`
`From 2019 through the date of her termination, Ms. Fitch spread false stories and
`
`rumors about Ms. Pinsoneault to undermine her performance.
`
`33.
`
`For example, she claimed that her entire team went to her after an Arizona
`
`conference to complain about Ms. Pinsoneault’s negativity.
`
`34.
`
`However, all of Pinsoneault’s team members denied that they went to Fitch to
`
`complain about her.
`
`35. When Ms. Pinsoneault asked Ms. Fitch about the allegations, Fitch replied that “she
`
`never said that” and that Ms. Pinsoneault was “making things up.” Ms. Fitch could not provide a
`
`single example of any complaint from any of Pinsoneault’s peers.
`
`36. Ms. Fitch’s hostility and retaliatory conduct was also observed by Ms.
`
`Pinsoneault’s customers. Who stated concerns about the situation with her manager and how Ms.
`
`Fitch treated her differently than other non-white account managers during interactions.
`
`37.
`
`In May of 2020, Fitch began a meeting with Pinsoneault by telling her that “ she
`
`had multiple concerns regarding [Pinsonault’s] willingness to collaborate and negativity”
`
`regarding a joint call plan with a sister company but was unable to offer a single instance on
`
`Pinsoneault’s part toward others.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
`
`
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Between September of 2019 and August of 2020, Ms. Fitch constantly rebuked
`
`Pinsoneault and questioned her ability to collaborate with others but provided no examples of her
`
`inability to collaborate.
`
`39.
`
`One customer told Pinsoneault that he was concerned about the situation with her
`
`manager because he noticed that multiple times, she did not listen to her and had concerns that she
`
`only saw one way to do things, which was her way.
`
`40.
`
`Another provider noticed how Ms. Fitch treated Pinsoneault during client
`
`interaction and compared theirs to a “master-servant” relationship.
`
`41. Ms. Fitch was unapologetic of her treatment of Pinsoneault.
`
`42.
`
`Toward the end of Ms. Pinsoneault’s tenure with the Company, Ms. Fitch told her
`
`that personal relationships were very important to her and that she only wanted to work with people
`
`that she liked and that anything that came between that was not worth it for her to work with that
`
`person, despite their qualifications and achievements.
`
`43.
`
`At that point, it became clear to Pinsoneault that Fitch was going to find a way to
`
`get rid of her.
`
`44. Ms. Fitch created pre-textual “personal improvement plans” against Ms.
`
`Pinsoneault purportedly for her inability to collaborate with others and ultimately had her
`
`terminated for failing to meet her physician visit quotas – during a pandemic.
`
`45.
`
`On August 27, 2020, Lundbeck terminated Ms. Pinsoneault purportedly for low
`
`HCP activity, although prior to August 2020, she had consistently met or exceeded the district
`
`average.
`
`46.
`
`Lundbeck (and Fitch) manipulated the numbers to provide a basis for Ms.
`
`Pinsoneault’s termination.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
`
`
`
`
`
`47.
`
`Lundbeck’s (and Fitch’s) manipulation of the numbers to provide a basis for
`
`terminating her was a clear pretext for their true conduct.
`
`48.
`
`In reality, the numbers provided for Ms. Pinsoneault’s termination were skewed by
`
`the fact that the covered time period included dates when she was on a pre-scheduled (and pre-
`
`approved) vacation, and the period she was forced to remain in her home under the city of
`
`Chicago’s mandated quarantine period for the COVID 19 virus.
`
`49.
`
`As a resident of the city of Chicago, Ms. Pinsoneault had no control over this. On
`
`return from vacation in California, she was subject to the mandatory quarantine rules put in place
`
`by the city and had to quarantine at home for fourteen days before she could return to work outside
`
`of her home in any capacity.
`
`50.
`
`During the quarantine period, Ms. Fitch instructed Ms. Pinsoneault to pass along
`
`her appointments to other sales representatives rather than allowing her the opportunity to switch
`
`them to virtual appointments, which was common practice under the circumstances.
`
`51.
`
`Around the same time, another similarly situated male team member on vacation in
`
`July 2020 was told by Ms. Fitch that HCP numbers would not include dates that that employee
`
`was on vacation or under quarantine.
`
`52.
`
` Throughout the course of her employment, Ms. Pinsoneault was the victim of race
`
`and gender discrimination based on the unabashed favoritism shown toward men and black women
`
`by her area manager Crystal Fitch.
`
`53.
`
`This caused a hostile work environment for Ms. Pinsoneault (and other similarly
`
`situated white women) and a constant source of stress – which has created undue stress on her and
`
`caused her health problems.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
`
`
`
`
`
`54.
`
`The conditions created by Ms. Fitch were known by and thus fostered by Lundbeck,
`
`which did nothing to alleviate the problem and through Ms. Fitch’s intentional and outrageous
`
`conduct toward her. Ms. Fitch’s behavior created a hostile work environment that was fostered by
`
`Lundbeck.
`
`55. Ms. Fitch’s vexatious and retaliatory conduct toward Pinsoneault prohibited her
`
`ability to flourish within the Company and ultimately led to my termination from Lundbeck.
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, no less than five white women have been forced to leave
`
`Lundbeck under Ms. Fitch’s tenure as the area manager, and all were replaced by males or black
`
`women.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Nor did Lundbeck’s malfeasance end with her termination.
`
`Since August of 2020, Pinsoneault applied to and interviewed for many sales
`
`positions in the pharmaceutical industry.
`
`59. Ms. Pinsoneault recently learned that when one of the companies called Lundbeck
`
`for confirmation of her employment dates, they were told only that she had been terminated from
`
`her position.
`
`60.
`
`As the result of Lundbeck’s discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, Ms. Pinsoneault
`
`suffered damages, including lost wages, lost benefits, emotional distress, and damage to her
`
`reputation.
`
`V.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`
`Title VII– Hostile Work Environment
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates the above allegations as though fully stated
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
`
`
`
`
`
`62. Ms. Pinsoneault is an individual protected under Title VII against an employer’s
`
`fostering a hostile work environment.
`
`63.
`
`As described above, Ms. Fitch’s conduct towards Plaintiff was unwelcome and
`
`occurred because of and based on Plaintiff’s race and gender.
`
`64. Ms. Fitch’s conduct occurred over several months and constituted a continuing
`
`course of discrimination and abuse towards Plaintiff.
`
`65. Ms. Fitch committed an unlawful employment practice by treating Plaintiff
`
`differently because of her race and gender, causing a change in the condition of her employment
`
`and subjecting her to a hostile work environment.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff was subjected to a discriminatory environment that was both objectively
`
`and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one
`
`that Plaintiff did, in fact, perceive to be so.
`
`67.
`
`As Ms. Fitch was Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor, Lundbeck is vicariously liable
`
`for her conduct.
`
`68.
`
`The conduct of Lundbeck had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with
`
`Plaintiff’s work performance.
`
`69.
`
`The conduct of Lundbeck further fostered and created an intimidating, hostile, and
`
`offensive work environment.
`
`70.
`
`Despite being fully aware of Ms. Fitch’s discriminatory conduct, Lundbeck
`
`continued to employ her as Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor.
`
`71.
`
`Through its actions, Lundbeck permeated a workplace filled with disparate
`
`treatment that is severe and regular enough to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and
`
`create an abusive working environment.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
`
`
`
`
`72.
`
`Lundbeck has therefore denied Plaintiff her rights under Title VII of the Civil
`
`Rights Act of 1964, and she has suffered damages as a direct result of the conduct.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`A. Grant Plaintiff an award in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court,
`
`B. Grant the Plaintiff appropriate injunctive relief, lost wages, liquidated
`damages, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment
`interest, post-judgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees
`and expert witness fees; and
`
`C. Any other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`Title VII– Race Discrimination
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates the above allegations as though fully stated
`
`herein.
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in Ms. Fitch’s decision to discipline Plaintiff
`
`for the aforementioned alleged infractions.
`
`75.
`
`Circumstances exist to show an inference that Ms. Fitch had an inclination to
`
`discriminate invidiously against white employees or evidence that there is something “fishy” about
`
`the facts at hand.
`
`76. Ms. Pinsoneault was meeting Lundbeck’s legitimate performance expectations.
`
`77. Ms. Pinsoneault suffered an adverse employment action.
`
`78. Ms. Pinsoneault was treated less favorably than other similarly situated non-white
`
`employees.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in Ms. Fitch’s decision to discriminate
`
`against Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
`
`
`
`
`80. Ms. Fitch acted with the intent to discriminate against Plaintiff because of
`
`Plaintiff’s race.
`
`81. Ms. Fitch intended to deprive Plaintiff of rights that Ms. Fitch afforded non-white
`
`employees.
`
`82.
`
`By Ms. Fitch’s actions, and Defendant’s condoning of these actions, Plaintiff’s
`
`federal civil rights have been violated.
`
`83.
`
`As Ms. Fitch was Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor, Lundbeck is vicariously liable
`
`for her discriminatory conduct.
`
`84.
`
`Similarly, situated non-white employees were not and have not been disciplined for
`
`the types of infractions described above.
`
`85.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff met Defendant’s performance expectations,
`
`including earning the highest revenue and highest accolades a field employee could receive.
`
`The discriminatory conduct was not welcomed by Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff was harmed, to include loss of employment opportunities, humiliation, and
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`mental stress.
`
`88.
`
`The harassing and discriminatory conduct was the proximate cause and substantial
`
`factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`A. Grant Plaintiff an award in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court,
`
`B. Grant the Plaintiff appropriate injunctive relief, lost wages, liquidated damages,
`front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest,
`post-judgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and
`expert witness fees; and
`
`C. Any other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
`
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`
`Title VII—Gender Discrimination
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates the above allegations as though fully stated
`
`herein.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff’s gender was a motivating factor in Ms. Fitch’s decision to discipline
`
`Plaintiff for the aforementioned alleged infractions.
`
`91.
`
`Circumstances exist to show an inference that Ms. Fitch had an inclination to
`
`discriminate invidiously against white female employees or evidence that there is something
`
`“fishy” about the facts at hand.
`
`92. Ms. Pinsoneault was meeting Lundbeck’s legitimate performance expectations.
`
`93. Ms. Pinsoneault suffered an adverse employment action.
`
`94. Ms. Pinsoneault was treated less favorably than other similarly situated white non-
`
`male employees.
`
`95.
`
`Plaintiff’s gender was a motivating factor in Ms. Fitch’s decision to discriminate
`
`against Plaintiff.
`
`96. Ms. Fitch acted with the intent to discriminate against Plaintiff because of
`
`Plaintiff’s gender.
`
`97. Ms. Fitch intended to deprive Plaintiff of rights that Ms. Fitch afforded non-white
`
`female employees.
`
`98.
`
`By Ms. Fitch’s actions and Defendant’s condoning of these actions, Plaintiff’s
`
`federal civil rights have been violated.
`
`99.
`
`As Ms. Fitch was Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor, Lundbeck is vicariously liable
`
`for her discriminatory conduct.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
`
`
`
`
`100. Similarly, situated male employees were not and have not been disciplined for the
`
`types of infractions described above.
`
`101. At all relevant times, Plaintiff met Defendant’s performance expectations,
`
`including earning the highest revenue and highest accolades a field employee could receive.
`
`102. The discriminatory conduct was not welcomed by Plaintiff.
`
`103. Plaintiff was harmed, to include loss of employment opportunities, humiliation, and
`
`mental stress.
`
`104. The harassing and discriminatory conduct was the proximate cause and substantial
`
`factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`D. Grant Plaintiff an award in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court,
`
`E. Grant the Plaintiff appropriate injunctive relief, lost wages, liquidated damages,
`front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest,
`post-judgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and
`expert witness fees; and
`
`F. Any other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`Count IV
`
`Title VII– Retaliation
`
`105. Plaintiff restates and incorporates the above allegations as though fully stated
`
`herein.
`
`106. Following Plaintiff’s interview in connection to a former white female co-worker’s
`
`formal charge for race-based discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, Ms. Fitch
`
`retaliated against Ms. Pinsoneault by, among other things, belittling her in front of co-workers and
`
`spreading false rumors about Plaintiff’s ability to work well with others and created pre-textual
`
`“personal improvement plans.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
`
`
`
`
`107. Plaintiff made complaints to Defendant’s HR department against her area manager,
`
`Crystal Fitch, for abusive behavior and disparate treatment.
`
`108. Following Plaintiff’s complaints, Fitch retaliated against Ms. Pinsoneault by,
`
`among other things, giving low-performance evaluations, engaged in increased scrutiny, and
`
`manipulated Plaintiff’s HCP numbers.
`
`109. Moreover, Defendant placed Ms. Pinsoneault on a pre-textual personal
`
`improvement plan for Plaintiff’s inability to “collaborate” with others, although there were no
`
`complaints about her negativity to collaborate with others- other than Crystal Fitch.
`
`110. This effectively prohibited Ms. Pinsoneault from obtaining different positions
`
`within the company and resulted in her termination.
`
`111. Prior to Ms. Pinsoneault’s complaint about the disparate treatment, Plaintiff had
`
`received nothing but positive reviews and was never subject to discipline.
`
`112. During her employment at Lundbeck, Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment
`
`and a hostile work environment at the hands of Defendant in retaliation for exercising her civil
`
`rights by being witness to discriminatory actions and making her own personal complaints.
`
`113. Lundbeck’s termination of Ms. Pinsoneault’s employment was clearly pre-textual
`
`as it was, in no small part, based on numbers pulled during the period she was on a pre-approved,
`
`scheduled vacation and during a governmentally mandated quarantine – which violates city, state,
`
`and federal law, and constitutes unreasonable, vexatious and unconscionable conduct.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`A. Grant Plaintiff an award in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this
`Court,
`
`B. Grant the Plaintiff appropriate injunctive relief, lost wages, liquidated
`damages, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment
`interest, post-judgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’
`fees and expert witness fees; and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
`
`
`
`
`C. Any other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`COUNT V
`
`INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`
`114. Plaintiff restates and incorporates the above allegations as though fully stated
`
`herein.
`
`115. As described above, Defendant’s conduct of race-based discrimination, hostile
`
`work environment, and retaliation against Plaintiff was deliberate. Defendant deliberately and/or
`
`recklessly inflicted emotional and psychological harm on Plaintiff.
`
`116. Ms. Fitch’s conduct was so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to
`
`go beyond all possible bounds of decency.
`
`117. As a direct result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff suffered pain and suffering,
`
`mental anguish, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, and has incurred expenses for
`
`medical treatment, loss of property, loss of earnings, and/or the loss of the ability to earn money.
`
`These losses are either permanent or continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future.
`
`118. Defendant’s acts were intentional, done with malice, and/or showed a deliberate,
`
`willful, wanton, and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights, for which she is entitled to an award
`
`of punitive damages.
`
`119. Defendant’s actions were intentional, willful, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s
`
`rights under Title VII.
`
`120. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`A. Grant Plaintiff an award in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05839 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16
`
`
`B. Grant the Plaintiff appropriate injunctive relief, lost wages, liquidated
`damages, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment
`interest, post-judgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees
`and expert witness fees; and
`
`C. Any other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`121. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`VI.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Anna Pinsoneault
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Timothy A. Scott__
`One of her attorneys
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Timothy A. Scott (ARDC No. 6243846)
`Fegan Scott LLC
`150 South Wacker Drive
`24th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`(630) 273-2625
`tim@feganscott.com
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`