United States District Court, Northern Illinois District, Eastern Division (March 2011)

Our client filed a lawsuit of sexual harassment and retaliation against her former employer in federal district court in Chicago. She had been fired after reporting sexual harassment by a male coworker pulled an object resembling a male's private part from his crotch area and dragged it across her left cheek and lips. She complained to several members of management who did nothing. During one of her complaints, the supervisor laughed, walked away and did nothing. Within about three days after her complaints, she was accused of having been rude to her sexual harasser's cousin. The coworker who harassed her then obtained statements from other employees who claimed that they observed her being rude to her harasser's cousin. The harasser then presented the statements and discussed the issue with his boss who directed him to fire our client. She was then terminated for having been rude to the cousin of the coworker that sexually harassed her.

The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss our client's case. The employer claimed that the actions by the alleged harasser were not sufficiently significant to constitute sexual harassment. They also argued that our client was properly terminated for creating a hostile work environment for her harasser's cousin. We filed our response asking that the judge sustain the case. We argued that rubbing a fake male private part across a female employee's face is sufficiently significant to amount to sexual harassment under the law. We also argued that the real reason for her termination was her many complaints about sexual harassment. Furthermore, the individual who harassed her was the key figure in obtaining witness statements and presenting them to manager who directed that our client be terminated. His motive for trying to get our client fired, we claimed, was due to the fact that our client complained about his harassing conduct.

The presiding Honorable Judge rejected the employer's arguments, agreed with us and denied the employer's motion in its entirely, awarding our client a victory and a jury trial in her case. A jury trial is set to occur in federal court on December 2011.

United States District Court, Illinois Northern District Eastern Division (March 2011)

Our client filed a retaliation lawsuit against her former employer in federal court. She had been fired by her employer after testifying in a lawsuit by another female worker. That employee claimed that she was sexual harassed and retaliated on the job. Our client was named as a witness in that lawsuit and was required to testify because she had also been sexually harassed by the same supervisor.

At her deposition, she testified that she too was sexually harassed by the same supervisor. Within three days of her testimony, she was fired. She then sued for retaliation, claiming that she was terminated because of her testimony. After discovery, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss her case. The employer claimed that she was fired for bringing a provocative birthday party invitation into the workplace. Attorney Scott Fanning prepared and filed our law firm's response to that motion. We argued that the employer lied about the reason for the firing because her supervisor had already decided to fire her before even seeing the invitation. We argued that the true reason for her firing was because of testimony that she was also sexually harassed.

The supervisor that fired her had testified that he learned of the birthday party invitation on July 31, 2008 and immediately met with her to fire her. However, both of them worked the second shift on that day. We presented evidence to the court that showed that our client's termination papers had been faxed on the 31^st at 11:29am - before the second shift started. Defendant had apparently not looked at the date and time stamp on their own faxed papers before settling on their story about her firing. Based on this evidence, she could not have been fired for the invitation because her termination papers were faxed even before the supervisor saw the invitation that he claimed led to the firing.

In handing a decisive victory to our client on this motion, the Judge concluded that our client "has provided sufficient evidence that [Defendant] is lying about why he fired her." Defendant's arguments were rejected and its motion denied in its entirety.

United States District Court Illinois Northern District, Eastern Division December 2010

December 2010-The firm received an order from the Honorable Judge granting our client victory on summary judgment on her assault and battery claims in federal district court. Our client sued an employer in the restaurant industry and others in the U.S. District Court for assault and sexual harassment. During his deposition, the corporate general manager, who is also a Defendant, admitted that he kissed our client and made certain other sexual comments directed at her. He claimed however, that the kiss and sexually charged comments were made in a benign context. Based on these admissions, our law firm brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that judgment should be entered against the defendant for the assault and battery. We argued that the judge should rule on it without a trial because Defendant's liability was clear cut on the assault and battery claims. The Honorable Judge agreed.

In his order, he ruled that the corporate general manager's admitted conduct amounts to assault and battery against our client. The Court then went on to enter judgment on against the Defendant, entitling our client to damages at a later hearing. The court also awarded her legal fees for defendant's counsel's failure to respond to requests to admit in a timely manner. The sexual harassment case will be set for trial at a later date.

Illinois Human Rights Commission , March 2009

Our client, a severe stutterer, brought a complaint against a Municipality and his Union claiming that he was subjected to discrimination because he stutters each time he speaks. When he complained about the discrimination, he was subjected to retaliation for complaining. After discovery of evidence in the case, both the City and Union asked that the Illinois Human Rights Commission dismiss the case on various grounds, including a claim that his stuttering was not a disability or handicap recognized by the law under the Illinois Human Rights Act.

We resisted the motion on written submissions by Scott Fanning, one of our attorneys. In the thoroughly documented written opposition, we argued that stuttering was a disability/handicap recognized by law as deserving of protections under Illinois civil rights laws. We further argued that our client deserved a hearing on the merits of his retaliation case because substantial evidence supported his claim of discrimination as well as retaliation citing specific facts that he was subjected to unfair and unequal terms conditions of employment due to his disability and for complaining about being treated poorly for it. The judge agreed.

In handing our client a ground-breaking victory on all aspects of the motion and in rejecting the employer's and union's arguments, the judge ruled that our client had advanced sufficient evidence to prove that his stuttering may qualify as a handicap/disability under the Illinois Human Rights Act. The Judge further held that our client presented sufficient evidence that his employer and Union were indifferent to his complaints and thus may properly sustain a claim of retaliation. This ruling clears the way for our client to receive a full public hearing in the case.

United States District Court, Northern Illinois District, Eastern Division (June 2009)

Our client brought federal court claims of racial harassment and retaliatory failure to promote. He claimed that he was referred to as a "nigger" countless times while working in defendant's Illinois Facility. He was also subjected to racially derogatory names and comments such as "coon" "nappy headed hoes" and others. One of his co-workers also had a confederate flag in his work locker in plain view.

When he complained to management about the racial slurs, he was written up, harassed some more, subjected to other inferior treatment, and denied a promotion that he was due. He sued in federal court seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendant. While his lawsuit was pending, Defendant terminated his employment. Shortly after his employment was terminated, the lawyer that had been representing him withdrew from his case. Immediately thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the court dismiss his entire case.

Without no attorney and Defendant's motion for summary judgment pending in front of the Honorable Judge, he came to our law firm seeking representation with long odds. We ultimately accepted representation and asked the court for time to respond to the pending motion to dismiss.

Our law firm responded to the motion for summary judgment and provided evidence to the judge that Plaintiff was subjected to a racially hostile work environment and that Defendant's management failed to take appropriate action to stop it. Instead, Plaintiff was retaliated against and denied a promotion for having complained. The Honorable Judge agreed. In denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the racial harassment and failure to promote claims, the Court stated that Plaintiff had created a genuine issue of material fact and is entitled to a jury trial on those issues. The trial will be set to occur in Chicago in August 2009.