IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~A I FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINO~ STRA~ E EASTERN DIVISION 0~U ) ) tl0v 1 0 7_604 ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION. Nature Of The Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 3:04-cv JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS eu,:".' IJ~:'LD~~?~:~~URT EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION NATURE OF THE ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 1-2 Filed: 06/03/09 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~,~,~,,.c~...,... ~~"~ ~ " FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLI~ SEP -9 ;i ~ [~: 0~ CBA~OTTE OIVlSlON

Case 3:04-cv RLA Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Case 1:18-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv LG-JCG Document 2 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 7

Case 4:07-cv JLH Document 1 Filed 06/29/2007 ( Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:14-cv MPK Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

IN TI-[E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. ..-ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION n/k/a DISH, LTD.,

Case 3:11-cv CRW-TJS Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/17 Page 1 of 8

)

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/29/16 Page 1 of 7

Case 7:17-cv KMK Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

This is an action under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION

-CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

) I ClV a S - BUN. 18 This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Case 2:09-cv BSJ-RLE Document 67 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintitl, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA NATURE OF THE ACTION

5:06cv1684 JUDGE HICKS MAG. JUDGE HORNSBY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HA WAIl. Case No.: NATURE OF THE ACTION AND JURISDICTION

Case 4:04-cv LLP Document 1 Filed 12/28/2004 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demand)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Plaintiff, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND NATURE OF ACTION

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 1:06-cv LTB-CBS Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

Case 2:05-cv JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 1 of 11

Case 9:06-cv RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 1 of 7

PLAINTIFF AVA SMITH- THOMPSON S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT SARA LEE CORPORATION

Case 4:05-cv CLS Document 1 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 1 of 6

Case 6:10-cv TC Document 1 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 2:17-cv GMS Document 8 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:14-cv KMT Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

FILED. , #, Case 5:05-cv WRF Document 29 Filed 06/06/2006Page 1 of 9 JUN COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ALICIA MANSEL, Civil Action No.

Case: 1:06-cv JRA Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/08/09 1 of 9. PageID #: 220


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLIll~ STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION

2:04-cv HAB-DGB # 1 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 3:15-cv EDL Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 0:10-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2010 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

Case: 1:01-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 12/14/01 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:16-cv L Document 1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

Case 1:13-cv LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) )

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Studley Products, Inc. and Wildwood Industries, Inc., Defendants.

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

Case 6:17-cv JA-GJK Document 1 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Case 8:04-cv SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 1 of 6

Case 5:14-cv DAE Document 4 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/18/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 1-2 Filed: 06/14/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:8 CIVIL COVER SHEET

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. No.: TERRI HAYFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Case 8:11-cv PJM Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:18-cv TBR Document 1 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

Case 1:08-cv REB Document 1 Filed 12/16/2008 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case5:11-cv EJD Document28 Filed09/09/11 Page1 of 10

Case 6:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Jetson Midwest Mailers, Inc., Defendant.

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 13

Transcription:

JUDGE ANDERSEN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~A I FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINO~ STRA~ E EASTERN DIVISION 0~U EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Sears, Roebuck & Company Defendant P "ti o0,gf.te0 tl0v 1 0 7_604 CIVIL ACTIO~ NO. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DE~ JUDGE KEYS 7282 NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Tide I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" alleges that Sears Roebuck & Company terminated the employment of John Bava on account of his disability rather than accommodating him by extending his leave or returning him to work in an available position which he could have pe~:formed, and, further, discriminated against a class of individuals (including but not liraited to John Bava with disabilities by maintaining an inflexible one year leave policy which did not provide for reasonable accommodation and which instead provided for termination of employment, all in violation of the ADA..IURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of thk Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA", 42 U.S.C. 12117(a, which Page 1 of 6 /

incorporates by reference Section 706 and Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII", 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, and 20000e-7. 2. The employment p:ractices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the State of Illinois and elsewhere where Sears does business in the United States. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12117(a, which incorporates by reference Section 706(0(1 and (3, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(0(1 and (3. 4. At all relevant times, Sears, Roebuck & Comapny ("Sears" was doing business in the State of Illinois and had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Sears was an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12111(5, and Section 101(7 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.!i 12111(7, which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g and Ca of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(g and Ca. 6. At all relevant times, Sears was a covered entity under Section 101(2 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12111(2. S ratement OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, John Bava filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Sears. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. Page 2 of 6

8. In 2001 and 2002 Sears terminated the employment of John Bava, an employee with disabilities, rather than accommodating him by extending his leave or by returning him to work in aa available position which he could have performed in violation of Sections 102(a, andl02(b(3(a and (19(5 and of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12112(a and 12112(b(3(A and (b(5. 9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph. 8 above has been to deprive John Bava of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as as an employee bezause of his disabilities. 10. The tmlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were intentional. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected fights of John Bava. 12. Since at least 2002, Sears has maintained an inflexible worker s compensation one year leave policy which does not provide for reasonable accommodation of employees with disabilities and which instead provides for termination of their employment, in violation of Sections 102(a andl02(b(3(a and (b(5 of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12112(a and 12112(b(3(A and (b(5. 13. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 12 above has been to deprive a class of disabled employees of equal employment opporttmifies and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their disabilities. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 12 above were intentional. 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 12 above were done with malice or with leckless indifference to the federally protected fights of a class of disabled employees. Page 3 of 6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Sears, its officers, successors, ssigns, and all persons in active: concert or participation with it from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of disability. B. Order Sears to in:~titute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opporttmities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of the unlawful employment practices of Sears. C. Order Defendant to make whole John Bava by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment i : interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative - I relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; D. Order Defendant to make whole John Bava by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losse,,l resulting from his unlawful termination, including, but not limited to, job search expenses; E. Order Sear~to mz&:e whole John Bava by providing compensation for nonpecuniary losses resulting fiom the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 8 above, including emotional part, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Order Sears to pay John Bava punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described ~a paragraph 8 above, in an amount to be determined at G. Order Defendant to make whole a class of disabled individuals by providing them appropriate back pay wi~ pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at Page ~ of 6

trial, and other affirmative re.tiefnecessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; H. Order Defendant Io make whole a class of disabled individuals by providing them compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from his unlawful termination, including, but not limited to, job search expenses; I. Order Sears to make whole a class of disabled individuals by providing compensation for nonpecuni~ry losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 12 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in mounts to be determined at trial. J. Order Sears to pay a class of disabled individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraph 12 above, in an amount to be determined at trial. K. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. L. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND complaint. The Commission requests a jury trim on all questions of fact raised by its Page 5 of 6

ERIC DREH~AND General Counsel JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel Equal En~loyment Opportunity Commission 1800 L/~~ree~N.W.. ~ C Trial Attorney Aaron DeCamp - Trial Attorney Ethan M. M. Cohen Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Sui~te 500 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312 353-756S Page 6 of 6

Civil Cover Sheet ~ - Page 1 of 1 t~zt_ F.D S rxt~ ~. Tin_ CT COURT NOR I~STRICT OF ILL~OI~AGISTRATE JUDGE KEYS Civil Cover Sheet i ---0 4 C ~ 2 8 2 This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the rr anual JS-44 approved bythe 1udicial Conference oiler t~united States in September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing md service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use ~ in the Northern Dislrict of Illinois. Plaintiff(s: United States Equal Employ~zent Opportunity Commission County of Residence: Plaintiff s Arty: Aaron R. DeCamp EEOC 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 312-353-7582 Defendant(s:Sears, Roebuck & Con~paay County of Residence: Cook Defendant s Atty: II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 1. U.S. Gov t Plaintiff III. Citizenship of Principal Parties (Diversity Cases Only Plaintiff:-.N/A Defendant:- N/A I. Original Proceeding DOCKETED NOV 1 0 2004 V. Nature of Suit: 442 Em ploymeat vi.cause of Action: Section 107(a of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. See. 12101 et see. EEOC alleges that Sears discriminated against a class of employees by terminating them at the end of a period of leave rather then accommodating them. VII. Requested in Complaint Class Action: No Dollar Demand: Jury Demand: Yes VIII. This case ISNOT a rofiling ofa previot.sly dismissed case. If any of Ibis info~ alion is incoff~, please go ba~ ~ ~e Ci~l C~er S~ ~t fo~ ~g ~e ~ bu~ ~ y~ b~ ~ ~ it. ~ ~ print ~is fo~. ~ ~d ~ it ~d ~bmit it ~ yo~ ~ civil ~ti~. Note: You may need to adjust the font s~ in your browser display to make the form print properly, a~: ~ http://www.ilnd.useourts.gov/public/forms/auto_js44.cfm 11/10/2004

STATES DISTRICT C(~T NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS In the Matter of Equal Employment Opporvmity Commission ("EEOC" v. Sears Roebuck & Co. JUDGE ANDERSEN JUDGE KEYS APPEARANCES ARE I"IERF.,BY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORN EY(S ~I~R: Plaintiff, EEOC ross 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 EEOC s rrt~t~,s 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 Chicago, ]L 60661 cm ~,T~Z~ Chicago, IL 60661 Nvm~ (312 353-8551 a-am~omr~,~m~ (312 886-9124 ~z~ m~ttosrr~u~sr~rr~4os~v~ A~R.D.C. No. 1187583 ~Yr~r~T~ra~s~n~ ~ ~ ~A.R.D.C. No. 06210804 DESIGNATED A~ LOP-M. COU~ISEL? SIGNATURE (C _ ~ (D N~ Ethan M. M. Cohen Aaron DeCamp EEOC n~ EEOC sam~r~vr~s 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 srm~,,~ss 500 W. M~ S&m 28~ ~~ ~cago, ~ ~661 ~~ ~c~o, ~ ~661 ~o~= (312 353-7568 ~o~ (312 353-8561 ~o~=~onu~ A.R.D.C. No. 06206781 ~ ~ts~ N~A.R.D.C. No. 06282725