Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROSEBUD RESTAURANTS, INC.;
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
__________________________________________)
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, Cristina Cortez (Cortez) and Kim Kininmonth
(Kininmonth) (jointly the Plaintiffs), by and through their attorneys, Pava & Lzaro,
LLC and for their Complaint against Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., (Rosebud) state as
follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
This action challenges pervasive and systematic sexual harassment and
discriminatory practices at the Rosebud chain of restaurants.
While employed by
Rosebud, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated female employees were subjected to
sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and a hostile work environment based on their
sex. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees suffered retaliation for complaining
about the harassment and discrimination they suffered, including the termination of their
employment. Plaintiff Cortez also alleges she was subjected to discrimination based on
her national origin.
Plaintiffs claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Honorable Court.
3.
Commission (EEOC) and received a Notice of Right to Sue, thereby fully complying
with the procedural requirements under Title VII.
4.
district.
6.
Michigan.
7.
corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. Rosebud is
engaged in the restaurant and food service business and employs more than 800
individuals.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Defendant has engaged in Pervasive Sexual Harassment, Gender
Discrimination, and Retaliation
8.
discrimination against its female employees. Resebuds unlawful conduct includes, but is
not limited to, systematic and pervasive sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
9.
or practice of discriminatory conduct towards its female employees include, but is not
limited to:
a. Humiliating, intimidating, and demeaning its female employees and
creating a hostile and offensive work environment;
b. Negligently retaining men with known propensities to discriminate or
sexually harass women;
c. Making employment decision based on sex and taking sex into
consideration when making employment decisions;
d. Taking disciplinary actions against females (including terminating
females) under false pretenses;
e. Treating male employees better than female employees in many aspects of
employment;
f.
and grabbing of their buttocks and breasts; their exposure to hard core pornographic
materials; being referred to as cunt, fucking cunt, bitch, slut and whore; being exposed to
comments about their underwear, body parts, and sexual activity; invitations to sexual
intercourse or threesomes; exposure to humping and thrusting motions; and frequent use
of the words cocksucker and pussy.
11.
Defendants human
resources team defends discriminators and harassers and does not take adequate steps to
prevent retaliation against female employees who lodge complaints.
12.
retaliating against females described above is an ongoing and continuing violation of the
civil rights laws.
14.
During the EEOC investigation into the present claim, several females
came forward and expressed that, like plaintiffs, they too were the victims of harassment
and discrimination while employed at Rosebuds.
15.
Two of these females have agreed to make their declarations form part of
the official record with this Court. Accordingly, plaintiffs attach their declarations as
Exhibit A of this Complaint.
17.
transferred Plaintiff to affiliated restaurants. Namely, during her time at Rosebud, Cortez
worked at Balo, Carmines and Rosebud on Taylor.
19.
referred to woman employees as whiny bitches and stupid fucking cunts. On at least
one occasion, he yelled at a female employee that she should stop being a whiny bitch
and get back to work.
21.
as far as rubbing himself on female servers. He would make humping motions near
females and would grab their buttocks and other body parts. Cortez personally observed
this behavior on many occasions.
22.
Cortez complained about the above behavior to Alex Dana the owner
and highest-ranking officer of Defendant. She was told that Glen is harmless, he has
been here forever. The girls need to be big girls or words to that effect.
23.
There, she reported to the General Manager of the restaurant Mr. Daniel Miller
(Miller).
24.
Miller would often smoke marijuana in the workplace and would have
Cortez was asked by Miller whether she was interested in the mans breshol meaning
his penis.
26.
After Cortez had disposed of the magazine, Miller became angry and
yelled at Cortez about their removal. More pornographic magazines appeared a few days
later.
28.
Miller took further acts of harassment against Cortez in retaliation for her
opposition to his discriminatory behavior. Among the acts Miller took against Cortez
was that he ordered Cortez to organize the Managers closet. There, Cortez found a dark
purple silk bag, which contained a large black dildo. Shocked, Cortez turned away only
to be met with Miller, who had stayed to observe her and was laughing at her.
29.
During her time at Rosebud on Taylor, Miller would often get very close
to Cortez and inhale deeply. He would call Cortez mami, mamasita, and other
gender sex specific terms with sexual overtones. He would also refer to other female
employees as cunt, slut and whore.
30.
name unknown) complained to Cortez. She related that Miller and Dana asked her if they
could watch her and her female partner have sex. Dana indicated that he would give Sara
a diamond ring in exchange for letting them watch the sexual act.
31.
dinner when Dana made sexual advances towards Cortez. He stated that he wanted to
take care of her and when Cortez replied that she didnt understand what he meant, in a
sexually suggestive manner he stated that she knew what he meant.
32.
During her time at Rosebud, Cortez learned that a male manager by the
name of George (last name unknown) had been accused of sexual harassment. Rather
than terminating his employment, Rosebud transferred George to the Schaumberg
restaurant as a general manager.
33.
national origin. After learning of her national origins supervisors would often joke that
she was going to turn the Italian restaurant into a Mexican restaurant, would often call
Mexican pigs, and stated the Mexican pigs would eat food out of the garbage.
35.
37.
38.
39.
40.
downturn.
41.
The reason provided for the termination is a pretext for discrimination and
retaliation.
42.
satisfactorily, yet, she was treated differently than male servers because of her gender.
45.
Schaumberg were the victims of a hostile work environment and gender discrimination.
46.
Kininmonth was often mistreated and screamed at due to her gender. She
was also referred to by one of her supervisors as a cunt, a fucking cunt and a bitch.
47.
The supervisors at the restaurant would often mistreat and sexually harass
its female employees including Kininmonth. Supervisors would make such comments as
wanting to see female employees in their bikinis, wanting to fuck on the counter, your
ass looks nice, I like that top and I can see down your shirt.
48.
A female server was told by a supervisor that if he were to eat anyone out
(meaning wanting to have oral sex with her) it would be you because you are the
cleanest.
49.
A bartender was told by a manager that he wanted to bend her over the bar
Kininmonth organized the servers and busboys and asked them to retain
their paystubs.
52.
to management on many occasions. She was told that the appropriate individuals
including Human Resources would be notified of her complaints.
55.
56.
57.
a barrage of screams from her supervisors. The manager told her you fucking bitch, I am
so sick of you. She was then told youre not going to stand here and fucking cry. Get
the fuck out of my restaurant.
58.
59.
Kininmonth was fired due to her gender and in retaliation for her
complaints.
Other Evidence of Unlawful Behavior
60.
This is not the first time that Defendant has faced allegations of
In a recent lawsuit in this district, Joseph Taylor -- who served as CEO for
Defendant -- claimed to have been retaliated against after he opposed discrimination and
harassment in the workplace. Joseph P. Taylor v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., 14-cv4177.
62.
More specifically Mr. Taylor claimed to have been fired after he sent a
letter to Defendants President Dana where he stated that I believe that the work
environment at several of our restaurants is not according to industry standards and may
actually be threatening, intimidating, hostile and possibly discriminatory to some of our
employees. Id.
63.
10
64.
based on their race, African American, who allege that Defendant discriminates based on
race in their hiring practices. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, v. Rizza
Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., et. al. 13 CV 06656.
65.
applicants and females in the above cases are the same actor/discriminators who
discriminated against Plaintiffs.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
TITLE VII SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION
(On Behalf of Both Plaintiffs)
66.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq., as
amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, (Title VII) makes it unlawful to discriminate
against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis
of sex.
68.
Plaintiffs and other female employees, they failed to take any appropriate action to
prevent or correct the discriminatory work conditions imposed on Plaintiffs.
70.
unremedied toward Plaintiffs for so long that it amounts to a policy or practice and
constitutes Defendants standard operating procedure.
11
71.
74.
By the conduct alleged herein, Defendant discriminated against the Cortez due
77.
who has opposed an unlawful employment practice or has assisted or participated in another
employers claim of discrimination.
VII.
78.
79.
By its conduct, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
12
Plaintiffs and other female employees, they failed to take any appropriate action to
prevent or correct the discriminatory work conditions imposed on Plaintiffs.
84.
unremedied toward Plaintiffs for so long that it amounts to a policy or practice and
constitutes Defendants standard operating procedure.
85.
environment and disparate impact theories of liability under the Illinois Human Rights
Act.
86.
other similarly situated to sexual discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights
Act.
13
88.
91.
discriminate against an employee who has opposed an unlawful employment practice or has
assisted or participated in another employers claim of discrimination.
92.
93.
Illinois Human Rights Act. By its conduct, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in
their favor and against Defendants, and enter an Order awarding the following relief:
a.
All wages and benefits they would have received but for the
discrimination;
b.
Compensatory damages;
14
c.
Punitive damages;
d.
e.
f.
Respectfully Submitted,
Pava & Lzaro, LLC
15