Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BEA SULLIVAN-KNOFF
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
1:16-CV-08297
v.
)
)
THE CITY OF CHICAGO and RAHM
)
EMANUEL, in his Official Capacity,
)
)
Defendant.
) JURY DEMANDED
CIVIL COMPLAINT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, BEA SULLIVAN-KNOFF, by and through her attorneys
Mary J. Grieb and the Shiller Preyar Law Offices, complaining of the Defendant and in support
thereof states as follows:
1. The Plaintiff files this complaint challenging a provision of the City of Chicago
municipal code requiring liquor license holders to deny any exhibition on the licensed
premises which exposes to the public view any portion of the female breast at or below
the areola thereof.
2. As set forth below, Defendants compliance with and implementation of City of Chicago
Municipal Code 4-60-140 titled Prohibited activities last amended on September 11, 2013
(Mun. Code 4-60-140) constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of
sex and gender in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a First Amendment
violation on the basis of a protected expression, a Substantive Due Process violation of
Plaintiffs life, liberty and property, a violation of the Article I, Sections 2, 18 and 17 of

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

the Illinois Constitution, and a violation of Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101,
et seq., effective since July 1, 1980 (IHRA).
INTRODUCTION
3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to address deprivations of Plaintiffs
rights under the Constitution of the United States and Constitution of the State of Illinois.
JURISDICTION
4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
1983 and 1985; the Judicial Code 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a) and 1345; the Constitution
of the United States; and pendent jurisdiction as provided under U.S.C. 1367(a).
VENUE
5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (b). The events described herein all
occurred in the Northern District of Illinois.
RELIEF
6. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-6(a) and (b); 20 U.S.C.
1682; and 42 U.S.C. 13925(b)(13)(C) and 3789d(c)(3).
THE PARTIES
7. Bea Sullivan-Knoff is a United States citizen who resides in the Northern District of
Illinois.
8. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation duly incorporated under the laws
of the State of Illinois.

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

9. Defendant Rahm Emanuel, in his Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Chicago, is
responsible for executing, and administering the Citys laws, customs, practices, and
policies. In that capacity, he also presently enforces the laws, customs, practices and
policies complained of in this action. He is sued in official capacity as Mayor.
BACKGROUND
10. Bea Sullivan-Knoff is a 23-year-old queer and transgender woman who holds a Bachelor
of Arts degree from Northwestern University in Theatre with a focus on playwriting and
Gender and Sexuality Studies.
11. An individuals sex consists of multiple factors, which may not always be in alignment;
among those factors are hormones, external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, and
chromosomes. In contrast, gender identity is an individuals internal sense of gender,
which can be male, female, a blend of both, or neither.
12. Transgender individuals are individuals who have a gender identity that may not match
the sex they were assigned at birth.
13. A transgender individual may begin to assert a gender identity inconsistent with their sex
assigned at birth at any time from early childhood through adulthood. The decision by
transgender individuals to assert their gender identity publicly is a deeply personal one
that is made by the individual, often in consultation with family, medical and health care
providers, and others.
14. Gender identity is innate and external efforts to change a persons gender identity can be
harmful to a persons health and well-being.
15. Sullivan-Knoff is a performance artist, writer, actor, and poet.

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4

16. The City of Chicago Mun. Code 4-60-140 provides that: " (d) No person licensed under
this chapter shall permit any employee, entertainer or patron to engage in any live
act, demonstration, dance or exhibition on the licensed premises which exposes to
public view: ... (3) Any portion of the female breast at or below the areola thereof."
17. As part of pursuing a career as an artist, Plaintiff has performed at various venues across
the City of Chicago, some of which hold liquor licenses.
18. Plaintiffs performances often involve exposing her own body in a public place.
19. Plaintiff does so to reclaim her body in the face of legislation and discrimination directed
against transgender bodies, to make herself vulnerable, and to create an impactful
experience for the audience.
20. The section of the Chicago Mun. Code 4-60-140 cited above has prevented Plaintiff from
performing certain artistic pieces and has caused Plaintiff emotional distress.
21. One of Plaintiffs performance pieces involves the following: Plaintiffs colleague sets a
5-minute timer on a stage; Plaintiff appears on the stage with her body wrapped in a sheet
and her head covered by a brown paper bag, which has Touch Me written on all four
sides; members of the audience touch Plaintiffs body; when the timer finishes, Plaintiff
removes the brown paper bag.
22. People who have seen this performance have been moved and transformed by Plaintiffs
act of vulnerability and intimacy, which has prompted reflection on their own bodies.
23. In April of 2016, Plaintiff performed the piece as described above at an establishment
which holds a liquor license issued by the City of Chicago, but feared legal repercussion
against herself and the establishment.

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

24. Plaintiff has been prevented from performing this piece subsequently because of the City
of Chicago ordinance.
25. In 2015, Plaintiff wished to perform this act at a festival held at an establishment which
holds a liquor license in the City of Chicago.
26. Plaintiff did not perform the act as she had planned because of concerns by the theater
regarding their liquor license.
27. In August, 2016, Plaintiff anticipates again performing at the same festival at an
establishment which holds a liquor license in the City of Chicago, and is again concerned
about the theater or she herself violating the City of Chicago Mun. Code 4-60-140.
28. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to perform the artistic piece as she wished to.
29. In performing the piece and afterwards, Plaintiff feared that by exposing her breasts, she
would be causing the establishment to violate the City of Chicago Mun. Code 4-60-140.
30. As a result of the Citys unconstitutional ordinance, Plaintiff has suffered restrictions on
her speech, emotional distress, opportunities, and liberty.
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. 1983 Equal Protection Monell Claim Against City of Chicago
31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
32. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 as cited above intentionally and arbitrarily targets
women and transgender individuals that identify as women while placing no such
restriction on men in establishments that sell liquor and/or alcoholic beverages.
33. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 is selectively enforced against women and transgender
women, while placing no such restrictions on men at these establishments that sell liquor
and/or alcoholic beverages.

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

34. There is no important government interest for the difference in treatment and Defendants
Mun. Code 4-60-140 reinforces archaic stereotypes and overbroad generalizations of the
impropriety of womens breasts versus mens breasts, which also have areola.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs, declaratory judgment of the ordinances facial
unconstitutionality and such other and additional relief that this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. 1983 Freedom of Expression Monell Claim Against City of Chicago
35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
36. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 is an unconstitutional abridgement on its face, and as
applied or threatened to be applied, of the Plaintiffs affirmative rights to freedom of
expression under the United States Constitution, First and Fourteenth Amendments.
37. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 on its face and as applied or threatened to be applied, is
an unconstitutionally overbroad restriction on expressive activity.
38. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 on its face and as applied or threatened to be applied, is
an unconstitutionally vague restriction on expressive activity.
39. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 on its face and as applied or threatened to be applied, is
a content-based and viewpoint-based restriction on expressive activity.
40. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 on its face and as applied or threatened to be applied,
does not serve a significant governmental interest.
41. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 on its face and as applied or threatened to be applied,
does not leave open ample alternative channels of communication.

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

42. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 on its face and as applied or threatened to be applied,
are neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible
governmental purpose sought to be served by the legislation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs, and expenses, declaratory judgment of the
statutes facial unconstitutionality and such other additional relief that this Court deems
equitable and just.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. 1983 Due Process - Monell Claim Against City of Chicago
43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
44. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1983, provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law. Defendants conduct violated Plaintiffs right to due process.
45. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 is an irrational and unreasonable statute, imposing
unjustifiable restrictions on the exercise of protected constitutional rights, as guaranteed
by the United States Constitution. Because Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 is irrational
and unreasonable, its application violates the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
46. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 on its face and as applied or threatened to be applied
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
47. Plaintiff was prejudiced by Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140 because these laws
prevented Plaintiff and women in general from affirmatively invoking the First

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

Amendment right of freedom of expression through the use of an artistic body image
expressions in establishments that sell liquor and/or alcoholic beverages.
48. As a result of not being able to perform said artistic body image expressions in
establishments that sell liquor and/or alcoholic beverages, Plaintiff is deprived of her
liberty and property, through her inability to earn a living in the manner and by the
method that she chooses, and has also faced emotional damages and mental distress.
49. Furthermore, this deprivation does not apply to men, whom are able to earn a living
performing artistic body image expressions they wish to perform in establishments that
sell liquor and/or alcoholic beverages.
50. There also remains a question as to what constitutes as female breast and how this
classification of physical anatomy would be applied to transgender men who may or may
not have what would be considered female breasts in accordance with these statutes.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs, declaratory judgment of the statutes facial
unconstitutionality and such other additional relief that this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT IV
State Law Illinois Constitution, Article I, Section 2
51. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
52. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140, on its face and as applied or threatened, violates
Article I, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution which provides protection from
deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied equal
protection of the laws.

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9

53. Plaintiff was deprived of equal protection, liberty and property; as a result, Plaintiff was
injured, including emotional damage, mental distress, and loss of liberty.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages,
punitive damages, costs, declaratory judgment of the statutes facial unconstitutionality and
such other and additional relief that this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT V
State Law Illinois Constitution, Article I, Section 18
54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
55. Defendants Mun. Code 4-60-140, on its face and as applied or threatened, violates
Article I, Section 17 of the Illinois Constitution which provides protection from sex
discrimination through equal protection of the laws by the State or its units of local
government and school districts.
56. Plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of her sex as a woman and a transgender
individual; which constituted a violation and as a result, Plaintiff was injured, including
emotional damage, mental distress, loss of liberty, loss of property and anguish.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages,
punitive damages, costs, declaratory judgment of the statutes facial unconstitutionality and
such other and additional relief that this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VI
State Law Illinois Human Rights Act
57. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
58. The IHRA prevents discrimination based on sex and gender identity, see 775 ILCS 5/1102(A).

Case: 1:16-cv-08297 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/16 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10

59. IHRA defines sex as the status of being male or female, and sexual orientation as
actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related
identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the persons designated sex at birth.
See, 775 ILCS 5/1-103(O) and (O)(O-1).
60. IHRA defines unlawful discrimination as discrimination against a person because of his
or her sex and sexual orientation. 775 ILCS 5/1-103(Q).
61. Thus, in accordance with the provisions listed in the IHRA, Defendants violated the
IHRA and Plaintiffs human rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages,
punitive damages, costs, declaratory judgment of the statutes facial unconstitutionality and
such other and additional relief that this Court deems equitable and just.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.
Respectfully Submitted,
BEA SULLIVAN-KNOFF
By:
s/Mary J. Grieb
Mary J. Grieb
One of Plaintiffs Attorneys
The Shiller Preyar Law Offices
601 South California Avenue
Chicago, IL 60608
(312) 226-4590

10