Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN IDLEBURG, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No.
)
v. ) Judge
)
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL ) Jury Trial Demanded
HEALTHCARE and NORTHWESTERN )
LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, John Idleburg, by and through his attorneys, Pedersen & Weinstein LLP, for his

Complaint against Defendants, Northwestern Memorial HealthCare and Northwestern Lake

Forest Hospital, states as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action under federal and state law to challenge Defendants’

unlawful discrimination against him based on his race and age.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and principles of pendent

and supplemental jurisdiction.

3. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b).

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, John Idleburg, was formerly employed by Defendants in Lake Forest,

Illinois as a safety security officer. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2012 until April 2018.
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

Plaintiff is African American and 62 years old.

5. Defendant Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital is a general medicine and surgical

hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Northwestern

Memorial HealthCare, an academic medical center located in Chicago, Illinois.

6. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital and Northwestern Memorial HealthCare were

both Plaintiff’s employer and are collectively referred to herein as “Defendants.”

7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants employed 20 or more

employees and were engaged in an industry affecting commerce.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s Background And Employment With Defendants

8. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a security officer for over five years.

9. Prior to Defendants hiring him, Plaintiff already had an extensive and impressive

professional background. Plaintiff, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps, spent more than two

decades working as a Special Agent for the United States Treasury Department Inspector

General for Tax Administration where he led federal investigations. While in that position, he

also managed approximately 40 federal agents from various entities including the Federal Bureau

of Investigation, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, among others.

10. During his career in the security field, Plaintiff has also provided personal

security for high-profile dignitaries at large-scale public events. For example, he provided

security for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and Vice President Al Gore and his family at the

Democratic National Convention in Chicago, for dignitaries at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake

City, Utah, and for United Nations dignitaries in New York.

2
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

11. Plaintiff’s background also includes working as a Special Agent for the U.S.

Department of Defense, serving as deputy sheriff for the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, and

being promoted from patrolman to detective with the Great Lakes Naval Base Police

Department.

12. Since 2011, in addition to working full time for Defendants, Plaintiff also held

leadership positions with the Illinois Police Association, serving as the Chairman of the Shoot

Committee where he managed approximately 40 individuals, Chairman of the Death Benefit

Committee where he managed approximately 10 people, and holding the position of Vice

President where he was responsible for managing a $1 million budget. Further, from 2010 to

2014 Plaintiff was the Commander of American Legion Post 865 where he managed over 100

veteran members.

13. Consistent with these accomplishments and abilities, throughout his tenure with

Defendants, Plaintiff discharged all duties assigned to him competently and enjoyed an excellent

reputation with regard to the quality of his work and his conscientious devotion to his job.

Indeed, in his 2015 performance review, Plaintiff was described as an “excellent, reliable,

knowledgeable Officer who is a pleasure to work with.” Similarly, in 2016 Plaintiff was rated as

exceeding expectations and Defendants noted in his performance review that Plaintiff “is very

respected in our hospital and has worked hard for that recognition” and “is a huge part of our

team and his past experiences have made him a great employee.”

14. As a further testament to his experience and qualifications, Plaintiff was recently

elected and sworn in as Sheriff of Lake County.

Defendants Subjected Plaintiff To Race And Age Discrimination

15. Despite his impressive background and exemplary performance, Defendants

3
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4

subjected Plaintiff to discrimination on account of his race and age.

16. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff is aware of only one African American

employee in a position of authority at the hospital. Consistent with the conspicuous absence of

African Americans in management positions, Defendants denied Plaintiff the ability to advance

his career.

17. To be sure, Defendants denied Plaintiff promotions for which he was well-

qualified and instead gave such positions to less qualified white candidates. More specifically,

during Plaintiff’s employment, the position of Manager Safety and Security became available in

2016 and again in 2017. Both times Plaintiff applied for the promotion, and both times the

hospital selected less qualified Caucasian candidates over him.

18. Also on both occasions, Defendants proffered pretextual explanations for

rejecting Plaintiff for the positions. In 2016, Defendants claimed they were not even aware

Plaintiff had applied for the position, which is belied by the fact that Plaintiff had received

confirmation from Defendants that his application was received.

19. In 2017, Defendants claimed that Plaintiff was not selected for the position

because the candidate who was selected, Brian Verbeke (“Verbeke”), who was much younger

and had worked for the hospital for less than five years, had more “scheduling experience”,

referring to the administrative task of assigning security officers shifts to work. The “scheduling

experience” excuse for failing to promote Plaintiff is baseless given the fact that this function is

not even required for the job. To be sure, another security officer had been creating the schedule

for years and continued to do so under the new security manager hired over Plaintiff.

20. Moreover, even if the scheduling task were part of the job, as detailed above,

Plaintiff was more than capable. He is a former federal agent who, during his distinguished

4
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

career, managed up to 40 people at various times and was responsible for scheduling and

managing the myriad tasks required during complex investigations.

21. Given his tenure and background, Plaintiff plainly was more qualified than the

Caucasian applicant but was not chosen for the promotion because of his race and age.

22. As further evidence of discrimination, Defendants had already decided to promote

Verbeke, the Caucasian applicant, before even interviewing Plaintiff on April 20, 2017. More

specifically, on April 6, 2017, Richard Paulus (“Paulus”), one of the decision-makers, sent an

email to Don Strenger (“Strenger”), the acting security manager, about getting a certain position

approved for an employee named Jeri and discussing the days Jeri would work. Despite the fact

that Verbeke was only a Safety and Security Officer, the same position as Plaintiff and did not

become the manager until May 3, 2017, Paulus included Verbeke as a recipient of this

management-related email. Even Verbeke understood this email indicated he would get the

position as he wrote to Strenger in a separate email about his interview with Paulus: “I came

away feeling like he’s gonna (sic) pick me. I figured it was also a good sign when he included

me on the email he sent to you and Becky about Jeri being approved as a casual employee.”

Strenger responded, in part, “I think you have the inside track. I thought the same thing about

you being on that email.”

23. By comparison, Plaintiff was not included on any management-related emails

while he was still an applicant like Verbeke, nor did he have the “inside track” with Paulus,

despite being more qualified and having more seniority than Verbeke. This differential treatment

reflects further race and age discrimination.

24. Moreover, Verbeke was selected over Plaintiff for promotion despite admitting to

playing a “practical joke” on another security officer on April 6, 2017. That day, Verbeke hid

5
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

Javier Sostre’s identification badge, precluding Sostre from clocking in at the start of his shift.

Verbeke only returned the badge to Sostre after Sostre had to report it missing over the radio to

all officers. Verbeke claimed he “forgot about [his] prank” and admitted this was poor judgment.

The fact that Verbeke was selected as a supervisor over Plaintiff despite engaging in practical

jokes and pranks that embarrassed his colleague and wasted Defendants’ time and resources is

further evidence that Verbeke’s promotion was not based on merit and that Plaintiff was denied

the position because of his race and age.

Defendants Failed To Exercise Reasonable Care To Prevent And Correct Unlawful Conduct

25. Defendants’ management directed, encouraged, and participated in the above-

described unlawful conduct. Further, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent

and correct promptly any discrimination. Plaintiff did not unreasonably fail to take advantage of

any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by Defendants or to avoid harm otherwise.

26. The discrimination described above is consistent with Defendants’ standard

operating procedure.

27. Defendants acted with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally

protected rights of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Timely Filed A Charge Of Discrimination

28. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of race discrimination and retaliation with the

EEOC and was issued his Notice of Right to Sue on or about September 14, 2018.

29. The EEOC cross-filed Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination with the Illinois

Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) pursuant to the work-sharing agreement between the

EEOC and IDHR. The IDHR adopted the EEOC’s determination, pursuant to the 2011

amendments to the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(A-1)(3)).

6
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

Plaintiff Suffered Damage

30. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct Plaintiff experienced, he

has suffered extreme emotional and mental distress.

31. Plaintiff has lost wages, compensation and benefits as a result of Defendants’

unlawful conduct.

32. Plaintiff’s career and reputation have been irreparably damaged as a result of

Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

33. Plaintiff suffered embarrassment and humiliation as a result of Defendants’

unlawful conduct. Plaintiff suffered loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience and other non-

pecuniary losses as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as well as incurring

attorneys’ fees and costs.

Punitive Damages

34. Defendants acted and/or failed to act with malice or willfulness or reckless

indifference to Plaintiff’s rights. The conduct alleged herein was willful and wanton and justifies

an award of punitive damages.

COUNT I

RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

35. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 and incorporates them by reference

into Count I of this Complaint.

36. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e 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 race.

7
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

37. By the conduct as alleged herein, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to race

discrimination in violation of Title VII.

COUNT II

RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 1981

38. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 37 and incorporates them by reference

into Count III of this Complaint.

39. 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, (“Section 1981”),

prohibits discrimination based on race in the performance, modification, and termination of

contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual

relationship.

40. By the conduct as alleged herein, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to race

discrimination in violation of Section 1981.

COUNT III

RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF IHRA

41. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 40 and incorporates them by reference

into Count III of this Complaint.

42. The IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(A), makes it unlawful for any employer to refuse to

hire, to segregate, or to act with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of

employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure or terms,

privileges or conditions of employment on the basis of race.

43. By the conduct as alleged herein, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to race

discrimination in violation of the IHRA.

8
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9

COUNT IV

AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF ADEA

44. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 43 and incorporates them by reference

into Count IV of this Complaint.

45. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq.,

(“ADEA”) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire, discharge, limit, segregate,

or classify its employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of

employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of

such individual’s age.

46. By the conduct as alleged herein, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to age

discrimination in violation of ADEA.

47. Defendants’ conduct constitutes willful age discrimination against Plaintiff.

COUNT V

AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF IHRA

48. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 and incorporates them by reference

into Count V of this Complaint.

49. The IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(A), makes it unlawful to discriminate against any

individual in the terms, privileges or conditions of employment on the basis of age.

36. By the conduct as alleged herein, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to age

discrimination in violation of the IHRA.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court find in his favor and

against the Defendants as follows:

9
 Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10

a. Declare that the acts and conduct of Defendants violate Title VII, Section 1981,

the ADEA and the IHRA;

b. Award Plaintiff the value of all compensation and benefits lost as a result of

Defendants’ unlawful conduct;

c. Award Plaintiff the value of all compensation and benefits he will lose in the

future as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct;

d. In the alternative to paragraph (c), reinstate Plaintiff with appropriate promotions

and seniority and otherwise make Plaintiff whole;

e. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages;

f. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages;

g. Award Plaintiff punitive damages;

h. Award Plaintiff prejudgment interest;

i. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements; and

j. Award Plaintiff such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial

by jury on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.

Dated: December 12, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Jill Weinstein

Erika Pedersen
Jill Weinstein
PEDERSEN & WEINSTEIN LLP
33 N. Dearborn, Suite 1170
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 322-0710
(312) 322-0717 (facsimile)

10