Case: 1:22-cv-03010 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CANDACE ROBBINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
HINSDALE TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL )
DISTRICT 86, )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, CANDACE ROBBINS (“Plaintiff”), by and through her

attorney, RICHARD J. GONZALEZ of THE LAW OFFICES OF CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE

OF LAW, and for her complaint against Defendant, HINSDALE TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL

DISTRICT 86 (“Defendant”), states as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION

1. This is an action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,

29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), the common law tort of retaliatory discharge, and the Family

and Medical Leave Act of 1964, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (the “FMLA”).

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. §

1367, and the provisions of the ADEA 29 U.S.C. § 626(c).

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a female citizen of the United States of America who resides within this

judicial district.

1
 Case: 1:22-cv-03010 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2

5. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant from August, 1997 through November 17,

2020.

6. Defendant District is and was at all times an employer within the meaning of ADEA

29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the FMLA, and doing business within the state of Illinois.

FACTS

7. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in August, 1997 and worked for Defendant for the

past twenty-four years as a paraprofessional.

8. Plaintiff was a qualified, strong performer and for many years received positive

performance reviews from Defendant employer.

9. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, older individuals are

more at-risk for severe COVID-19 illness and complications.

10. Plaintiff is sixty-nine years old and has a legitimate fear for her personal health and

safety due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A colleague of Plaintiff passed away after contracting

COVID within the workplace.

11. On or about August 4, 2020, Plaintiff began requesting FMLA paperwork from

agents of Defendant Cathy Hannon, Mary Dudek, and Stacie Crieghton.

12. Defendant District demanded that all paraprofessionals work in person when the

school year started on August 10, 2020. However, Defendant District teachers were allowed to

work remotely.

13. The building to which Plaintiff was assigned provided inadequate space to allow

employees to sufficiently physical distance, had poor overall ventilation, and included construction

contractors generally working without face masks within the school.

2
 Case: 1:22-cv-03010 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3

14. On or about August 4, 2020, Plaintiff spoke on the phone with Defendant’s Human

Resources Benefits Coordinator Cathy Hannon and asked to work remotely so that Plaintiff could

follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 safety guidelines for

individuals age sixty-five and over.

15. On or about August 4, 2020, Plaintiff was told by Ms. Hannon that the District

School Board was not following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19

safety guidelines.

16. On or about August 4, 2020, Plaintiff was told by Ms. Hannon that Plaintiff must

either work in person in the school building or “retire.”

17. On or about August 10, 2020, Plaintiff received a voicemail message from

Defendant’s Interim Human Resources Director, Mary Dudek, stating that Defendant was not

offering alternative assignments for paraprofessionals, but that paraprofessionals must work in

person and cannot work remotely.

18. On or about August 21, 2020, Ms. Dudek told Plaintiff during a phone conversation

that if Plaintiff is unable to work in person, she needs to provide a doctor’s note that states a reason

other than age. Ms. Dudek also informed Plaintiff that most medical conditions would not be

approved.

19. On or about August 21, 2020, Plaintiff informed Ms. Dudek that Plaintiff’s son was

scheduled for surgery and the doctor wanted Plaintiff and her son to quarantine before the

operation. Ms. Dudek stated that Plaintiff still had to work in person and that additional personal

protective equipment would be provided to Plaintiff. However, Ms. Dudek did not specify what

that equipment would be. Ms. Dudek told Plaintiff that Plaintiff must resign if she did not agree to

work in person prior to Plaintiff’s son’s surgery. Plaintiff again requested FMLA paper paperwork.

3
 Case: 1:22-cv-03010 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4

20. On or about November 17, 2020, Plaintiff received a letter from Ms. Dudek stating

that the Board of Education would consider Plaintiff’s termination at the November 19, 2020

Board of Education meeting for insubordination and job abandonment.

21. On or about November 18, 2020, Plaintiff emailed Ms. Dudek and other Defendant

Human Resource employees stating that Plaintiff would be involuntarily retiring effective

November 19, 2020, because of the ultimatum presented by Defendant in their November 17, 2020

letter.

COUNT I
AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA

22. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 21 and incorporates same by

reference as though fully set out herein.

23. The ADEA proscribes employment discrimination against individuals who are 40

years of age or older.

24. Defendant treated younger employees more favorably by creating dangerous

working conditions for older employees.

25. As outlined above, Defendant violated the ADEA by constructively discharging

Plaintiff because of her age and the intolerable working conditions created by Defendant which

would have compelled any reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position to resign.

26. In violating the ADEA, Defendant acted willfully and/or with reckless disregard of

whether its treatment of Plaintiff constituted differential treatment based upon age.

DAMAGES

As a result of the actions complained of herein, Plaintiff has suffered the loss of her job,

salary, benefits, and incidental damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

4
 Case: 1:22-cv-03010 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5

A. Enjoining Defendant from further acts of age discrimination against its

employees;

B. Reinstating Plaintiff into her prior or a comparable position;

C. Awarding Plaintiff her lost wages and the value of lost benefits;

D. Awarding Plaintiff an additional equal sum as liquidated damages;

E. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of this action;

and

F. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II
COMMON LAW RETALIATORY DISCHARGE

27. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 26 and incorporates same by

reference as though fully set out herein.

28. Defendant constructively discharged Plaintiff after Plaintiff expressed concern to

Defendant that government public health and safety guidelines regarding the COVID-19 pandemic

were not being followed by Defendant.

29. Defendant’s lack of adherence to COVID-19 health and safety guidelines created a

work environment that was so intolerable that it forced Plaintiff into an involuntary retirement.

30. The District’s stated reason for Plaintiff’s termination was a pretext for unlawful

retaliation.

31. Plaintiff’s termination violated Illinois public policy in that Plaintiff was terminated

because she expressed opposition to unlawful practices that affected the health, safety, and welfare

of the public at-large.

5
 Case: 1:22-cv-03010 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6

DAMAGES

As a result of the actions complained of herein, Plaintiff has suffered loss of her job, salary,

benefits, and incidental damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks entry of an Order:

A. Enjoining Defendant from further acts of retaliatory discharge;

B. Awarding Plaintiff her lost wages and benefits;

C. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages; and

D. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III
FMLA VIOLATION

32. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 31 and incorporates same by

reference as though fully set out herein.

33. Plaintiff’s request for leave from employment to care for her son and his medical

requirements was reasonably believed by Plaintiff to constitute temporary “intermittent leave”

allowable under the FMLA. At the relevant times, Plaintiff was eligible for FMLA protection.

34. Defendant denied Plaintiff her FMLA rights when it refused to grant her FMLA

request on and constructively terminated her employment.

DAMAGES

As a result of the actions complained of herein, Plaintiff has suffered loss of her job, salary,

benefits, and incidental damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief in the form of an Order:

A. Enjoining Defendant from further acts of FMLA violation against its

employees;

6
 Case: 1:22-cv-03010 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7

B. Enter judgment finding that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff and

interfered with Plaintiff’s utilization of the FMLA;

C. Reinstating Plaintiff into her prior or a comparable position;

D. Awarding Plaintiff her lost wages, value of lost benefits and other monetary

losses caused by Defendant’s unlawful termination of her employment

pursuant to FMLA;

E. Awarding Plaintiff an additional equal sum as liquidated damages;

F. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of this action;

and

G. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.

Respectfully submitted,

CANDACE ROBBINS

By: s/ Richard J. Gonzalez

Attorney for Plaintiff

RICHARD J. GONZALEZ
Law Offices of Chicago-Kent College of Law
565 W. Adams Street, Suite 600
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Tel.: (312) 906-5079
Fax: (312) 906-5299
Attorney No.: 24155