COMPLAINT

NAME WITHELD 

ADDRESS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION

NAME WITHELD 

Plaintiff,

V.

NAME WITHELD 

Defendant.

_______________________________________

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff NAME WITHELD (“Plaintiff”), pro se, brings and hereby submits this complaint against Defendant NAME WITHELD  Hospital (“Defendant”), and in support thereof, aver as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Licensed Practicing Nurse (LPN) since 2011. In 2016, the Plaintiff converted from a full-time employee to a part-time employee to better address her rising obligations with her family. In 2019, when the Plaintiff informed Mrs. Varkey, Mrs. Reena Varkey, that she now wishes to take up a full-time position, Mrs. Varkey was agreeable to the proposal. At the time six full-time positions were available as the staff was short of LPN. However, as time went by, the Plaintiff would not be selected for any of the positions. Mrs. Varkey instead appointed persons of Asian descent to occupy the positions. This was suspicious as Mrs. Varkey was also of Asian descent. Despite the Plaintiff’s attempts to demonstrate experience, commitment and readiness to take up the full-time position, Mrs. Varkey has repeatedly passed over the Plaintiff for persons less qualified, with a bias in favor of persons of Asian descent.

1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.; Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., to remedy Defendant’s race discrimination and hostile work environment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

• This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this case involves questions of federal law.

• Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A) because Defendants are an agency and an officer of the United States.

• Sometimes in August 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

• On November 2nd, 2020 Plaintiff was issued with a Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint from the EEOC.

• On November 23^rd, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint.

• All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed.

PARTIES

• Plaintiff Latabitha Bryant, is a citizen of the State of Illinois and a resident of Cook County. Plaintiff is an African-American female. Plaintiff is also a wife to a disabled veteran and a mother to an active duty marine.

• Defendant the United States Department of Veterans Affairs is a federal agency within the meaning of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 3(3), and of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551(1).

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. During the substance of the past ten (10) years, the Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, an employee of the Defendant as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN).

1. During the initial years of her employment, the Plaintiff worked eight hour shifts at the time.

1. By the year 2016, in addition to working 8-hour shifts, the Plaintiff was also raising two children and caring for her ill spouse. This strained the balance between her work life and personal life.

1. Under the circumstance, the Plaintiff was constrained to request she be transferred from a full-time shift to a part-time shift. The Plaintiff’s request was received by the Defendant and the same was approved. At no point prior to approval was the Plaintiff subjected any prequalification exercise by the Defendant.

1. Sometimes in April 2019, Reena Varkey, a female of Asian descent, became the new manager responsible for several LPN including the Plaintiff. Within the same month, the Plaintiff expressed to Mrs. Varkey that she was interested in taking up a full-time shift, to which Mrs. Varkey was agreeable.

1. Sometimes in June 2019, the Plaintiff was away from office as this was her scheduled vacation time of 6 weeks.

1. The Plaintiff returned to work sometimes in July 2019. To her fortunate surprise her unit was down six LPN. In order for her unit to return to optimum performance, the six positions needed filling.

1. Noting the opportunity, the Plaintiff again expressed to Mrs. Varkey that she was interested in resuming full-time shifts. The reminder was positively received by Mrs. Varkey, who responded that she will be notifying the Human Resources department (HR) of the same.

1. As the Plaintiff awaited further communication, the Defendant continued to ask the Plaintiff to work extra shifts. This was a positive outcome for the Plaintiff as she was able to demonstrate her readiness and willingness to convert to full-time.

1. To the Plaintiff’s shock and dismay, Mrs. Varkey employed five new LPN to take up full time positions with the unit, none of which was the Plaintiff;
   1. On August 4th, 2019, Shyni Kurien, a female of Asian descent was hired to work a full-time day shift.
   1. On September 3rd, 2019, Arthur Deguzman, a male of Asian descent was hired to work a full-time night shift.
   1. On September 29, 2019, Jon Piramide, a male of Asian descent was hired to work a full-time night shift.
   1. On September 29, 2019, Shalimol Saju, a male of Asian descent was hired to work a full-time night shift.
   1. On October 15, 2019, Kiranben Patel, a male of Asian descent was hired to work a full-time Day shift.

1. Sometime in September 2019, the Plaintiff once again reminded Mrs. Varkey of her interest to convert to a full-time shift. The Plaintiff went further to explain that she was willing to take any full-time shift available, be it a day shift or a night shift. Again, Mrs. Varkey received the information with positivity and eagerness to grant the request.

1. Though the Plaintiff was disappointed that she was not selected to take up a full-time shift despite her discussions with Mrs. Varkey, she remained positive and hopeful that Mrs. Varkey will act towards her request with regard to the last vacant position.

1. On or about February 11^th, 2020, Mrs. Varkey sent out an email with an invitation to apply for a day shift position with a deadline of February 21^st, 2020. The Plaintiff acted on the opportunity and happily submitted her resume to be considered for the position.

1. Sometimes in March 2020, the Plaintiff had undergone foot surgery. Following the procedure, the Plaintiff was advised to stay off her feet during the recovery period. A follow up appointment was scheduled for March 20th, 2020.

1. On March 12th, 2020, the Plaintiff received a call from Mrs. Varkey inviting her to an interview to be held on 16th March, 2020 for the day shift LPN position.

1. Aware of the surgical procedure and the doctor’s directions for her recovery, the Plaintiff informed Mrs. Varkey of the same and requested the same be rescheduled to a date after the follow up appointment.

1. Mrs. Varkey declined to reschedule and insisted the Plaintiff attend the interview as scheduled, else she risks not being considered for the position.

1. On or about March 16^th, 2020, despite the doctor’s directions, the Plaintiff attended the interview as scheduled. At the conclusion of the interview the Plaintiff was notified that she will receive a notice from HR advising on the results of her interview.

1. On or about April 4^th, 2020, the Plaintiff returned to work after she had fully recovered from the surgical procedure.

1. On or about April 7^th, 2020, the Plaintiff came into the knowledge that the position had been filled. The successful candidate was a temporary employee of Asian descent with no more than six months experience, compared to the Plaintiff’s ten years plus.

1. The very same day, Mrs. Varkey, and not HR, informed the Plaintiff that she did not succeed in her interview for reason that Mrs. Varkey believed she had to give it to a MORE QUALIFIED PERSON. Furthermore, Mrs. Varkey informed the Plaintiff the successful candidate had a family and deserved to get the position.

1. The Plaintiff was bewildered by this information because she too had a family, she had the relevant experience, and above all else she had demonstrated sacrifice and commitment.

1. The Plaintiff expressed her doubts and concern for the criteria used to select the successful candidate. equally so, the Plaintiff expressed that she too has a family where she was the bread winner as her husband had been furloughed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mrs. Varkey advised the Plaintiff not to worry as her hours will remain the same.

1. Mrs. Varkey continued to urge the Plaintiff to remain patient.

1. Sometimes in May 2020, the successful candidate’s position would again become vacant, only to be occupied by Lilium Garcia, a temporary employee and a female of Hispanic descent hired by Mrs. Varkey.

1. The Plaintiff expressed her frustration and disappointment with Mrs. Varkey and the criteria used by Mrs. Varkey. This issue was escalated to the point of involving the SEIC Union.

1. On or about May 28^th, 2020, the Plaintiff and Mrs. Varkey both met with the Union in an attempt to resolve the problem. However, the two were not able to have a consensus of the mind.

1. On or about May 29^th, 2020, a follow up was made by the Union Representative. During this session, Mrs. Varkey informed the Plaintiff that as of pay period 13, the Plaintiff’s hours will be cut back down to 40 hours, contrary to what she had earlier assured the Plaintiff would not happen. Further more she asserted that there are no more LPN positions available for the Plaintiff to be considered.

1. Sometimes in July 2020, the Plaintiff hours were indeed reduced and she returned to working 40-hour pay periods as a temporary employee.

1. Within the months of July and August 2020, Mrs. Varkey would see the promotion of several LPN, none of which was of African-American descent. Further, the Plaintiff was utterly shocked to learn than none of the promotions was subject to applying and attending an interview.

1. By this time the relationship between Mrs. Varkey and the Plaintiff had eroded significantly. As such Mrs. Varkey began to influence and cause the other LPN to disassociate with the Plaintiff.

1. Sometimes in August 2020, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) raising issues of discrimination and hostile work place. The Plaintiff equally notified the Defendant of the matter before the EEOC.

1. On or about October 2nd, 2020, Mrs. Varkey informed the Plaintiff of a vacant full-time LPN position that was created to accommodate the Plaintiff’s request for a full-time position.

1. Mrs. Varkey offered the Plaintiff the position on condition that the Plaintiff withdraw the EEOC complaint. The Plaintiff rejected the offer for reason that it was not a genuine offer, but one meant to conceal the unfairness of Mrs. Varkey’s selection process.

1. On or about October 14^th 2020, a notice was issued advising employees that the application period for the newly created LPN position is ended.

1. On or about October 23^rd, 2020, though the Plaintiff did not submit her application for the position, Mrs. Varkey approached the Plaintiff and urged the Plaintiff to attend an interview for the position on October 29^th, 2020.

1. The Plaintiff was aware of the pending investigation regarding the complaint before the EEOC. As such the Plaintiff requested that the interview be rescheduled to allow the mediation process to run its course. Again, true to Mrs. Varkey’s character, she insisted that the interview must proceed as scheduled, failure of which the Plaintiff will not be considered for the position.

1. The Plaintiff maintained her position and did not attend the interview.

1. On October 30^th, 2020, the Plaintiff was notified that she was not selected for the position. However, it was apparent that no other candidate was selected for the position.

1. On November 17th, 2020, the mediation session came up before the EOCC and it was agreed that a follow up meeting was supposed to occur to allow Mrs. Varkey to furnish copies of the policies and procedures she claimed to have followed prior to hiring licensed practicing nurses.

1. On or about December 22^nd, 2020, the EEOC issued a determination dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint for untimeliness. The Plaintiff filed a timely appeal, which appeal was upheld the initial determination. However, the EEOC did make not that the arising circumstances of the complaint were indeed suspect of discrimination.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I

Race-based Discrimination in Violation of the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(A)

• Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs.

• As described above, the City discriminated against Plaintiff based on her race, African-American, in violation of the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(A). The Defendant’s discriminatory actions included treating Plaintiff’s request and applications for full-time positions less favorably, in contrast to persons of the same descent as Mrs. Varkey.

• Plaintiff suffered injury, both economic and otherwise, including emotional distress, as a result of the City’s discrimination.

COUNT II

Retaliation in Violation of the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A)

• Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs.

• As described above, the Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff by (1) cutting her work hours despite giving assurance that the Plaintiff’s work hours will remain the same pending her conversion to a full-time employee, and (2) by turning fellow LPNs against the Plaintiff for lodging a complaint against the Defendant for unfair recruitment practices.

• Plaintiff suffered injury, both economic and otherwise, including emotional distress, as a result of the City’s retaliation.

COUNT III

Retaliation in Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)

• Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs.

• As described above, the City retaliated against Plaintiff for requesting to be converted from a part-time employee to a full-time employee.

• As described above, the City retaliated against Plaintiff for lodging a complaint against the Defendant by turning other LPNs against the Plaintiff.

• Plaintiff suffered injury, both economic and otherwise, including emotional distress, as a result of the City’s retaliation.

COUNT IV

Retaliation in Violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)

• Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs.

• As described above, the City retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). The Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for asserting her rights to reasonable recruitment policies and procedures, and for complaining when the Defendant deprived her of these rights. The Defendant’s retaliatory actions included cutting the Plaintiff’s hours after giving reassurance the hours will be maintained; and turning the other LPNs against the Defendant for complaining and asserting her rights under the law.

• Plaintiff suffered injury, both economic and otherwise, including emotional distress, as a result of the City’s retaliation.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court award her:

• A declaratory judgment that the Defendant has violated the IHRA, Title VII, and the FLSA;

• A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from continuing its practices of race-based discrimination, retaliation in employment, and unlawful denials of reasonable accommodations, and requiring the Defendant to submit a plan detailing how it will address these violations and end its discriminatory practices and implement such plan;

• Compensatory damages;

• Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the above damages;

• costs and litigation expenses; and

• Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated:  ____________________

By:

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demand a jury trial on all causes of action and claims to which they have a right to a jury trial.

Dated:  ____________________	Respectfully submitted,
By:
	NAME WITHELD ,ADDRESS