Egizio Complaint

8/15/2019 Egizio Complaint

1/21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHEASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEANETTA MATICHAK, )

)Plaintiff, ) Case No.)

v. )) Judge

JOLIET PARK DISTRICT and )DOMINIC EGIZIO, an individual, )

)Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jeanetta Matichak, by her attorneys, Robin Potter & Associates, P.C., complains

of Defendants Joliet Park District and Dominic Egizio as follows:

Nature of the Action

1. Plaintiff Jeanetta Matichak brings this action against her employer Joliet Park

District and its former Executive Director Dominic Egizio for sexual harassment, sex

discrimination, and retaliation, in violation of her right of equal protection under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. She brings claims under the Illinois Gender Violence Act,

740 ILCS § 82/1, et seq., and state common law for battery of a sexual nature. Plaintiff also

seeks relief under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), for paying her wages lower than paid

to a male coworker. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

requests a trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury.

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1


2/21

2

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(4). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because

Defendants reside in this district and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this

district.

The Parties

4.

Plaintiff Jeanetta Matichak, a female, resides in Illinois and has been an employee

of the Joliet Park District since 2011. She has been on unpaid medical leave since May 2015.

5. Defendant Joliet Park District (“Park District”) is a municipal corporation,

organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. The Park District’s principal place of business

is 3000 W. Jefferson Street, Joliet, Illinois.

6. Defendant Dominic Egizio, male, was employed by Defendant Park District from

1989 through October 2015, including as its Executive Director from 2004 through October

2015. At all times relevant to this complaint, Egizio was acting within the scope of his

employment and was aided in accomplishing his conduct by the existence of his agency relation

with the Park District. He is sued in his individual capacity.

Administrative Procedure

7. Ms. Matichak timely filed a charge against Joliet Park District with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on December 18, 2015. She received a Notice

of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or after March 18, 2016. (Exhibit A). Plaintiff satisfied all

conditions precedent to the pursuing her Title VII claims.



3/21

3

Facts Upon Which Claims are Based

8. Defendant Park District is a public park district, which among other things, owns

and operates sports and recreation facilities, offers fitness programs, and conducts programs and

events in and around Joliet. The Park District employs approximately 1,000 employees.

9. The Park District is governed by a Board of Commissioners (Board) which

delegated authority to Egizio over subordinate employees.

10. The Park District hired Ms. Matichak as a part-time “boot camp” fitness instructor

in July 2011.

11.

During the course of her employment, Ms. Matichak was given additional

responsibilities, including teaching fitness classes, personal training, scheduling, and developing

new fitness programs. Her hours increased until she was working full-time hours while still

classified as part-time. Her current title is Group Exercise Supervisor. Throughout, Ms.

Matichak performed her job at levels that met or exceeded legitimate expectations.

12. Ms. Matichak is a married mother of three children.

13.

Dominic Egizio was employed by the Park District for more than 25 years, from

1989 until October 2015. The Park District promoted him up through the ranks of management

and appointed him Executive Director in 2004, the position he held through the end of his

employment.

14. As Executive Director, Defendant Egizio was the highest ranking employee of the

Park District. Defendant Egizio managed and exercised managerial authority over Ms. Matichak

and other Park District employees and workers, including authority to hire, fire, discipline,

promote, and affect the terms and conditions of the employees’ employment.

15. Defendant Egizio began to make unwelcome offensive sexual comments to and in



4/21

4

the presence of Ms. Matichak shortly after she was hired. He made comments to her such as,

“Come over here so I can check out your ass.” On a near daily basis, Egizio openly ogled and

made sexual comments about the bodies of female employees and members of the Park District,

such as “look at her ass” and “nice tits” and “check her out,” and about how, under the guise of

assisting with sit-ups, he held the legs of females so he could look down their shirts and “watch

their tits.”

16. Defendant Egizio made the above comments openly and in the presence of

supervisors and at least one Board member. No Board member or management official of

Defendant Park District took any steps to stop Egizio’s inappropriate conduct and instead

permitted an environment where such comments and conduct were tolerated and encouraged.

17. Within a few months after her hire, Defendant Egizio began making sexual

advances toward Ms. Matichak. Submitting to his sexual advances for his sexual benefit became

a term and condition of Ms. Matichak’s employment, explicitly and implicitly, after December

2011 and continuing through May 2015, when she was forced out and constructively discharged

to an unpaid medical leave.

18. Throughout, Ms. Matichak repeatedly rebuffed Defendant Egizio’s advances,

telling him “no,” “I can’t do this,” and “I don’t want to do this,” and physically pushing him

away and pulling away from him. Egizio at first told her that she “just wasn’t ready” and then

repeatedly refused to take “no” for an answer.

19. Defendant Egizio used his Park District position of power and authority to

manipulate and coerce Ms. Matichak for sexual favors. He continued to make unwelcome sexual

advances, while making quid pro quo promises and threats.

20. Defendant Egizio ordered Ms. Matichak to come into his office many times every



5/21

5

day for no legitimate reason. If she said no or did not go to his office, he became enraged and

would not accept no for an answer.

21. On a near daily basis, Defendant Egizio brought coffee for Ms. Matichak and

ordered her to come into his office to get it. When she entered his office, he demanded that she

remain and/or to engage in unwelcome sexual acts.

22. Defendant Egizio frequently brought lunch for Ms. Matichak, and if she said no

or that she wanted to eat alone, he became angry and threatening, and would not accept no for an

answer.

23.

Defendant Egizio gave Ms. Matichak gifts, including lingerie, clothing, perfume,

a sex toy, and other gifts through in or about March 2015. He became enraged when she said she

did not want a gift and threw it in the trash.

24. Continuing until May 2015, Defendant Egizio repeatedly made offensive, lewd,

and vulgar sexual comments to Ms. Matichak, including but not limited to the following:

a. He frequently asked her what color panties she was wearing and becameangry if she refused to tell him;

b. He told her that he fantasized about her and masturbated thinking abouther every day; and

c. He talked about his penis size and badgered her to discuss his penis size.

25. Ms. Matichak’s regular responsibilities, plus the additional demands on her time

by Defendant Egizio, required her to work more than a 40-hour per week full-time job, while still

classified as a part-time employee without the pay or benefits of a full-time position. Egizio was

aware that she wanted a full-time position and health benefits. Defendants required, approved,

and permitted her to work more than 40 hours per week.

26. In or about 2014, Ms. Matichak began to attend planning meetings attended by



6/21

6

Park District supervisors and Defendant Egizio. During those meetings, Egizio frequently made

sexual comments about the bodies of women at the Park District. No supervisor ever said

anything to Egizio or took any steps to prevent his inappropriate comments.

27. In or about August 2014, Ms. Matichak had a miscarriage, which caused her to

suffer depression for which she began to take medication. She informed Defendant Egizio about

the miscarriage and that she was taking medication prescribed for depression. She also informed

him that the medication was causing her to feel like she was not in her right mind.

28. Thereafter, Defendant Egizio took advantage of Ms. Matichak’s vulnerability to

coerce and force her to engage in unwelcome sexual relations. For months, he pressured her,

manipulated her, and subjected her to increasingly controlling, aggressive, and stalking behavior,

while continuing to threaten her job if she did not submit to his demands.

29. Defendant Egizio misused the authority of his position to coerce and obtain

unwelcome quid pro quo sexual favors, including the following:

a. He promised her more pay and a full-time position with benefits.

b.

He promised her a promotion to be in charge of a new Park Districtfacility and a substantial increase in her wages.

c. He told her “I take care of you” and that she should be thankful for whathe did for her.

d. He became angry when she rebuffed him and made threats to her job andlivelihood, such as “Your job must not be important,” “You don’t valueyour job,” “I guess you don’t care about your job,” and that she must notwant the promotion he had promised her.

e.

He cried and said he was going to commit suicide if she did not submit tohis advances.

30. Defendant Egizio engaged in unwelcome stalking-like behavior toward Ms.

Matichak. He called her dozens of times a day, both during and after work, from 4 o’clock in the



7/21

7

morning until late at night; he showed up at locations around town where she was; and told her

that he had “studied her for a long time” and that he “always knew where she was.”

31. Defendant Egizio repeatedly demanded that Ms. Matichak report to his Park

District office between 4:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. for the purpose of sexual contact before she

taught early morning fitness classes. The sexual contact was unwelcome by Ms. Matichak.

32. In or about December 2014, while in a Park District conference room, Defendant

Egizio exposed his genitals and tried to force himself sexually on Ms. Matichak. She refused his

sexual demand and told him, “No, I can’t do this.”

33.

During early 2015, Defendant Egizio tried to grab and kiss Ms. Matichak at

locations in Park District facilities, including while she was setting up for class she was about to

teach. Ms. Matichak pushed him away.

34. During 2015, Defendant Egizio demanded that Ms. Matichak send him suggestive

photos of herself. He became enraged when she refused and threatened her job to coerce her to

comply with his demands.

35.

Defendant Egizio required Ms. Matichak to accompany him on work-related

matters and attend work-related events with him, often with no legitimate business reason for her

to be present. During those times, he made unwelcome advances.

36. In or about February 2015, after a meeting in which sexual harassment was

discussed, a female supervisor stated that she, the supervisor, should report how Egizio was

treating Ms. Matichak. However, upon information and belief, the supervisor did not make any

such report, as no one followed up with Ms. Matichak regarding Egizio’s conduct.

37. Previously, Ms. Matichak had been told that a director, who was a member of

senior management and close to Defendant Egizio and the Board, had been engaged in a sexual



8/21

8

relationship with a subordinate. She was told that the director had threatened an employee with

the loss of the employee’s job if the employee reported the relationship to the Board.

38. In or about February 2015, a female supervisor advised Ms. Matichak to always

agree with Egizio, to “just do whatever he says,” and “don’t say no to him,” because otherwise

he would get mad and scream.

39. On or about March 27, 2015, Ms. Matichak delivered a letter to Defendant Egizio

written by her husband. She told Egizio that it was a letter from her husband asking Egizio to

leave her alone.

40.

Defendant Egizio read the letter in Ms. Matichak’s presence. He slammed the

letter down on his desk, clenched his fists, and in a loud, angry, menacing tone, threatened her

husband’s position as a police officer with the City of Joliet. He stated, “If he’s going to mess

with me, I’m going to mess with his job. I can get anything done to him.” Egizio said “I have a

lot of connections” and specifically named a former Joliet Chief of Police and a prominent Park

District sponsor.

41.

Ms. Matichak now feared for both her job and her husband’s job.

42. Ms. Matichak began to suffer panic attacks that became increasingly frequent in

2015 because of stress and anxiety caused by Defendant Egizio’s relentless intimidating and

manipulative pressure to engage in sexual relations and threats to her and her husband’s

livelihoods.

43. On four occasions during April 2015, when Ms. Matichak experienced panic

attacks during work-related events, Defendant Egizio took her to a hotel, telling her that she

could calm down there and that they would talk about planning for new position he had promised

her.



9/21

9

44. At the hotels, Defendant Egizio plied her with alcoholic drinks and when she

became impaired by the alcohol, he demanded that she engage in sexual relations. She tried to

reject his advances, telling him “no,” “I can’t do this,” and “that’s not why we are here.” Egizio

refused to take no for an answer and told her that she had to be thankful for what he did for her

and made threats to her job if she did not submit, such as “you must not care for your position,

then.”

45. On the final occasion that Defendant Egizio took Ms. Matichak to a hotel, Egizio

kept urging her to drink so much alcohol that she experienced a partial black-out. After he

finished his sexual assault and as they left the hotel, she broke down sobbing.

46.

In May 2015, as a result of the injuries and extreme stress caused by Defendant

Egizio, Ms. Matichak suffered extreme trauma and a breakdown requiring hospitalization, and

has been on medical leave ever since.

47. After Ms. Matichak went on leave, Defendant Egizio continued to barrage her

with phone calls. One day, he followed her in his car after she had left a medical appointment,

pulled up next to her car, and started screaming at her because she refused to accept his calls or

call him back. His behavior was threatening and intimidating.

48. In or about July 2015, Defendant Egizio removed Ms. Matichak from the Park

District employee roster and changed the password to her work email account. When she went

to the Park District to pick up some paperwork and check on her email access, he paced back and

forth of the office of the employee who was assisting her, glared at her, sent the other employee

angry text messages about Ms. Matichak, and incessantly rang the employee’s phone. His

behavior was so threatening that the other employee offered to escort Ms. Matichak to her car.



10/21

10

49. After Ms. Matichak made claims of sexual harassment through her attorneys, and

before she filed this lawsuit, the wife of a Park District sponsor called her and told her to drop

her claims.

Park District knew of, tolerated, and acquiesced in Egizio’s wrongful conduct

50. Defendant Park District was aware of, tolerated, encouraged, and approved of

Defendant Egizio’s sexual misconduct.

51. Prior to Ms. Matichak’s employment, Defendant Egizio, along with a Park

District director, frequently and openly made sexual comments about women working out at the

Park District, their bodies, who was “hot,” and whose breasts were real.

52.

Prior to Ms. Matichak’s employment, Defendant Egizio had a reputation for

pursuing sexual relationships with subordinate female employees.

53. Defendant Egizio made sexual advances and pursued sexual relationships with at

least three other subordinate female employees over a period of at least ten years prior to Ms.

Matichak’s employment.

54.

Defendant Egizio demanded that a female subordinate spend time with him and

pressured her for sexual favors, and when she resisted, he stated, “I’m the boss” or became

enraged to the point of terrifying her; called her incessantly; repeatedly asked her what color

panties she was wearing; gave her gifts and made angry scenes at the workplace when she

refused the gifts; and threatened to kill a member of her family if she did not do what he wanted,

among other things.

55. Upon information and belief, Board members had reason to believe that

Defendant Egizio was having an inappropriate relationship with that female employee and

frequently discussed the matter during Board meetings. On one occasion, Board members



11/21

11

directed Egizio to distance himself from the female employee, but Egizio flatly refused to

comply with that directive, and the Board acquiesced in his refusal. Thereafter, the Board made

an adverse employment decision against the female employee and allowed Egizio to remain in

his position without taking any disciplinary action against him. This allegation is made on

information and belief, to wit : statements made by former Board members to the female

employee.

56. In or about March or April 2015, Park District Board President Glen Marcum told

Defendant Egizio that there were rumors that he was having sex with Ms. Matichak. He told

Egizio to quiet his people and put a stop to the rumors. The Board President did not tell Egizio

to stop compelling sex with a subordinate, nor did the Board conduct any investigation.

57. Defendant Egizio told Ms. Matichak that Park District Board Commissioner Art

Schultz told Egizio that there were rumors that Egizio was having sex with Ms. Matichak and he

stated, “good for you” and “you must have a big cock.”

58. Defendant Egizio abused his power and position of authority with Defendant Park

District to obtain sexual benefits for himself.

COUNT I

(42 U.S.C. §1983 – Equal Protection/Sexual Harassment – All Defendants)

59.

Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 above as

though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendants Park District and

Egizio.

60.

Defendant Park District employed Defendant Egizio at all times material hereto.

Park District is responsible for the acts of Defendant Egizio who was acting within the scope of

his employment and pursuant to a policy, custom, or pattern of sexual harassment and violating

Plaintiff’s right of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the



12/21

12

United States.

61. Defendants have acted under color of state law at all material times hereto.

62. Plaintiff was subjected to unequal and discriminatory treatment because of her

sex.

63. Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory

treatment by creating a hostile and abusive work environment, subjecting her to unwelcome

sexual advances, and subjecting her to an unwelcome and nonconsensual sexual relationship

coerced by quid pro quo promises and threats, and by knowingly failing and refusing to protect

her from those hostile and abusive conditions of her employment.

64.

The sexually and sex-based offensive conduct was severe and pervasive and

altered the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and created an abusive working environment.

65. Defendants had knowledge of the conduct complained of and refused or failed to

take action to terminate or correct such conduct, although having the power and authority to do

so.

66.

As Executive Director, Defendant Egizio was the highest ranking employee of

Park District and had final policymaking authority with respect to at least employment matters.

67. Defendants’ actions reflect a policy, custom, or pattern of official conduct of

engaging in sexual harassment and acquiescence and deliberate indifference to sexual

harassment of women by Defendant Egizio:

a. Defendant Egizio has engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment againstfemale employees for more than a decade.

b. Defendant Egizio intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal anddiscriminatory treatment by engaging in repeated and persistent acts ofunwelcome and offensive sex-based and sexual harassment of Plaintiff.

c. Defendant Egizio made offensive sexual comments about other female



13/21

13

employees and Park District members in Plaintiff’s presence.

d. Defendant Egizio engaged in sexual harassment of Plaintiff and at leastone other female employee pervasively, openly, publicly, and in the presence of Park District’s Board members and other Park District

employees.

e. Defendants Park District failed to take corrective measures to eliminatethe ongoing sexual harassment, allowing the sexual harassment tocontinue.

68. The actions of the Defendants against Plaintiff violate her equal protection right to

be free from sexual harassment under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

69. Defendants’ actions in intentionally engaging in and permitting sexual harassment

against Plaintiff has caused her severe emotional distress, trauma, humiliation, anxiety, physical

and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary

losses, and other compensatory and consequential damages.

70. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, and malicious and/or in reckless

disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to enter judgment on her behalf and against

Defendants Joliet Park District and Dominic Egizio for:

A.

An Order requiring Defendant Park District to appoint a monitor to conduct zerotolerance sexual harassment training and integrate said training into the workplacegoing forward and discipline all management and employees who do or haveengaged in and/or tolerated sexual harassment or a hostile work environment;

B. An Order requiring Defendant Park District to post notices concerning its duty torefrain from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, engaging insexual harassment, and retaliating against employees for engaging in protectedactivity;

C.

All wages and benefits Plaintiff would have received but for the unlawfulemployment practices, including pre-judgment interest as permitted by law;



14/21

14

D. Reinstatement to her former position, or in lieu of reinstatement, an order of front pay and benefits for a reasonable period of time;

E. Compensatory damages;

F.

Punitive damages against Defendant Egizio as permitted by law;

G. Attorneys’ fees and costs;

H. Post-judgment interest; and

I. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II

(Title VII Sexual Harassment – Defendant Park District)

71.

Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 above as

though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendant Park District.

72. At all relevant times herein, defendant employed more than 15 people and is

therefore an employer as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

73. Defendant is engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42

U.S.C. § 2000e(h).

74.

Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory

treatment by creating a hostile and abusive work environment, subjecting her to unwelcome

sexual advances, and subjecting her to an unwelcome and nonconsensual sexual relationship

coerced by quid pro quo promises and threats, and by knowingly failing and refusing to protect

her from those hostile and abusive conditions of her employment, all in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§2000e-2.

75. The sexually and sex-based offensive conduct was severe and/or pervasive.

76. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff with malice and/or reckless indifference

to her federally protected rights.



15/21

15

77. Defendant’s actions in intentionally engaging in and permitting sexual harassment

against plaintiff has caused her severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, physical and

emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses,

and other compensatory and consequential damages.


Defendant Joliet Park District:

A. An Order requiring Defendant Park District to appoint a monitor to conduct zerotolerance sexual harassment training and integrate said training into the workplacegoing forward and discipline all management and employees who do or haveengaged in and/or tolerated sexual harassment or a hostile work environment;


C. All wages and benefits Plaintiff would have received but for the unlawfulemployment practices, including pre-judgment interest as permitted by law;

D. Reinstatement to her former position, or in lieu of reinstatement, an order of front pay and benefits for a reasonable period of time;

E.

Compensatory and punitive damages;

F. Attorneys’ fees and costs;

G. Post-judgment interest; and

H. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III

(Title VII Retaliation – Defendant Park District)

78.

Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 and 72

through 73 above as though fully set forth in this Count. Plaintiff brings this Count against

Defendant Park District.



16/21

16

79. Defendant Egizio retaliated against Plaintiff for having engaged in protected

activity, i.e., opposing unlawful discrimination by rebuffing his advances, in violation of 42

U.S.C. §2000e-3.

80. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff with malice and/or reckless indifference to

her federally protected rights.

81. Defendant’s actions in intentionally retaliating against Plaintiff caused her severe

emotional distress, humiliation, depression, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost

wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other compensatory and consequential damages.


Defendant Joliet Park District:

A. An Order requiring Defendant Park District to appoint a monitor to conduct zerotolerance sexual harassment training and integrate said training into the workplacegoing forward and discipline all management and employees who do or haveengaged in and/or tolerated sexual harassment or a hostile work environment;


C. All wages and benefits Plaintiff would have received but for the unlawfulemployment practices, including pre-judgment interest as permitted by law;

D.

Reinstatement to her former position, or in lieu of reinstatement, an order of front pay and benefits for a reasonable period of time;

E. Compensatory and punitive damages;

F. Attorneys’ fees and costs;

G. Post-judgment interest; and

H. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.



17/21


18/21

18

B. Attorneys’ fees and costs;

C. Post-judgment interest; and

D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT V

(Battery – Defendant Egizio)

88. Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 6, 8 through 14,

21, 28, 31 through 33, 38 through 48, and 58 above as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff

brings this Count against Defendant Egizio.

89. Without authorization or legal justification, Defendant Egizio subjected Plaintiff

to offensive contact by physically touching intimate part of her body and to the apprehension of

imminent offensive contact to Ms. Matichak while in close proximity to her.

90. Defendant’s actions caused plaintiff her severe emotional distress, humiliation,

anxiety, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and other compensatory and

consequential damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court to enter judgment on this Count on her behalf

and against Defendant Dominic Egizio for:

A. All damages, including actual damages, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages, as permitted by law;

B. Attorneys’ fees and costs;

C. Post-judgment interest; and

D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VI

(Equal Pay Act – Defendant Park District)

91.

Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 6, 8 through 11,

13, 14, and 25 above as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against



19/21

19

Defendant Park District.

92. At all times relevant, Defendant Park District was subject to the provisions of the

Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d).

93. Defendant Park District is and was at all relevant times an “employer” within the

meaning of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

94. During the period August 2013 through May 2015, Plaintiff was paid less than

half the wage of a male trainer who was paid at the rate of or about $60 per hour and who did the

similar work but had less education, credentials, and experience, and did not have the extra

scheduling and administrative duties assigned to Ms. Matichak.

95.

Defendant Park District discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of sex, female,

by paying her at a lower hourly rate than a male coworker, for performing substantially equal

work, requiring substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working

conditions, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d).

96. As a result of this violation, Plaintiff has lost pay and benefits of her employment.

97.

Defendant knew that it was violating the Equal Pay Act or was indifferent or

show reckless disregard as to whether its actions violated the Equal Pay Act.


and against Defendant Joliet Park District for:

A. The difference between Plaintiff’s pay rate and the pay rate of the male coworkerfor hours worked during the relevant time period;

B.

Liquidated damages;

C. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

D.

Attorneys’ fees and costs; and

E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.



20/21

20

COUNT VII

(Indemnification – Defendant Park District)

98. Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 and Counts I,

IV, and V above as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendant

Park District.

99. Defendant Egizio was an employee of Defendant Park District acting within the

scope of his employment when he committed negligent and/or wrongful acts giving rise to

Plaintiff’s claims.

100. Defendant Park District has a duty and obligation to indemnify Defendant Egizio

against damages recovered by Plaintiff by judgment or settlement pursuant to Illinois law, 70

ILCS 1205/8-20, requiring indemnification of negligent or wrongful arising from civil rights,

constitutional rights, and bodily injury claims and suits.


and against Defendant Dominic Egizio for:

A. A declaratory judgment that Defendant Park District is obligated to indemnifyDefendant Egizio against any damages recovered by Plaintiff;

B. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.



21/21

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

One of the attorneys for Plaintiff Jeanetta Matichak

Robin Potter, Esq.M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.Alenna K. Bolin, Esq.ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600Chicago, Illinois 60601(312) [email protected]@potterlaw.org

[email protected]


Egizio Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Egizio Complaint