Egizio Reply

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:53
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JEANETTA MATICHAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 16 cv 5877
Judge Joan B. Gottschall
JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, and DOMINIC

EGIZIO, an individual
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Defendant DOMINIC EGIZIO, by and through his attorneys Thomas G.
DiCianni and Candice N. Cannon of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni and Krafthefer,
P.C., and for his Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, states the following:
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. 2000 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff brings the instant action, but denies the merit of
Plaintiffs claims.
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).
ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of 2.
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 Plaintiffs 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits Plaintiff was an employee of Joliet Park District, and lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of 4.
5.
Defendant Joliet Park District (Park District) is a municipal corporation,
organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. The Park Districts 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits he was employed by Defendant Park District from 1989 through
October 2015, including as its Executive Director from 2004 through October 2015. Defendant
admits he acted within the scope of his employment in relation to some of his interactions with
Plaintiff but not at all times alleged.
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.
ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
allegations of 7.
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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of 8, but lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the number of employees of the Park District.
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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of 10, but lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the date of Plaintiffs hire.
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 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.

ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff was given additional responsibilities and that at times
Plaintiffs hours equaled a full-time employee, and that Plaintiff performed her job at levels that
met or exceeded legitimate expectations. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to Plaintiffs current title.
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
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 nearly 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.
ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of 15.
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 Egizios inappropriate conduct and instead
permitted an environment where such comments and conduct were tolerated and encouraged.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that no Board member or management official of Defendant Park
District took any steps to stop any of his conduct and denies the remaining allegations of 16.
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. Matichaks 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 Egizios advances,
telling him no, I cant do this, and I dont want to do this, and physically pushing him away
and pulling away from him. Egizio at first told her that she just wasnt 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
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 nearly 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that at times Defendant brought Plaintiff lunch, but denies the
remaining allegations of 22.
23.
Defendant Egizio gave Ms. Matichak gifts, including lingerie, clothing, perfume,
a sex toy, and other gifts through in or about March 2105. He became enraged when she said she
did not want a gift and threw it in the trash.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that he gave Plaintiff some clothing and a sex toy, but denies the
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 became angry if
she refused to tell him;
(b)
He told her that he fantasized about her and masturbated thinking about her every
day; and
(c)
He talked about his penis size and badgered her to discuss his penis size.

25.
Ms. Matichaks 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that at times Plaintiff was permitted to work more than 40 hours
per week and denies the remaining allegations of 25.
26.
In or about 2014, Ms. Matichak began to attend planning meetings attended by
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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that in or about 2014, Plaintiff attended some planning meetings
attended by Park District supervisors and Defendant Egizio, and admits that no supervisor ever
said anything to him about inappropriate comments, but denies the remaining allegations of 26,
including that he made any of the inappropriate comments.
27.
In or about 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff told him about a miscarriage, denies she told him she
felt like she was not in her right mind, and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the remaining allegations of 27.
28.
Thereafter, Defendant Egizio took advantage of Ms. Matichaks 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 is 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 District facility and a

substantial increase in her wages.
(c)
He told her I take care of you and that she should be thankful for what he did
for her.
(d)
He became angry when she rebuffed him and made threats to her job and
livelihood, such as Your job must not be important, You dont value your job,
8
I guess you dont care about your job, and that she must not want the promotion
he had promised her.
(e)
He cried and said he was going to commit suicide if she did not submit to his
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 oclock in the
morning until late at night; he showed up at locations around town where she was; and told her
that he had studied for a long time and that he always knew where she was.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that at times he and Plaintiff talked many times a day, and denies
the remaining allegations of 30.
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 cant 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 Egizios conduct.
allegations of 36.
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
relationship with a subordinate. She was told that the director had threatened an employee with
the loss of the employees job if the employee reported the relationship to the Board.
allegations of 37.
38.
In or about February 2015, a female supervisor advised Ms. Matichak to always
agree with Egizio, to just do whatever he says, and dont say no to him, because otherwise
he would get mad and scream.
10

allegations of 38.
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. Matichaks presence. He slammed the
letter down on his desk, clenched his fists, and in a loud, angry, menacing tone, threatened her
husbands position as a police officer with the City of Joliet. He stated, If hes going to mess
with me, Im 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that he read the letter in Plaintiffs presence, and denies the
41.
Ms. Matichak now feared for both her job and her husbands job.

42.
Ms. Matichak began to suffer panic attacks that became increasingly frequent in
2015 because of stress and anxiety caused by Defendant Egizios relentless intimidating and
manipulative pressure to engage in sexual relations and threats to her and her husbands
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
11
could calm down there and that they would talk about planning for new position he had promised
her.
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 cant do this, and thats 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 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.
12
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 employees phone. His
behavior was so threatening that the other employee offered to escort Ms. Matichak to her car.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that he changed the password to Plaintiffs work email account,
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether another employee
offered to escort Ms. Matichak to her car, and denies the remaining allegations of 48.
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.
allegations of 49.
Park District knew of, tolerated, and acquiesced in Egizios wrongful conduct
50.
Defendant Park District was aware of, tolerated, encouraged, and approved of
Defendant Egizios sexual misconduct.

51.
Prior to Ms. Matichaks 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. Matichaks employment, Defendant Egizio had a reputation for
pursuing sexual relationships with subordinate female employees.

13

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.
Matichaks 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, Im 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
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.
14
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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that 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 Plaintiff. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
whether Marcum told him to quiet his people and put a stop to the rumors. Defendant admits that
the Board President did not tell Egizio to stop compelling sex with a subordinate, and further
denies that Defendant was compelling sex with a subordinate. Defendant admits that the Board
did not conduct an 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that he told Plaintiff that Park District Board Commissioner Art
Schultz told Egizio that there were rumors that Egizio was having sex with Plaintiff. Defendant
denies the remaining allegations of 57.
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)
15
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.
ANSWER: Defendant adopts and realleges his responses to 1-58 as his response to 59.
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
Plaintiffs right of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that the Park District employed him at all times material hereto
and that he acted within the scope of his employment in relation to some but not all of his
interactions with Plaintiff, and denies the remaining allegations of 60.
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.
16
64.
The sexually and sex-based offensive conduct was severe and pervasive and
altered the conditions of Plaintiffs 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.
ANSWER: Defendant admits he was the highest ranking employee of the Park District, but
denies the remaining allegations of 66.
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 against female

employees for more than a decade.
(b)
Defendant Egizio intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory

treatment by engaging in repeated and persistent acts of unwelcome and offensive
sex-based and sexual harassment of Plaintiff.
(c)
Defendant Egizio made offensive sexual comments about other female employees
and Park District members in Plaintiffs presence.
(d)
Defendant Egizio engaged in sexual harassment of Plaintiff and at least one other
female employee pervasively, openly, publicly, and in the presence of Park
Districts Board members and other Park District employees.
(e)
Defendants Park District failed to take corrective measures to eliminate the

ongoing sexual harassment, allowing the sexual harassment to continue.
17
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 Plaintiffs rights as secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
COUNT II
(Title VII Sexual Harassment Defendant Park District)
71.
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendant Park District.
ANSWER: This allegation does not require an answer by this defendant.
72.
At 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).
18
74.
Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory
treatment by creating a hostile and abusive work environment, subjecting her to welcome 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.

77.
Defendants 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.
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 the Count. Plaintiff brings this Count against
Defendant Park District.
19
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.
Defendants 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.
COUNT IV
(Illinois Gender Violence Act All Defendants)
82.
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this count against Defendants Park District and
Egizio.
ANSWER: Defendant adopts and realleges his responses to 1-58 as his response to 82.
83.
Defendant Egizio perpetrated acts of physical intrusion and invasion of a sexual
nature under coercive conditions on Plaintiff.

84.
The coercive sexual acts perpetrated by Defendant Egizio against Plaintiff were
intrusive and invasive and constitute a battery.

20
85.
The actions of the Defendant Egizio against Plaintiff violate her right to be free
from sexual battery under the Illinois Gender Violence Act, 740 ILCS 82/1, et seq.
86.
Defendant Egizio engaged in conduct in violation of the Illinois Gender Violence
Act during his agency relationship with Defendant Park District while actually or apparently
providing supervision and mentoring to Plaintiff. Defendant Park District is liable for Defendant
Egizios violations of the Illinois Gender Violence Act under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
87.
As a direct result of Defendant Egizios conduct, Plaintiff suffered 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.
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.
ANSWER: Defendant adopts his prior responses to the realleged paragraph as his response to
88.
21
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.
Defendants actions caused plaintiff her severe emotional distress, humiliation,
anxiety, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and other compensatory and
consequential damages.
COUNT VI
(Equal Pay Act Defendant Park District)
91.
Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraph 1 through 6, 8 through 11,
13, 14, and 25 above as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against
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 and 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.
22

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.
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
Plaintiffs 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
23
ILCS 1205/8-20, requiring indemnification of negligence or wrongful arising from civil rights,
constitutional rights, and bodily injury claims and suits.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant Dominic Egizio prays that this Court enter judgment in his
favor, and against Plaintiff, and for costs of suit.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES the Defendant Dominic Egizio without prejudice to his prior denials, state
the following as his Affirmative Defenses:
1.
Defendant Egizios actions or omissions in connection with his relationship
and/or interactions with Plaintiff did not represent or result in a tangible employment action.
2.
Plaintiffs allegations that defendant coerced any conduct of plaintiff or that any
interaction between her and plaintiff was non-consensual are false, fabricated and fraudulent and
subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3.
Plaintiffs undue delay in asserting claims of sexual harassment against Defendant
Egizio evidence that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective
opportunities, and that such claims are false, fabricated and fraudulent and subject to sanctions
under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4.
Plaintiffs failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the Defendant
Joliet Park District evidences that Plaintiff failed to use reasonable care in avoiding any alleged
harm, and that plaintiffs claims of sexual harassment are false, fabricated and fraudulent and
subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
24
5.
To the extent that plaintiff failed to mitigate any claimed injuries or damages, any
verdict or judgment obtained by Plaintiff must be reduced by application of the principle that a
person has a duty to mitigate damages.
6.
Plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by various Illinois statutes.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant Dominic Egizio prays that this Court enter judgment in his
favor, and against Plaintiff, and for costs of suit.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Thomas G. DiCianni

THOMAS G. DiCIANNI
One of the attorneys for Defendants
Thomas G. DiCianni / ARDC# 03127041 / tdicianni@ancelglink.com
Candice Cannon / ARDC # #6319749 / ccannon@ancelglink.com
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
140 South Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone:
(312) 782-7606
Facsimile:
(312) 782-0943
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JEANETTA MATICHAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 16 cv 5877
Judge Joan B. Gottschall
JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, and DOMINIC

EGIZIO, an individual
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, one of the attorneys of record herein, hereby certifies that on August 8,
2016, the foregoing DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT was electronically filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court
using the CM/ECF System, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Robin B. Potter
Maria De Las Nieves Bolanos
Robin Potter & Associates P.C.
111 East Wacker Drive / Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
robin@potterlaw.org
nieves@potterlaw.org
Alenna Kathryn Bolin
110 West Center Street, #218
Rochester, MN 55902
abolin@ameritech.net
Richard Wendell Schumacher

James Cabot Elder
Stellato & Schwartz Ltd.
120 North LaSalle Street
Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60620
(312) 419-1011
rschumacher@stellatoschwartz.com
jelder@stellatoschwartz.com
26
/s/ Thomas G. DiCianni

THOMAS G. DiCIANNI / ARDC# 03127041
One of the attorneys for Defendants
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI
& KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
140 South Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone:
(312) 782-7606
Direct:
(312) 604-9107
Facsimile:
(312) 782-0943
E-Mail:
tdicianni@ancelglink.com
4847-5401-5797, v. 1
27

Egizio Reply

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Egizio Reply

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, and DOMINIC

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:54

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

Defendant Joliet Park District (Park District) is a municipal corporation,

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:55

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

delegated authority to Egizio over subordinate employees.

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:56

Her current title is Group Exercise Supervisor.

Throughout, Ms. Matichak

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

Ms. Matichak is a married mother of three children.

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations of 12.

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:57

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

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:58

Throughout, Ms. Matichak repeatedly rebuffed Defendant Egizios advances,

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:59

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of 24.

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

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:60

Thereafter, Defendant Egizio took advantage of Ms. Matichaks vulnerability to

unwelcome quid pro quo sexual favors, including the following:

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

He promised her a promotion to be in charge of a new Park District facility and a

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:61

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of 29.

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

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

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:62

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

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

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

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:63

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of 41.

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:64

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:65

Defendant Egizios sexual misconduct.

Prior to Ms. Matichaks employment, Defendant Egizio, along with a Park

Prior to Ms. Matichaks employment, Defendant Egizio had a reputation for

pursuing sexual relationships with subordinate female employees.

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:66

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of 52.

statements made by former Board members to the female

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:67

District to obtain sexual benefits for himself.

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:68

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

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of 61.

Plaintiff was subjected to unequal and discriminatory treatment because of her

Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:69

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

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

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

engaging in sexual harassment and acquiescence and deliberate indifference to sexual

Defendant Egizio has engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment against female

Defendant Egizio intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory

Defendants Park District failed to take corrective measures to eliminate the

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations of 67.

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/08/16 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:70