JOHN IDLEBURG, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No.
)
v. ) Judge
)
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL ) Jury Trial Demanded
HEALTHCARE and NORTHWESTERN )
LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, John Idleburg, by and through his attorneys, Pedersen & Weinstein LLP, for his
1. Plaintiff brings this action under federal and state law to challenge Defendants’
1391(b).
PARTIES
Illinois as a safety security officer. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2012 until April 2018.
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a security officer for over five years.
9. Prior to Defendants hiring him, Plaintiff already had an extensive and impressive
professional background. Plaintiff, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps, spent more than two
decades working as a Special Agent for the United States Treasury Department Inspector
General for Tax Administration where he led federal investigations. While in that position, he
also managed approximately 40 federal agents from various entities including the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol,
10. During his career in the security field, Plaintiff has also provided personal
security for high-profile dignitaries at large-scale public events. For example, he provided
security for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and Vice President Al Gore and his family at the
Democratic National Convention in Chicago, for dignitaries at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake
2
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
11. Plaintiff’s background also includes working as a Special Agent for the U.S.
Department of Defense, serving as deputy sheriff for the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, and
being promoted from patrolman to detective with the Great Lakes Naval Base Police
Department.
12. Since 2011, in addition to working full time for Defendants, Plaintiff also held
leadership positions with the Illinois Police Association, serving as the Chairman of the Shoot
Committee where he managed approximately 10 people, and holding the position of Vice
President where he was responsible for managing a $1 million budget. Further, from 2010 to
2014 Plaintiff was the Commander of American Legion Post 865 where he managed over 100
veteran members.
13. Consistent with these accomplishments and abilities, throughout his tenure with
Defendants, Plaintiff discharged all duties assigned to him competently and enjoyed an excellent
reputation with regard to the quality of his work and his conscientious devotion to his job.
Indeed, in his 2015 performance review, Plaintiff was described as an “excellent, reliable,
knowledgeable Officer who is a pleasure to work with.” Similarly, in 2016 Plaintiff was rated as
exceeding expectations and Defendants noted in his performance review that Plaintiff “is very
respected in our hospital and has worked hard for that recognition” and “is a huge part of our
team and his past experiences have made him a great employee.”
14. As a further testament to his experience and qualifications, Plaintiff was recently
3
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
employee in a position of authority at the hospital. Consistent with the conspicuous absence of
African Americans in management positions, Defendants denied Plaintiff the ability to advance
his career.
17. To be sure, Defendants denied Plaintiff promotions for which he was well-
qualified and instead gave such positions to less qualified white candidates. More specifically,
during Plaintiff’s employment, the position of Manager Safety and Security became available in
2016 and again in 2017. Both times Plaintiff applied for the promotion, and both times the
rejecting Plaintiff for the positions. In 2016, Defendants claimed they were not even aware
Plaintiff had applied for the position, which is belied by the fact that Plaintiff had received
19. In 2017, Defendants claimed that Plaintiff was not selected for the position
because the candidate who was selected, Brian Verbeke (“Verbeke”), who was much younger
and had worked for the hospital for less than five years, had more “scheduling experience”,
referring to the administrative task of assigning security officers shifts to work. The “scheduling
experience” excuse for failing to promote Plaintiff is baseless given the fact that this function is
not even required for the job. To be sure, another security officer had been creating the schedule
for years and continued to do so under the new security manager hired over Plaintiff.
20. Moreover, even if the scheduling task were part of the job, as detailed above,
Plaintiff was more than capable. He is a former federal agent who, during his distinguished
4
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
career, managed up to 40 people at various times and was responsible for scheduling and
21. Given his tenure and background, Plaintiff plainly was more qualified than the
Caucasian applicant but was not chosen for the promotion because of his race and age.
Verbeke, the Caucasian applicant, before even interviewing Plaintiff on April 20, 2017. More
specifically, on April 6, 2017, Richard Paulus (“Paulus”), one of the decision-makers, sent an
email to Don Strenger (“Strenger”), the acting security manager, about getting a certain position
approved for an employee named Jeri and discussing the days Jeri would work. Despite the fact
that Verbeke was only a Safety and Security Officer, the same position as Plaintiff and did not
become the manager until May 3, 2017, Paulus included Verbeke as a recipient of this
management-related email. Even Verbeke understood this email indicated he would get the
position as he wrote to Strenger in a separate email about his interview with Paulus: “I came
away feeling like he’s gonna (sic) pick me. I figured it was also a good sign when he included
me on the email he sent to you and Becky about Jeri being approved as a casual employee.”
Strenger responded, in part, “I think you have the inside track. I thought the same thing about
while he was still an applicant like Verbeke, nor did he have the “inside track” with Paulus,
despite being more qualified and having more seniority than Verbeke. This differential treatment
24. Moreover, Verbeke was selected over Plaintiff for promotion despite admitting to
playing a “practical joke” on another security officer on April 6, 2017. That day, Verbeke hid
5
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
Javier Sostre’s identification badge, precluding Sostre from clocking in at the start of his shift.
Verbeke only returned the badge to Sostre after Sostre had to report it missing over the radio to
all officers. Verbeke claimed he “forgot about [his] prank” and admitted this was poor judgment.
The fact that Verbeke was selected as a supervisor over Plaintiff despite engaging in practical
jokes and pranks that embarrassed his colleague and wasted Defendants’ time and resources is
further evidence that Verbeke’s promotion was not based on merit and that Plaintiff was denied
Defendants Failed To Exercise Reasonable Care To Prevent And Correct Unlawful Conduct
described unlawful conduct. Further, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent
and correct promptly any discrimination. Plaintiff did not unreasonably fail to take advantage of
operating procedure.
27. Defendants acted with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally
28. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of race discrimination and retaliation with the
EEOC and was issued his Notice of Right to Sue on or about September 14, 2018.
29. The EEOC cross-filed Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination with the Illinois
Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) pursuant to the work-sharing agreement between the
EEOC and IDHR. The IDHR adopted the EEOC’s determination, pursuant to the 2011
6
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
30. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct Plaintiff experienced, he
31. Plaintiff has lost wages, compensation and benefits as a result of Defendants’
unlawful conduct.
32. Plaintiff’s career and reputation have been irreparably damaged as a result of
unlawful conduct. Plaintiff suffered loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience and other non-
Punitive Damages
34. Defendants acted and/or failed to act with malice or willfulness or reckless
indifference to Plaintiff’s rights. The conduct alleged herein was willful and wanton and justifies
COUNT I
36. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended
by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, (“Title VII”), makes it unlawful to discriminate against any
7
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
COUNT II
39. 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, (“Section 1981”),
contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual
relationship.
COUNT III
42. The IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(A), makes it unlawful for any employer to refuse to
8
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
COUNT IV
45. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq.,
(“ADEA”) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire, discharge, limit, segregate,
or classify its employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of
COUNT V
49. The IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(A), makes it unlawful to discriminate against any
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court find in his favor and
9
Case: 1:18-cv-08153 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/12/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10
a. Declare that the acts and conduct of Defendants violate Title VII, Section 1981,
b. Award Plaintiff the value of all compensation and benefits lost as a result of
c. Award Plaintiff the value of all compensation and benefits he will lose in the
j. Award Plaintiff such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial
Erika Pedersen
Jill Weinstein
PEDERSEN & WEINSTEIN LLP
33 N. Dearborn, Suite 1170
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 322-0710
(312) 322-0717 (facsimile)
10