1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,

WESTERN DIVISION

KIRK CHRZANOWSKI, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 12 CV 50020

)

LOUIS A. BIANCHI, individually and in ) Judge: 

his official capacity as McHenry County ) Magistrate Judge:

State’s Attorney, MICHAEL P. COMBS, )

individually, and in his official capacity as )

McHenry County Assistant State’s Attorney, & )

COUNTY OF MCHENRY, )

Defendants. ) JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT

Now comes, the Plaintiff, KIRK CHRZANOWSKI, by and through his attorneys 

GUMMERSON RAUSCH WAND LEE WOMBACHER, LLC and complaining of the 

Defendants, LOUIS A. BIANCHI, MICHAEL P. COMBS, and COUNTY OF McHENRY,

states as follows:

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. The jurisdiction of the court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 in that the 

Plaintiff has been deprived of his rights secured by the Constitution of the United 

States of America, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Court’s 

supplementary jurisdiction powers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

2. Venue lies in the Western Division of the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391, because the relevant acts occurred within this District and the 

individual and corporate defendants are residents of the Western District.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1
2

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, KIRK CHRZANOWSKI, is an individual residing in Palatine, Cook 

County, Illinois and is a citizen of the United States. 

4. At all relevant times hereto Plaintiff had the right to freedom of speech and freedom 

of association as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

5. Defendant COUNTY OF MCHENRY is a municipal corporation and a unit of local 

Illinois government, whose seat is in Woodstock, McHenry County, Illinois, which is 

located in the Western Division of the Northern District of Illinois. The COUNTY 

OF MCHENRY is the employer and principal of the individual defendant actors.

6. At all relevant times hereto, the McHENRY COUNTY STATE’S ATTORNEYS 

OFFICE was a department of the County of McHENRY.

7. Defendant LOUIS A. BIANCHI is and at all times relevant was the elected State’s 

Attorney of McHenry County, Illinois. At all relevant times hereto BIANCHI was 

acting under color of state law and in the capacity of elected State’s Attorney of 

McHenry County, Illinois. Defendant BIANCHI is sued in his individual and official 

capacity.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant LOUIS A. BIANCHI, is a resident of Crystal 

Lake, County of McHenry, State of Illinois.

9. Defendant MICHAEL P. COMBS is and at all times relevant was an Assistant 

McHenry County State’s Attorney. At all relevant times COMBS was acting under 

color of state law. He is sued in his official and individual capacity.

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant, MICHAEL P. COMBS, is a resident of 

Rockford, County of Winnebago, State of Illinois.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:2
3

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

11. Plaintiff was employed as an Assistant State’s Attorney with the McHenry County 

State’s Attorney’s Office from January 23, 2006 to his wrongful termination on 

December 2, 2011.

12. On or about February 10, 2011, Plaintiff testified before the McHenry County grand 

jury pursuant to a subpoena served upon him by the special prosecutor in the matter,

In re the Investigation of Louis A. Bianchi.

13. Plaintiff gave sworn testimony before the grand jury concerning the allegation that 

McHenry County State’s Attorney Louis A. Bianchi had improperly influenced 

and/or arranged a negotiated plea in a case for which Plaintiff was principally 

responsible.

14. Prior to giving his testimony, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Ron Salgado, 

Chief Investigator in the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office, and a friend and 

political ally of Louis A. Bianchi.

15. Ron Salgado left Plaintiff a message indicating that he wanted to speak to Plaintiff 

about the grand jury subpoena.

16. Plaintiff did not return Salgado’s call nor otherwise respond to the message.

17. On or about February 24, 2011 the grand jury before which Plaintiff testified returned 

an indictment against Louis A. Bianchi on charges of official misconduct in violation 

of 720 ILCS 5/33-3(b).

18. On or about April 6, 2011, the Special Prosecutor listed Plaintiff as a potential trial 

witness in the matter of People of the State of Illinois versus Louis A. Bianchi, 11 CF 

169.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3
4

19. On or about July 13, 2011, Plaintiff was served with a subpoena to testify in the 

matter of People of the State of Illinois versus Louis A. Bianchi.

20. On August 1, 2011 Plaintiff testified in the prosecution’s case-in-chief in the matter 

of People v. Louis A. Bianchi, 11 CF 169 concerning the allegation that Louis A. 

Bianchi had improperly influenced and/or arranged a negotiated plea in a case for 

which Plaintiff was principally responsible. Attached hereto and incorporated herein, 

by reference, as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the transcript of Plaintiff’s 

testimony.

21. Prior to his testifying at trial, Plaintiff received several email messages at his 

McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office-issued email address, from Terry Ekl, the 

attorney who represented Louis A. Bianchi in People v. Bianchi, 11 CF 169.

22. Plaintiff did not return those emails nor otherwise respond to the messages.

23. Prior to his testifying at trial, Plaintiff received several voicemail messages, via his 

desk telephone at the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office from Thomas

Popovich, the attorney who represented Ron Salgado, Chief Investigator for the 

McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office, in another matter filed by the Special 

Prosecutor, People v. Salgado. 

24. Plaintiff did not return those phone calls nor otherwise respond to the messages.

25. On cross-examination of the Plaintiff by Attorney Ekl the following exchange 

occurred:

Q. And you didn’t feel that you owed your boss any obligation 

to talk to his lawyer before this trial, right?

A. My only obligation is to tell the truth here, sir.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:4
5

26. The Defendant received good performance reviews accompanied by salary increases 

in 2006, 2007, 2008 (twice), 2009 and 2010.

27. Prior to the disclosure of the Plaintiff as a potential witness against Defendant 

BIANCHI, the Plaintiff’s personnel file contained positive feedback and 

commendations.

28. After the disclosure of the Plaintiff as a potential witness, Defendant BIANCHI began 

to retaliate against the Plaintiff by placing purportedly negative information in the 

Plaintiff’s personnel file.

29. On June 6, 2011, Defendant Bianchi placed a memorandum in the Plaintiff’s 

personnel file that was negative and unrelated to his performance as an Assistant 

McHenry County State’s Attorney. The memorandum stated:

This morning when I was passing through the office at approximately

8:20, Kirk was passing through with two college females who are 

spending their internship here at the office. He passed me by without 

introducing me. I then went around the office and intentionally came

and circled around and stopped him and asked him to introduce me to 

them. He never would have thought of introducing me to them had I 

not stopped him and made a point of it.

The Plaintiff was not made aware that the memorandum was placed in his personnel 

file, nor was he given an opportunity to respond to the memorandum.

30. On or about July 27, 2011, Defendant BIANCHI, placed his handwritten notes 

regarding a telephone conference with a member of the public, that do not identify 

Plaintiff in any way, in Plaintiff’s personnel file. The Plaintiff was not made aware 

that the notes were placed in his personnel file, nor was he given an opportunity to 

respond to them. 

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:5
6

31. On or about September 8, 2011, Defendant COMBS e-mailed Defendant BIANCHI 

regarding the Plaintiff, and that e-mail was placed in Plaintiff’s personnel file. The 

Plaintiff was not made aware that the e-mail was placed in his personnel file, nor was 

he given an opportunity to respond to the e-mail. 

32. Defendant COMBS was never in a supervisory role over the Plaintiff.

33. On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff was summoned from his regular courtroom duties by 

James Kelch, an investigator of the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office, to 

Defendant BIANCHI’s office.

34. Once present in Defendant BIANCHI’s office, Plaintiff was confronted and 

interrogated by Defendants BIANCHI and COMBS. State’s Attorney Investigator 

James Kelch was also present, but did not participate in the interrogation.

35. Defendant COMBS presented Plaintiff with a transcript of his grand jury and trial 

testimony from the matter People v. Louis A. Bianchi, 11 CF 169 and interrogated 

Plaintiff about his testimony.

36. Defendant COMBS presented Plaintiff with purported phone records and interrogated 

Plaintiff about same.

37. Defendant BIANCHI asked Plaintiff for his resignation and when Plaintiff refused, 

Louis A. Bianchi told Plaintiff, “You’re terminated. Get out.” Plaintiff’s firing was 

in retaliation for his truthful testimony against Defendant BIANCHI.

38. Plaintiff was immediately escorted to retrieve certain of his belongings from his 

office where another investigator of the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office 

was waiting for Plaintiff.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:6
7

39. As a result of the wrongful termination, Plaintiff lost approximately 300 hours of 

accumulated sick pay and paid personal time.

40. As a direct and proximate result of the actions taken by the defendants, the Plaintiff 

has suffered lost wages and other economic losses. He has suffered emotional 

distress, embarrassment, and mental anguish.

41. Following the Plaintiff’s termination, Defendant COMBS placed a lengthy 

memorandum in Plaintiff’s personnel file. The Plaintiff was not made aware that the 

memorandum was placed in his personnel file, nor was he given an opportunity to 

respond to the memorandum.

42. Following the termination of the Plaintiff, Defendant COMBS was promoted to the 

Chief of the Criminal Division of the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office.

43. Defendant BIANCHI has engaged in a pattern of conduct in which he has retaliated 

against employees of the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office that have 

testified against him.

44. Defendant BIANCHI and the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office has a 

custom, practice, policy and/or pattern, either implicit or explicit of retaliating against 

employees who exercise their constitutional right to freedom of speech by speaking 

against BIANCHI’s conduct, speaking to individuals investigating and/or prosecuting 

BIANCHI, being listed as witnesses for the prosecution in criminal cases pending 

against BIANCHI, or testifying against BIANCHI.

45. Defendant BIANCHI has a custom and practice of giving preferential treatment to 

employees that are political allies.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:7
8

46. At or about the time of the investigation and prosecution of BIANCHI by a special 

prosecutor, Thomas Carroll was employed by the McHenry County State’s 

Attorney’s Office as an Assistant McHenry County State’s Attorney.

47. Upon information and belief, Thomas Carroll testified before the McHenry County 

Grand Jury, and the Circuit Court of McHenry County regarding the allegations 

contained in the Bill of Indictment against Defendant BIANCHI.

48. Upon information and belief, Thomas Carroll was subpoenaed by the Special 

Prosecutor to testify in the trial of the matter of People of the State of Illinois versus 

Louis A. Bianchi, 10 CF 933.

49. Upon information and belief, Thomas Carroll was also directed to resign or told he 

would be terminated.

50. Upon information and belief, Defendant BIANCHI, constructively discharged 

Thomas Carroll, following his truthful courtroom testimony.

51. Prior to the time of the investigation and prosecution of BIANCHI by a special 

prosecutor, Jeffrey Bora was employed by the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s 

Office as an Assistant McHenry County State’s Attorney.

52. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Bora was principally responsible for the 

prosecution of a defendant BIANCHI identified to Bora as a relative of BIANCHI.

53. Upon information and belief, in the course of his work on that case, Jeffrey Bora was 

approached by BIANCHI and asked to give the defendant a recognizance bond in the

pending felony matter.

54. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Bora refused to grant the recognizance bond.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:8
9

55. Upon information and belief, thereafter, BIANCHI on several occasions attempted to 

influence Jeffrey Bora’s prosecution, pursuant to his official duties, of said 

Defendant.

56. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Bora spoke out against BIANCHI’s actions.

57. Upon information and belief, in retaliation for Jeffrey Bora’s protected speech, 

Jeffrey Bora’s employment was terminated by BIANCHI.

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. §1983 – VERSUS LOUIS A. BIANCHI

58. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 57 as if fully set forth herein.

59. At all times relevant to the complaint there was in effect §1983 of United States 

Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I which provides, in relevant part,:

Every person who, under color of any ... ordinance ... subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. §1983.

60. Defendant BIANCHI is a state actor by means of his employment as the elected 

State’s Attorney for the County of McHenry.

61. As described above, Plaintiff exercised his right to freedom of speech.

62. Plaintiff’s actions constitute speech on matters of public concern and, therefore, 

Plaintiff’s speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution.

63. At the time of Plaintiff’s protected speech, he was speaking as a private citizen.

64. As a result of Plaintiff’s protected speech, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by 

terminating his employment.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:9
10

65. As a direct and proximate result of the actions taken by defendants as described 

herein, the Plaintiff has suffered a chilling effect upon the exercise of his 

constitutional right of freedom of speech and has suffered harm and injury.

66. At all relevant times, Defendant BIANCHI’s actions were willful, wanton, intentional 

and malicious. Punitive damages should be awarded in order to punish and deter 

such conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendant 

LOUIS A. BIANCHI and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory damages in excess of Fifty 

Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to be determined, for 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988, and for such other relief 

as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. §1983 – VERSUS MICHAEL P. COMBS

67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 57 as if fully set forth herein.

68. At all times relevant to the complaint there was in effect §1983 of United States 

Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I which provides, in relevant part,:

Every person who, under color of any ... ordinance ... subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. §1983.

69. Defendant COMBS acted in his capacity as Assistant McHenry County State’s 

Attorney, and is therefore a state actor.

70. As described above, Plaintiff exercised his right to freedom of speech.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:10
11

71. Plaintiff’s actions constitute speech on matters of public concern and, therefore, 

Plaintiff’s speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution.

72. At the time of Plaintiff’s protected speech, he was speaking as a private citizen.

73. As a result of Plaintiff’s protected speech, Defendant COMBS retaliated against 

Plaintiff by interrogating him regarding his testimony in the matter of People v. 

Bianchi. 

74. Defendant COMBS also interfered with the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to remain 

silent, in that he continued to interrogate him despite Plaintiff’s assertion of his right 

to counsel.

75. As a direct and proximate result of the actions taken by defendants as described 

herein, the Plaintiff has suffered a chilling effect upon the exercise of his 

constitutional right of freedom of speech and has suffered harm and injury.

76. At all relevant times, Defendant COMBS’ actions were willful, wanton, intentional 

and malicious. Punitive damages should be awarded in order to punish and deter 

such conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendant 

MICHAEL P. COMBS and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory damages in excess of Fifty 

Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to be determined, for 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988, and for such other relief 

as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III – 42 U.S.C. §1983 – VERSUS COUNTY OF MCHENRY

77. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully set forth herein.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:11
12

78. At all times relevant to the complaint there was in effect §1983 of United States 

Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I which provides, in relevant part,:

Every person who, under color of any ... ordinance ... subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. §1983.

79. County of McHenry is a public governmental entity and is therefore a state actor.

80. As described above, Plaintiff exercised his right to freedom of speech.

81. Plaintiff’s actions constitute speech on matters of public concern and, therefore, 

Plaintiff’s speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution.

82. At the time of Plaintiff’s protected speech, he was speaking as a private citizen.

83. As a result of Plaintiff’s protected speech, Defendants BIANCHI and COMBS 

retaliated against Plaintiff by interrogating him regarding his testimony in the matter 

of People v. Bianchi, and terminating his employment with the COUNTY OF 

McHENRY. 

84. Defendant COMBS also interfered with the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to remain 

silent, in that he continued to interrogate him despite Plaintiff’s assertion of his right 

to counsel.

85. As a direct and proximate result of the actions taken by defendants as described 

herein, the Plaintiff has suffered a chilling effect upon the exercise of his 

constitutional right of freedom of speech and has suffered harm and injury.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:12
13

86. At all relevant times, Defendants BIANCHI and COMBS’ actions were willful, 

wanton, intentional and malicious. Punitive damages should be awarded in order to 

punish and deter such conduct.

87. At all relevant times Defendants BIANCHI and COMBS were employees of 

Defendant COUNTY OF McHENRY, and were acting in their official capacity.

88. Defendant COUNTY OF McHENRY is responsible for the actions of its employees 

acting under color of law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendant 

MICHAEL P. COMBS and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory damages in excess of Fifty 

Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to be determined, for 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988, and for such other relief 

as this Courts deems appropriate.

COUNT IV – FREEDOM OF SPEECH

89. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 57 as if fully set forth here.

90. As described above, Plaintiff exercised his right to freedom of speech.

91. Plaintiff’s actions constitute speech on matters of public concern and, therefore, 

Plaintiff’s speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution.

92. As a result of Plaintiff’s protected speech, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by 

terminating his employment.

93. As a direct and proximate result of the actions taken by Defendant, Plaintiff has 

suffered a chilling effect upon the exercise of his constitutional freedom of speech 

and has suffered harm and injury.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:13
14

94. At all relevant times, Defendant’s actions were willful, wanton, intentional and 

malicious. Punitive damages are necessary and appropriate to punish and deter such 

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendants, 

BIANCHI, COMBS, and COUNTY OF McHENRY, and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory 

damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to 

be determined, for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988, and 

for such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT V– RETALIATORY DISCHARGE (STATE LAW CLAIM)

95. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 57 as if fully set forth here.

96. Plaintiff was discharged.

97. Plaintiff’s discharge was in retaliation for his activities as described above.

98. Plaintiff’s discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy.

99. At all relevant times, Defendant’s actions were willful, wanton, intentional and 

malicious. Punitive damages are necessary and appropriate to punish and deter such 

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendant

COUNTY OF MCHENRY and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory damages in excess of Fifty 

Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to be determined, and for 

such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER ACT (STATE LAW CLAIM)

100. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 57 as if fully set forth here.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:14
15

101. At all times relevant to the complaint there was in effect the Illinois Whistleblower 

Act, 740 ILCS 174/1, et. seq. which provides in relevant part:

An employer may not retaliate against an employee who discloses 

information in a court . . . or in any other proceeding, where the 

employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information 

discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.

740 ILCS 174/15.

102. Plaintiff’s testimony before the McHenry County Grand Jury and before the trial 

court concerned the possible violation of the law of the State of Illinois regarding 

official misconduct.

103. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff reasonably believed that the conduct of 

Defendant BIANCHI was a violation of the laws of the State of Illinois.

104. Plaintiff was discharged following his testimony before a tribunal.

105. Plaintiff’s discharge was in retaliation for his activities as described above in 

paragraphs 12 – 23 and 31 - 36.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendant, 

COUNTY OF McHENRY, and in favor of Plaintiff for all relief necessary to make Plaintiff 

whole, including but not limited to the following:

A. reinstatement, with the same seniority status that Plaintiff would have had;

B. back pay, with interest; and

C. any and all other damages sustained as a result of Plaintiff’s termination

including but not limited to attorney's fees and costs.

COUNT VII – CIVIL CONSPIRACY (STATE LAW CLAIM)

106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully set forth here.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:15
16

107. Defendant BIANCHI and Defendant COMBS knowingly conspired and entered into 

an agreement to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights to freedom of speech 

by termination of his employment.

108. Defendant COMBS interrogated the Plaintiff in furtherance of the conspiracy. The 

Plaintiff was terminated following his exercise of his constitutional right to counsel 

during interrogation.

109. Defendant BIANCHI unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff in furtherance of the 

conspiracy.

110. As a result of Defendant BIANCHI and Defendant COMBS’ unlawful actions, the 

Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, loss of wages, and other pecuniary losses. The 

Plaintiff also suffered the embarrassment and stress of being terminated despite a 

good prior job performance.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendants

and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars 

($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to be determined, and for such other relief 

as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VIII – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL CONSPIRACY

111. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully set forth here.

112. Defendant BIANCHI and Defendant COMBS knowingly and intentionally schemed 

and worked together in a common plan to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional 

rights to freedom of speech by termination of his employment.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16
17

113. Defendant COMBS interrogated the Plaintiff in furtherance of the conspiracy. The 

Plaintiff was terminated following his exercise of his constitutional right to counsel 

during interrogation.

114. Defendant BIANCHI unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff in furtherance of the 

conspiracy.

115. As a result of Defendant BIANCHI and Defendant COMBS’ unlawful actions, the 

Plaintiff suffered loss of employment, loss of wages, and other pecuniary losses. The 

Plaintiff also suffered the embarrassment and stress of being terminated despite a 

good prior job performance.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendants

BIANCHI and COMBS, and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory damages in excess of Fifty 

Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to be determined, for 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988, and for such other relief 

as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VIII –RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (STATE LAW CLAIM)

116. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 110 as if fully set forth here.

117. The acts of the individual defendants described in the state law claims above were 

willful and wanton, and committed in the scope of their employment.

118. Pursuant to respondeat superior, Defendant COUNTY OF McHENRY is liable for its 

agents’ actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendant

COUNTY OF McHENRY and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory damages in excess of Fifty 

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:17
18

Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to be determined, and for 

such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IX – 745 ILCS 10/9-102 INDEMNIFICATION 

CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY OF MCHENRY (STATE LAW CLAIM)

119. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 115 as if fully set forth here.

120. Defendant COUNTY OF McHENRY is the employer of the individual defendants 

named herein.

121. The individual defendants, as previously alleged, committed the acts under color of 

law and in the scope of their employment with the COUNTY OF McHENRY.

122. At all relevant times there was in effect the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 

10/9-102, which states:

A local public entity is empowered and directed to pay any tort 

judgment or settlement for compensatory damages (and may pay

any associated attorney’s fees and costs) for which it or an employee

while acting within the scope of his employment is liable in the

manner provided in this Article.

123. The Defendant COUNTY OF McHENRY is required by Illinois law to pay any 

judgment against any of the defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court will enter judgment against the Defendant

COUNTY OF McHENRY and in favor of Plaintiff for compensatory damages in excess of Fifty 

Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount to be determined, and for 

such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18
19

RULE 38 JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff demands trial by jury for all 

claims.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Jamie R. Wombacher 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Rebecca M. Lee

Jamie R. Wombacher

R. Mark Gummerson

GUMMERSON RAUSCH WAND LEE WOMBACHER, LLC

101 S. Benton Street, Suite 201

Woodstock, IL 60098

(815) 337-7700 phone

(815) 337-7990 fax

Case: 3:12-cv-50020 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/12 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:19