1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JESSICA JOHNSON, )

JACQUELINE LITMAN, )

NAOMI GATES, )

CRESS WRENN, )

CLAUDIA LYKO, )

KRISTY HACK, ) Case No.

CAROLYN BARTLEY, )

MELISSA GANSER, )

LINDSAY MIDURA, )

MIA BLAGSVEDT, )

HEATHER BARTZ, )

KATHERINE FRANKLIN, )

JOANNA PARYS, )

SANDRA ESTEVANE, )

CAROLINE FIERMUGA, ) JURY DEMANDED

KAYLEIGH ZARNDT, )

DAYLEEN MARRERO, )

RACHEL OSTING, and )

TRACY VELAZQUEZ, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

TK CHICAGO LOOP, LLC, d/b/a )

TILTED KILT PUB & EATERY; and )

TILTED KILT FRANCHISE )

OPERATING LLC, )

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Now come the Plaintiffs, Jessica Johnson, Jacqueline Litman, Naomi Gates, Cress 

Wrenn, Claudia Lyko, Kristy Hack, Carolyn Bartley, Melissa Ganser, Lindsay Midura, Mia 

Blagsvedt, Heather Bartz, Katherine Franklin, Sandra Estevane, Caroline Fiermuga, Kayleigh 

Zarndt, Dayleen Marrero, Rachel Osting, Joanna Parys and Tracy Zelazquez, through their

attorneys in this matter, Orum & Roth, LLC, and complaining of the Defendants, TK Chicago 

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
2

Loop, LLC d/b/a Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery and Tilted Kilt Franchise Operating LLC, state as 

follows:

JURISDICTION

1. The present action alleges claims premised on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. Subject matter jurisdiction for those claims is 

premised 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Supplemental jurisdiction for the state law claim alleged herein is 

premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because a substantial 

part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. 

3. On June 01, 2011, the following Plaintiffs filed Charges of harassment and 

retaliation with the EEOC against TK Chicago Loop, LLC, d/b/a/ Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery

(“Tilted Kilt Chicago”) and Tilted Kilt Franchise Operating LLC (“Tilted Kilt Corporate”):

Jessica Johnson No. 440-2011-04132

Kristy Hack No. 440-2011-04134

Jacqueline Litman No. 440-2011-04135

Naomi Gates No. 440-2011-04136

Cress Wrenn No. 440-2011-04137

Claudia Lyko No. 440-2011-04138

Carolyn Bartley No. 440-2011-04139

Melissa Ganser No. 440-2011-04140

Lindsay Midura No. 440-2011-04141

Mia Blagsvedt No. 440-2011-04142

4. On June 15, 2011, the following Plaintiffs filed Charges of harassment and 

retaliation with the EEOC against Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt Corporate:

Kayleigh Zarndt No. 440-2011-04124

Caroline Fiermuga No. 440-2011-04123

Rachel Osting No. 440-2011-04126

Joanna Parys No. 440-2011-04128

Tracy Velazquez No. 440-2011-04127

Dayleen Marrero No. 440-2011-04125

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
3

Katherine Franklin No. 440-2011-04121

Sandra Estevane No. 440-2011-04122

Heather Bartz No. 440-2011-04120

5. Each charge of harassment and retaliation as alleged above was filed with the 

EEOC against Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt Corporate within 300 days from the date of the 

last act of harassment and retaliation.

6. Plaintiffs received right to sue letters from the EEOC on all of the Plaintiffs’ 

charges on February 2, 2012 and February 3, 2012, as is shown in the right to sue letters attached 

hereto as “Group Exhibit A.” Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit within 90 days from receipt of 

the right to sue letters, and have otherwise met all prerequisites required under the law to 

maintain this lawsuit.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

7. Plaintiffs were at all relevant times employees of Tilted Kilt Chicago, located at 

17 North Wabash Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiffs are all female, and therefore part of 

a protected class.

8. Defendant, Tilted Kilt Chicago, is an Illinois limited liability company. Tilted Kilt

Chicago is owned by Athan “Thomas” Sotos, Chris Tomaras and TI Management Group, LLC. 

Tilted Kilt Chicago at all times employed Dennis Sotos as the manager of Tilted Kilt Chicago,

and as the Plaintiffs’ supervisor.

9. Tilted Kilt Corporate is a Wyoming limited liability company, with its principal 

place of business in Tempe, Arizona. 

10. Tilted Kilt Corporate entered into a franchise agreement with Tilted Kilt Chicago, 

pursuant to which Tilted Kilt Corporate maintains control over the operations of Tilted Kilt 

Chicago and mandates that Tilted Kilt Chicago follow certain policies and procedures. Tilted 

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
4

Kilt Corporate, for example, maintains a human resources department that oversees and manages

relations with all Tilted Kilt franchisees, including Tilted Kilt Chicago, and all Tilted Kilt 

employees. Tilted Kilt Corporate maintains Application for Employment forms pursuant to 

which employees apply for employment with Tilted Kilt Corporate. Further, Tilted Kilt 

Corporate also issued each employee a “Tilted Kilt Employee Handbook” that references Tilted 

Kilt Corporate as an employer of all Tilted Kilt employees. Tilted Kilt Corporate was at all 

times a joint employer of the Plaintiffs.

COUNT I

(Sexual Harassment)

11. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 

10 as and for the allegations contained in paragraph 11, as if fully set forth herein.

12. At all relevant times, Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt Corporate were 

industries affecting commerce, employed 15 or more employees, and were an “employer” within 

the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

13. Beginning around the time of the opening of Tilted Kilt Chicago in 2009, and 

continuing until after Plaintiffs filed their EEOC Charges, the actions of one of the Tilted Kilt’s 

managers, Dennis Sotos, and as alleged in paragraph 13.J.) one of Tilted Kilt Chicago’s owners, 

created a sexually hostile, offensive, humiliating and degrading work environment, by engaging 

in conduct that includes, but is not limited to, the following unwanted conduct against women 

employees, because of their gender, on a regular, systematic and on-going basis:

A.) Taking a straw full of water, placing it down at least one of the Plainitffs’ dresses, 

releasing the water and making comments such as “I’m trying to get your panties wet” and 

“That’s how Daddy likes it – with your panties wet.”

B.) Stating to one or more of the Plaintiffs: “meow, meow- you’re a dirty kitty.”

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
5

C.) Making comments to one or more Plaintiffs such as “You don’t know what I’d like 

to do to you”.

D.) Telling one or more of the Plaintiffs: “I want to f@%k you” and “I want to f@%k 

you so bad”.

E.) Telling one or more of the Plaintiffs: “You look f@%king hot”.

F.) Loudly discussing pornography with customers.

G. Engaging in talk about pornography with one or more Plaintiffs, including reference to 

“the 80’s bush”, and explicit content about Dennis Sotos and his wife’s sexual life.

H.) Asking one or more Plaintiffs to “smell my finger.”

I.) Saying things about riding his handlebars when referring to his mustache and women 

sitting on his face.

J.) Dennis Sotos and owner Thomas Sotos calling one or more Plaintiffs by sexually 

derogatory nicknames, including a name that a Plaintiff was told translates from Greek to 

English as: “You give me a hard on.”

K.) Propositioning one or more of the Plaintiffs.

L.) Asking a Plaintiff to have her and a female friend participate in a ménage a trois.

M.) Commenting to a Plaintiff about the breasts and buttocks of other female employees.

N.) Making out with customers in plain view of the Tilted Kilt staff in the restaurant, and 

taking women in his office.

O.) Telling a Plaintiff about his sexual exploits with women in his office.

P.) Telling a Plaintiff that the way to get to a promotion was to have sex with him.

Q.) Forcing himself in an aggressive sexual manner on a 19 year old employee.

R.) Grabbing one or more of Plaintiffs’ breasts.

S.) Grabbing one or more of Plaintiffs’ buttocks.

T.) Attempting to kiss one or more of the Plaintiffs on the mouth.

U.) Attempting to hug one or more of the Plaintiffs.

V.) Licking one or more of the Plaintiffs’ ears.

W.) Poking one or more of the Plaintiffs in the side and/or buttocks.

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
6

X.) Commenting about the look of one or more of the Plaintiffs’ buttocks.

Y.) Continuously engaging sexual innuendos with the Plaintiffs and other employees.

Z.) Continuously touching, hugging and kissing other young female employees of Tilted 

Kilt Chicago.

AA.) Grabbing waitress’s breasts.

BB.) Putting ice down employees’ skirts.

14. The conduct, as alleged above, has been frequent, severe, on-going, and lasted for the 

duration of the Plaintiffs’ employment. Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt Corporate are liable 

for the actions as alleged above.

15. The sexual harassment as alleged herein negatively affected the terms, conditions and 

privileges of Plaintiffs’ working environment, and the working environment of the female 

employees who work at the Tilted Kilt Chicago. The harassment, as alleged herein, would 

detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the Plaintiffs’ same sex, and is objectively degrading 

and humiliating. The sexual harassment was uninvited and unwelcome.

16. Tilted Kilt Chicago knew of the sexual harassment, yet did nothing to stop it. Employees 

complained to managers and at least one of the owners of Tilted Kilt Chicago. Despite these 

complaints to Tilted Kilt Chicago, the sexual harassment continued. Moreover, when complaints 

were made about harassment, the complaining female workers were retaliated against in their 

work assignments.

17. Tilted Kilt Corporate was also aware of the continued sexual harassment, but yet 

did nothing to stop it. Tilted Kilt Chicago employees complained to Tilted Kilt Corporate’s

human resources and risk management departments about the on-going, pervasive and severe 

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
7

sexual harassment. Despite those complaints, Tilted Kilt Corporate took no action against Tilted

Kilt Chicago, its owners or Dennis Sotos.

18. As a franchisor, Tilted Kilt Corporate exercised significant control over the 

operations of Tilted Kilt Chicago. On information and belief, Tilted Kilt Corporate maintains

the right to terminate Tilted Kilt Chicago’s franchise for failure to comply with applicable 

federal, state and local laws, including laws prohibiting harassment in the workplace. Tilted Kilt 

Corporate also maintains a human resources department that oversees employee relations

between Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt employees. Tilted Kilt Corporate exercises, or 

maintained the right to exercise, the requisite level of control in an agency relationship to be 

vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, Tilted Kilt Chicago. Further, Tilted Kilt is, or at a 

minimum held itself out as, Plaintiffs’ employer or joint employer. 

19. Further, after the charges were filed with the EEOC a Tilted Kilt Chicago 

manager told Plaintiffs that they would never work in Chicago again because of the EEOC 

charges; that Plaintiffs would be required to move from Chicago because they filed the EEOC 

charges; that Mr. Tomaras (an owner of Titled Kilt Chicago), never loses; that Plaintiffs would 

never win their lawsuit; and that Mr. Tomaras uses $400 per hour lawyers who never lose. 

20. The actions as alleged above constitute sexual harassment under Title VII. The 

actions have caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiffs to sustain damages, some of whom 

were forced to leave the Defendants’ employ due to the unendurable working conditions. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
8

Wherefore, the Plaintiffs, Jessica Johnson, Jacqueline Litman, Naomi Gates, Cress 

Wrenn, Claudia Lyko, Kristy Hack, Carolyn Bartley, Melissa Ganser, Lindsay Midura, Mia 

Blagsvedt, Heather Bartz, Katherine Franklin, Sandra Estevane, Caroline Fiermuga, Kayleigh 

Zarndt, Dayleen Marrero, Rachel Osting, Joanna Parys and Tracy Velazquez, request that this 

Court enter judgment against the Defendants and that Plaintiffs be awarded relief including back 

pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs and such other relief as

may be deemed just.

COUNT II

(Retaliation)

21. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 

20, as and for the allegations contained in paragraph 21, as if fully set forth herein.

22. Employees who complained about sexual harassment, including the Plaintiffs, 

were subjected to adverse working conditions, such as limited or poor shifts to work in the 

restaurant, being assigned to certain tables in the restaurant that were less desirable financially, 

and refusing promotions when other workers who did not complain were promoted. In addition, 

disciplinary actions were taken against Plaintiffs who complained of harassment, when those 

same measures were not taken against other employees who did not so complain.

23. Further, after the charges were filed with the EEOC a Tilted Kilt Chicago 

manager told Plaintiffs that they would never work in Chicago again because of the EEOC 

charges; that Plaintiffs would be required to move from Chicago because they filed the EEOC 

charges; that Mr. Tomaras (an owner of Titled Kilt Chicago), never loses; that Plaintiffs would 

never win their lawsuit; and that Mr. Tomaras uses $400 per hour lawyers who never lose.

24. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of the Defendants’ retaliatory conduct.

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
9

Wherefore, the Plaintiffs, Jessica Johnson, Jacqueline Litman, Naomi Gates, Cress

Wrenn, Claudia Lyko, Kristy Hack, Carolyn Bartley, Melissa Ganser, Lindsay Midura, Mia 

Blagsvedt, Heather Bartz, Katherine Franklin, Sandra Estevane, Caroline Fiermuga, Kayleigh 

Zarndt, Dayleen Marrero, Rachel Osting, Joanna Parys and Tracy Velazquez, request that this 

Court enter judgment against Defendants, and that Plaintiffs be awarded relief including back 

pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs and such other relief as 

may be deemed just.

COUNT III

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

25. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 

24, as and for the allegations contained in paragraph 25, as if fully set forth herein.

26. Defendants’ actions were extreme and outrageous.

27. Defendants’ actions were done to intentionally cause the Plaintiffs severe 

emotional distress.

28. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their actions had a high 

probability of causing Plaintiffs severe emotional distress.

29. Defendants actions demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard for the Plaintiffs’ 

rights.

30. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress as a result of the Defendants’ actions.

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
10

Wherefore, the Plaintiffs, Jessica Johnson, Jacqueline Litman, Naomi Gates, Cress 

Wrenn, Claudia Lyko, Kristy Hack, Carolyn Bartley, Melissa Ganser, Lindsay Midura, Mia 

Blagsvedt, Heather Bartz, Katherine Franklin, Sandra Estevane, Caroline Fiermuga, Kayleigh 

Zarndt, Dayleen Marrero, Rachel Osting, Joanna Parys and Tracy Velazquez, request that this 

Court enter judgment against Defendants, and that Plaintiffs be awarded compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs and such other relief as may be deemed just.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark D. Roth

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Mark D. Roth

Orum & Roth LLC

53 West Jackson Blvd.

Suite 620

Chicago, IL 60604

Phone: 312.922.6262 Ext. 240

Email: markdroth@gmail.com

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10