1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK W. UHRIG, ) 

 ) Case No.: 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Judge: 

v. ) 

 ) Magistrate Judge: 

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ) 

 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

COMPLAINT

 NOW COMES PLAINTIFF, JACK W. UHRIG (hereinafter “Uhrig” or “Plaintiff”), by 

and through his undersigned counsel of record, and upon knowledge and belief as to all 

allegations of which he so possesses knowledge and upon information and belief as to all other 

allegations, and for his Complaint against Defendant A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, 

(hereinafter referred to as “Chesterton” or “Defendant”), states as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff, Uhrig, brings this action against Defendant, seeking damages for 

Defendant’s discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory actions and behaviors that are violations of 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (hereinafter “ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §621-634 

et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (hereinafter “ADA”), §2 et. seq., 42 

U.S.C.A. §12101, et. seq. Additionally, Defendant through its actions and treatment of Plaintiff 

violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (hereinafter “FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §2601 et 

seq. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:1
2 

2. Plaintiff was a loyal hardworking employee of Defendant for over twenty five 

years. As a salesman, Plaintiff consistently met or exceeded his sales goals and received 

favorable performance reviews. However, starting in 2010, Defendant started subjecting 

Plaintiff to discrimination and harassment based on his age and disabilities. Ultimately, 

Defendant terminated Plaintiff based on his age, disabilities and in retaliation for his complaints 

about being discriminated against and harassed. Defendant did not have a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for his termination and any such alleged basis was pretextual. 

3. Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, lost benefits and other damages as a direct and 

proximate result of Defendant’s illegal conduct as alleged herein. 

4. All allegations and claims are pled in the alternative to the extent such an 

interpretation is necessitated by law, required for proper construction under the law and 

permitted under federal law. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1337. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action 

involves Federal Statutes, 29 U.S.C. §621-634 et seq. and 42 U.S.C.A. §12101, et. seq.

6. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) 

and (c). Defendant is a Massachusetts corporation which does business and has substantial 

operations in the Northern District of Illinois and the Plaintiff is a resident of the Northern 

District of Illinois. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the State of Illinois for the 

purposes of this lawsuit. All or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 

claim occurred within this judicial district. 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:1
3 

PARTIES

a. Plaintiff 

7. Plaintiff, Jack Uhrig, is a resident of Naperville, in DuPage County, Illinois. 

b. Defendant 

8. Defendant, A.W. Chesterton Company, is a Massachusetts corporation. 

Chesterton has its regional offices in Elmhurst, Illinois in DuPage County. Chesterton has offices 

within Illinois and is doing business within the state of Illinois. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

9. Plaintiff filed a “Charge of Discrimination” with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission on July 22, 2011 alleging violations of the ADEA and ADA. See 

attached hereto, as Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination.

10. The commission issued a “Notice of Right to Sue (Issued on Request)” dated 

August 8, 2011. See attached hereto as Exhibit B, Plaintiff’s Notice of Right to Sue. 

11. Plaintiff timely filed his lawsuit within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of 

the August 8, 2011 Notice of Right to Sue. 

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

12. During all relevant times herein, Defendant was an employer as defined by the 

ADEA (in that it regularly employ 20 or more employees), the ADA (in that it regularly employs 

more than 15 employees), is engaged in an industry affecting commerce and had an employment 

relationship with Plaintiff at all relevant times herein. 

13. During all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant as 

defined by the ADEA and ADA. 

14. Plaintiff is over forty (40) years old. Plaintiff was born on September 20, 1950. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:1
4 

Plaintiff is sixty-one (61) years old. 

15. Plaintiff was a dedicated, hardworking and loyal employee that contributed to 

Defendant in a substantial and meaningful manner from March, 1986 through approximately 

May 20, 2011, when he was unlawfully terminated in violation of the ADEA and ADA. 

16. Despite Plaintiff providing Defendant with over 25 years of service, Defendant 

engaged in a pattern of conduct with the purpose and intent of harassing and discriminating 

against Plaintiff based upon his age and his disability. 

17. Plaintiff had an exemplary track record in sales, and had even set sales records for 

Defendant. 

18. However, in 2010, Defendant began subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination and 

harassment based on his age, being forty (40) years or older, including but not limited to the 

following: 

a. Defendant’s general manager, Todd Kramer, repeatedly told Plaintiff that 

he “did not like his way of doing things” or that he was not “up to speed,” 

in reference to the way that Plaintiff did not use office technology in the 

same way as younger employees; 

b. Defendant’s general manager, Todd Kramer, repeatedly told Plaintiff that 

he did not like “his thinking process,” in reference to the way that Plaintiff 

approached performing his duties as opposed to younger employees; 

c. Defendant’s general manager, Todd Kramer, often questioned Plaintiff if 

he “was planning on retiring”; 

d. Defendant reviewed Plaintiff’s sales and performance with greater 

scrutiny and in a harsh manner compared to younger employees. For 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:1
5 

example for similar sales, Plaintiff would receive a negative review, while 

a younger sales representative (under 40 years old) would receive praise 

and be given preferential treatment; 

e. Defendant took away a substantial number of Plaintiff’s sales accounts, 

even though younger sales representatives did not have accounts taken 

away; 

f. Defendant favored younger sales representatives (under 40 years old) by 

increasing the number of accounts that the younger representatives were 

assigned, or by assigning higher quality accounts to younger 

representatives; 

g. Defendant treated Plaintiff in a manner that made it clear that Defendant 

was trying to set him up to fail and/or seeking an excuse to terminate him; 

h. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to an increasingly harsh pattern of conduct 

and discipline based upon his age; 

i. Plaintiff was terminated based upon his age; and 

j. Plaintiff was terminated as a result of his complaints about or opposition 

to the discriminatory actions described herein. 

19. In March, 2010, Plaintiff sought treatment for his disability of alcoholism/alcohol 

dependency, which required him to take time off from work. 

20. When seeking treatment, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave from Defendant. 

Plaintiff submitted all necessary documents and information regarding his serious medical 

condition and need for time off in his request for FMLA leave. Defendant approved Plaintiff to 

use FMLA leave. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:1
6 

21. After receiving treatment, Plaintiff was able to return to work in or about early 

April, 2010. 

22. After Plaintiff returned from seeking treatment, Defendant subjected him to 

discrimination and harassment based on his disability in ways including but not limited to the 

following: 

a. Defendant took away a substantial number of Plaintiff’s accounts immediately 

after Plaintiff returned from successfully completing alcohol treatment, while 

other employees did not have accounts taken away from them; 

b. After returning from leave, Plaintiff’s substantially reduced number of 

accounts made it impossible to Plaintiff to achieve his sales goals (i.e. Plaintiff 

was “set up to fail”); 

c. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to an increasing pattern of scrutiny and 

discipline after Plaintiff sought alcohol treatment, including but not limited to 

the following: 

i. Defendant gave Plaintiff a negative performance evaluation, despite 

Plaintiff’s efforts to achieve his sales goals in a nearly impossible 

scenario; 

ii. Defendant disciplined Plaintiff more harshly and treated him less 

favorably than other employees (i.e. Plaintiffs General Manager, Todd 

Kramer, would speak to Plaintiff in a disapproving manner, and would 

constantly indicate to Plaintiff that he was below his sales goals, while 

giving other employees good accounts to work on); 

iii. Defendant refused to return Plaintiff’s accounts that he had managed 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:1
7 

in a satisfactory or exemplary manner, even more than one year after 

Plaintiff had successfully completed alcohol treatment and counseling; 

iv. Defendant singled out Plaintiff and subjected him to restrictions that 

other employees were not subjected to (i.e. being told that he would 

have to work accounts with a member of management or having to 

repeatedly ask permission to work accounts that had been previously 

been assigned to him); 

v. Defendant led Plaintiff to believe that he would have his account base 

restored to the same level as it was before he sought treatment, but that 

never occurred, and instead Defendant terminated Plaintiff; and 

vi. Defendant’s given reason for terminating Plaintiff would not have 

caused other, non-disabled employees to be terminated (i.e. another 

sales rep violated company policy by testing positive for marijuana at 

a power plant but was not terminated); 

d. Defendant terminated Plaintiff as a result of his disability; and 

e. Defendant terminated Plaintiff as a result of his complaints about or his 

opposition to the discriminatory and harassing actions described herein, and 

any reasons given to the contrary are pretext. 

23. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was performing all of his job 

duties/responsibilities in an outstanding manner and there was no legitimate, non-discriminatory 

reason for his termination. 

24. Defendant was fully aware of the nature and scope of the age and disability based 

discrimination and harassment. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:1
8 

25. Plaintiff complained about the age and disability based discrimination and 

harassment on several occasions, including but not limited to making complaints to Defendant’s 

General Manager, Todd Kramer. 

26. Despite Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant took no action to stop, remediate, 

investigate or otherwise address the age and disability based discrimination and harassment. 

27. Instead of stopping or otherwise addressing the age and disability based 

discrimination and harassment, Defendant terminated Plaintiff. 

28. Plaintiff suffered severe damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s 

illegal conduct, as alleged herein. 

COUNT I 

(DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF AGE 

IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §621-634 et seq.) 

29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if 

fully set forth herein. 

30. All conditions precedent to Count I have been satisfied. 

31. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. Plaintiff is sixty-one (61) years old. 

32. Plaintiff always performed his job duties in a manner that met or exceeded the 

legitimate expectations of Defendant. 

33. As alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered age based discrimination and harassment 

by, among other things: (a) being subjected to derogatory; demeaning and critical age-based 

comments; (b) being subjected to heighted scrutiny while working as compared to younger 

employees; (c) being held to a higher performance standard than younger employees; (d) being 

subjected to unequal discipline; and (e) being terminated because of his age. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:1
9 

34. Defendant treated similarly situated employees younger than forty (40) years old 

more favorably than Plaintiff. 

35. Defendant was fully aware of the nature and scope of the age based 

discrimination and harassment and intended to, knowingly engaged in, condoned and/or ratified 

the discrimination. 

36. Plaintiff repeatedly complained about the age based discrimination and 

harassment. Plaintiff complained to General Manager, Todd Kramer. Even after the complaints, 

Defendant took no action to stop, remediate, investigate, or otherwise address the age based 

discrimination and harassment. 

37. On or about May 20, 2011, Defendant terminated Plaintiff because of his age. 

38. Defendant intentionally and willfully eliminated Plaintiff from its workforce 

because of his age. 

39. The actions of Defendant as perpetrated by its managers and agents, as described 

and complained of herein, are unlawful employment practices in that they likely have the effect 

of discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise 

adversely affecting Plaintiff because of his age, in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §621-634 et 

seq. 

40. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant had a duty under the 

ADEA to refrain from discriminating and harassing Plaintiff on the basis of his age. 

41. The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through its management, agents and 

employees, was intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless 

indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

42. There is a causal connection between Plaintiff’s age and the dissimilar treatment 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:1
10 

and termination of Plaintiff by Defendant. 

43. The actions of Defendant, intentionally engaging in and condoning age 

discrimination, injured Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate cause of the illegal age discrimination 

alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to: lost wages and benefits, 

future pecuniary losses and other damages. 

COUNT II 

RETALIATION FOR THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS 

IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §621-634 et seq.

44. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if 

fully set forth herein. 

45. All conditions precedent to Count II have been satisfied. 

46. Plaintiff complained about, reported, and protested against Defendant’s unlawful 

employment practices under the ADEA, as alleged herein. 

47. The Plaintiff complained of ongoing and repeated age discrimination and 

harassment perpetrated against him, and unequal and adverse treatment based on age. 

48. In retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, reports, and protests of unlawful 

discrimination and harassment, Defendant increased its discrimination and harassment based on 

age, and ultimately terminated Plaintiff based on his age and his reports and complaints of agebased discrimination and harassment. 

49. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was performing all of his job duties in a 

manner that met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate business expectations. 

50. The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through its management agents and 

employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:1
11 

indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

51. Defendant, by and through its agents, retaliated against Plaintiff when they knew 

or should have known that the same were in violation of the ADEA and any alleged reasons to 

the contrary are pretext. 

52. The actions of Defendant in retaliating against Plaintiff caused him great mental 

anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost 

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

COUNT III 

DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA 

42 U.S.C.A. § 12101, et. seq

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if 

fully set forth herein. 

54. All Conditions to Count III have been satisfied. 

55. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability. 

56. The ADA makes it unlawful to discriminate in the terms, conditions, 

responsibilities, and/or privileges of employment against a qualified individual with a disability. 

57. Plaintiff Uhrig is disabled in that he suffered from the serious medical condition 

of alcohol dependency. 

58. Plaintiff Uhrig has a record of his above-described disability. 

59. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s disability. 

60. Defendant perceived Plaintiff as disabled. 

61. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff could perform all of the essential functions 

of his position as required by Defendant. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:1
12 

62. Defendant discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff because of his disability, 

as alleged herein. 

63. On or about May 20, 2011, Defendant terminated Plaintiff, in whole, or in part 

because of his disability. 

64. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff informed Defendant of the nature and scope 

of his disability. 

65. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was an excellent employee that was 

performing all of the functions required of him in an outstanding manner. 

66. Defendant’s above-stated actions were willful, malicious, in bad faith, outrageous, 

and extraordinary. 

67. Defendant engaged in the herein alleged willfully and malicious violations of the 

law knowingly and intending to violate federal law. 

68. Defendant’s conduct, in violation of the ADA, was the direct and proximate cause 

of Plaintiff incurring severe damages including, but not limited to, loss of employment, lost 

wages, lost benefits and severe emotional distress. 

COUNT IV 

RETALIATION FOR IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA 

42 U.S.C.A. § 12101, et. seq

69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if 

fully set forth herein. 

70. All conditions precedent to Count IV have been satisfied. 

71. Plaintiff complained about, reported, and protested against Defendant’s unlawful 

employment practices under the ADA, as alleged herein. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:1
13 

72. The Plaintiff complained of ongoing and repeated disability discrimination and 

harassment perpetrated against him, and unequal and adverse treatment based on his disability. 

73. In retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, reports, and protests of unlawful 

discrimination and harassment, Defendant increased its discrimination and harassment based on 

his disability, and ultimately terminated Plaintiff based upon his disability and his reports and 

complaints of disability based discrimination and harassment. 

74. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was performing all of his job duties in a 

manner that met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate business expectations. 

75. The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through its management agents and 

employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless 

indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

76. Defendant, by and through its agents, retaliated against Plaintiff when they knew 

or should have known that the same were in violation of the ADA and any alleged reasons to the 

contrary are pretext. 

77. The actions of Defendant in retaliating against Plaintiff caused him great mental 

anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost 

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

COUNT V 

VIOLATION OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993 

29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. 

78. Plaintiff re-alleges and reincorporates all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:1
14 

79. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was an “eligible employee” under the 

FMLA. 29 U.S.C. §2611(2) 

80. At all relevant times herein, Defendant was an “employer” covered under the 

FMLA. 29 U.S.C. §2611(4) 

81. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was eligible to request medical/FMLA leave 

under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §2611 et seq. 

82. Plaintiff was entitled to intermittent FMLA leave. 

83. In or about March/April 2010, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave. 

84. At all times, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s doctors provided Defendant with all the 

required documentation and information regarding his disability and need for FMLA leave. 

85. Defendant knew Plaintiff needed and/or requested FMLA leave due to his 

disability. 

86. On or about May 20, 2011, less than two months after requesting and being 

approved for FMLA leave, Defendant terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff exercising 

his rights under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. 

87. Plaintiff was unjustly and intentionally terminated for requesting FMLA leave. 

88. There was no legitimate, legal or non-retaliatory basis for Defendant to terminate 

Plaintiff on May 20, 2011. 

89. Defendant's actions in discharging Plaintiff were done intentionally and 

maliciously. 

90. Plaintiff suffered severe damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s 

retaliation against him for requesting FMLA leave. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:1
15 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows: 

i. Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; 

ii. Back pay, inclusive of lost wages and any benefits, and all other damages 

sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for his injuries; 

 iii. Reinstatement or Front Pay; 

 iv. Punitive/Liquidated damages; 

 v. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 

 vi. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action; and 

 vii. Any and all other relief that this Honorable Court may deem just and 

equitable. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

 Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial 

by jury on all questions of fact raised by the complaint. 

Dated: November 3, 2011 By:/s/Robert M. Foote 

Robert M. Foote, Esq. (#03214325) 

Matthew Herman, Esq. (#06237297) 

Michael Wong, Esq. (#06291089) 

Sean M. Hendricks, Esq. (#06300007) 

Foote Meyers Mielke& Flowers, LLC 

3 North Second Street 

Suite 300 

St. Charles, Illinois 60174 

Tel. No.: (630)232-6333 

Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. (#6255735) 

Chavez Law Firm, P.C. 

3 North Second Street 

Suite 300 

St. Charles, Illinois 60174 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:1
16 

Peter L. Currie, Esq. (#06281711) 

The Law Firm of Peter L. Currie, PC 

22 West Washington Street 

Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Tel. No.: (630) 862-1130 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:1
VERIFICATION 

I, JACK ~· UHRIG, being first duly sworn under oath hereby state that I am the 

Plaintiff :in this action, that I have read the foregoing Complaint, and that the allegations 

contained herein are true and accurate to 1he best of my knowledge and belief. 

Respectfully submitted, 

,,,,,1 II fit; 

,>'' \~~1\ ST£11/1

11 ,..... ~~:.- ........... •, 4'.r ~~ 

2 ~ .. ··~oTAR f-\ ~ 

~ /My Comm. Expires\ ::. 

:December 17, 2011 : = -- ••. No.6 88642 .: 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:1
EXHIBIT A 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:1
Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:1
EXHIBIT B 

Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:1
Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:1
Case: 1:11-cv-07829 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/11 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:1