UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CRYSTAL G. HOWARD,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

11-CV-07905 (DOW)

v.

INLAND SBA MANAGEMENT CORP., and

SOMERCOR 504, INC.,

Defendants.

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Comes now the plaintiff, Crystal Howard, and, pursuant to the 

request of counsel for the defendant, Inland SBA Management Corp. 

(hereinafter “Inland”), for a more definite statement concerning 

the causes of action as they concern that company, amends her 

complaint as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. section 1331. Specifically, this is a case brought under 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, alleging 

discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of the plaintiff in her 

employment with the defendants on the basis of her race (African 

American), gender (female) and her having participated in EEO 

activities and/or having opposed discriminatory practices.

VENUE

2. The venue of this Court to entertain this cause of action is 

appropriate by virtue of 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-5(f) insofar as 

all of the actions central to this case occurred within this 

judicial district.

Case: 1:11-cv-07905 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:51
THE PARTIES

3. The plaintiff, Crystal G. Howard, currently resides in 

Garland, Texas. At the time of the events central to her claims, 

she was employed by both the defendant, Somercor 504, Inc. 

(hereinafter “Somercor”) and Inland. Specifically, she began 

working for Somercor as a Director and Servicing Manager in March 

of 2004. Pursuant to a contractual relationship between Somercor 

and Inland, in February of 2005, the plaintiff became an employee 

of Inland while continuing to work at Somercor’s offices and she 

continued to be supervised on a day to day basis by Somercor 

managers.

4. The defendant, Somercor 504, Inc. (“Somercor”), is an 

Illinois corporation with a principal address at 601 LaSalle 

Street in Chicago.

5. The defendant, Inland SBA Management Corporation (“Inland”), 

is an Illinois corporation with a principal address at 2901 

Butterfield Road in Oak Brook, Illinois.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

6. Within the time prescribed by law, the plaintiff brought 

three charges of discrimination against the defendants before the 

Chicago District Office of the EEOC. The EEOC Charge Numbers for 

the charges are 440-2009-00311, 440-2009-00312 and 440-2010-00449. 

Those charges remained pending before the EEOC for more than 180 

days and the plaintiff requested and received right-to-sue letters 

concerning them. With respect to the first charge (440-2009-

00311) the EEOC notified the plaintiff that it had found probable 

cause that discrimination had occurred relative to her. By the 

time she had requested her right-to-sue letters, the Commission 

had not yet made a determination concerning the subsequent two 

charges. This action is being filed within 90 days following her 

receipt of those right-to-sue letters. The charges filed with the 

Case: 1:11-cv-07905 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:52
EEOC are attached hereto.

THE CONTROVERSY

7. For her cause of action against the defendants, the 

plaintiff, an African American female, states as follows:

8. The plaintiff began working for the defendant, Somercor, in 

March of 2004 in the position of Director and Servicing Manager. 

Pursuant to a contractual relationship between the defendants, in 

February of 2005, the plaintiff became an employee of Inland, 

receiving employment benefits from that company, including payment 

for her work. She continued to work at Somercor’s offices, 

however, and continued to be supervised by Somercor’s managers.

9. Near the end of 2007, the plaintiff perceived that caucasian 

male employees who had started working at Somercor after she had 

started were being promoted while she was not. She brought her 

observations to the attention of her managers at Somercor and they 

promised that she too would be promoted. She expressed to them 

that she needed additional staff for her division and they 

promised to provide those additional resources to her.

10. Her manager, David Franks, began to make comments to the 

plaintiff about the her appearance and how attractive she looked. 

He referred to the plaintiff and her staff as his “servicing 

girls.” In May of 2008, Franks suggested that the plaintiff spend 

the night with him in Las Vegas. Following a meeting at Inland’s 

offices, the complainant contacted an Inland Human Resources 

representative, Myra Smith, to complain about Franks, including 

his hugging of the plaintiff prior to their meeting at Inland. 

Franks’ conduct had taken on a physical dimension.

11. The plaintiff again complained to Inland’s Human Resources 

employee, Smith, in August of 2008 about continuing discrimination 

to which she believed she was subjected at Somercor. At Smith’s 

request, the plaintiff forwarded a letter to Inland’s Human 

Case: 1:11-cv-07905 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:53
Resources office describing her concerns. The following month, 

Inland’s Human Resources personnel visited Somercor’s offices and 

interviewed the plaintiff and other Somercor employees. 

Immediately following that visit, the plaintiff perceived that her 

managers stopped speaking to her. A member of Somercor’s Board of 

Directors, John Winnick, who, while not a Somercor employee, 

rented space in the company’s offices, then asked to meet with the 

plaintiff. He informed her that she’d better play ball and that 

he would hate to see her out on the street in such a bad economy. 

The plaintiff then reported that incident to Inland’s Human 

Resources Manager.

12. Inland’s Human Resources Manager then informed the plaintiff 

that no one at Somercor had done anything wrong or improper. The 

plaintiff then filed her initial charge of discrimination against 

the defendants with the EEOC’s Chicago District Office.

13. Following her filing of her charges of discrimination with 

the EEOC, the plaintiff was demoted to the position of Loan 

Servicing Analyst. An African American woman, Stephanie Day, who 

previously worked for Somercor, as rehired and became the 

plaintiff’s supervisor. The plaintiff perceived that her work 

under Day was so hostile and her work requirements so unreasonable 

that she was being pressured to resign. She believed that Day had 

been hired to drive her out of her job, and, further, that by 

having an African American female supervisor do so would appear 

nondiscriminatory.

14. On September 11, 2009, the defendants fired the plaintiff.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

15. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of 

paragraphs six through fourteen as though fully set forth at 

length herein.

Case: 1:11-cv-07905 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:54
16. The defendants, through their managers, acted in violation of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by unlawfully 

discriminating against the plaintiff on the basis of her race and 

gender.

17. The plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the defendants’ 

conduct, including severe financial harm and mental and physical 

suffering.

COUNT II

18. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of 

paragraphs six through fourteen as though fully set forth at 

length herein.

19. The defendants, through their managers, subjected the 

plaintiff to retaliatory conduct in violation of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 insofar as the actions taken against her, 

including those referenced above, resulted from her participation 

in the EEO process and/or her opposition to her managers’ 

discriminatory practices.

20. The plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the defendants’ 

conduct, including severe financial harm and mental and physical 

suffering.

COUNT III

21. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of 

paragraphs six through fourteen as though fully set forth at 

length herein.

22. The plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment on the part 

of the defendant, Somercor’s, managers. Inland’s personnel failed 

to take prompt, effective remedial action relative to that 

conduct.

23. The plaintiff suffered harm as a result of that sexual 

harassment, including mental and physical suffering.

Case: 1:11-cv-07905 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:55
COUNT IV

24. Incorporating by reference the averments of paragraphs six 

through fourteen, the defendant, Somercor, through the company’s 

managers, subjected the plaintiff to a hostile work environment as 

a result of the discriminatory conduct referenced above, including 

her participation in EEO activities and/or her opposition to their 

discriminatory, unlawful conduct. Inland, through its managers, 

was aware of that hostile work environment and either promoted it 

or, at the very least, failed effectively to remedy it.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

25. The plaintiff respectfully demands the following relief from 

the defendants:

a. Enter a declaratory judgment determining that the 

plaintiff suffered discrimination as alleged in Counts I through 

IV;

b. Award compensatory damages to the plaintiff;

c. Assess against the defendants the costs and expenses 

incurred by the plaintiff in maintaining this proceeding, together 

with reasonable attorneys fees incurred by her in prosecuting this 

case;

d. Award punitive damages to the plaintiff; and

e. Any and all other relief to which the plaintiff may be 

entitled.

JURY DEMAND

The plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues raised 

Case: 1:11-cv-07905 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:56
herein.

CRYSTAL G. HOWARD

By her Attorney,

/s/Waite P. Stuhl

6342 Waterman Avenue

St. Louis, MO 63130

314-726-1182

email: wstuhl@sbcglobal.net

Case: 1:11-cv-07905 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:57
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Waite P. Stuhl, certify that I served a copy of the 

foregoing document upon counsel for the defendants by 

electronically transmitting same through the Court’s ECF filing 

system this 27th day of April, 2012.

/s/Waite Stuhl

Case: 1:11-cv-07905 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:58