IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JUANA SANCHEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12-cv-4860

)

BASIL APOSTOLOU, )

VPC PIZZA OPERATING CORP., )

and VPC PRUDENTIAL PIZZA, LLC, )

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Juana Sanchez, through her attorneys, Jeffrey Grant Brown, and for her 

Complaint in this matter, alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, 29 U.S.C § 2001 

et seq. (the “Act”). Plaintiff’s former employer, Prudential Pizza, Inc. (“PPI”), has already had a 

judgment entered against it for violating Title VII and for retaliating against Plaintiff; and for 

violating the Act, by illegally requesting that Plaintiff take a polygraph examination. Defendant 

Basil Apostolou is the principal owner and manager of Plaintiff’s former employer, PPI, and 

participated in that polygraph examination request, acting as her employer under the Act. VPC 

Pizza Operating Corp. and/or VPC Prudential Pizza, Inc., are the successor(s) in interest to PPI, 

and are liable under Title VII for the acts of their predecessor PPI.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1343(a)(3). This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(e)(2) and (3) of Title 

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1
- 2 -

VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C § 

1981a. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants reside in this District, and 

because the employment practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful were committed within the 

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 

Division. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an individual and a resident and citizen of the City of Chicago, in Cook 

County, Illinois; and PPI’s records of Plaintiff’s employment reflect Plaintiff’s residency and 

citizenship. Plaintiff was employed by PPI as a telephone clerk.

5. Defendant Basil Apostolou is an individual, and is a resident and a citizen of

Illinois, and resides in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant Basil Apostolou owned and/or 

operated a Giordano’s pizza restaurant located in Chicago, Illinois, known as Prudential Pizza, 

Inc.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Pizza Operating Corp. (“VPC 

Corp.”) is a Delaware corporation.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Prudential Pizza, LLC (“VPC, 

LLC”) is an Illinois limited liability company.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Corp. is the sole member of 

Defendant VPC, LLC.

9. Upon information and belief, on approximately December 1, 2011, all of 

Defendant PPI’s assets were exchanged for an ownership interest in Defendant VPC Corp. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:1
- 3 -

and/or Defendant VPC, LLC (the “PPI Sale”). As of the date of the PPI Sale, Defendant PPI no 

longer owned the assets of, nor operated, the Prudential Giordano’s pizza restaurant.

10. PPI was purchased by Defendant VPC Corp and/or VPC, LLC, after a certain 

lawsuit, Juana Sanchez v. Prudential Pizza, Inc., et al, No. 10 C 6289, had been filed (herein, 

“the Prior Action”); and, upon information and belief, after summary judgment on the issue of 

liability had been entered against PPI in the Prior Action.

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, LLC 

continue to operate the Prudential Restaurant at the same location as it was operated when owned 

by Defendant PPI: 135 E. Lake Street, Chicago, Illinois.

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, LLC 

use the same machinery, equipment, and methods to produce the same product as that used and 

produced by Defendant PPI. 

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, LLC, 

a wholly-owned subsidiary of VPC Corp., use substantially the same work force and supervisory 

personnel as used by Defendant PPI, and the same jobs exist under substantially the same 

working conditions. 

14. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, there has been continuity of 

business operations of the Defendant PPI and Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, 

LLC. 

15. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Corp. and Defendant VPC, LLC, 

are companies operated by sophisticated investors. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:1
- 4 -

16. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, LLC 

conducted substantial due diligence regarding the assets and liabilities of Defendant PPI prior to 

the PPI Sale. 

17. Plaintiff’s claims in the Prior Action have been a matter of public record since 

approximately September 30, 2010. 

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, LLC 

learned of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant PPI in the Prior Action during the due diligence 

process prior to the PPI Sale. 

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, LLC 

had actual notice of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant PPI in the Prior Action prior to the PPI 

Sale.

20. Defendant VPC Corp. is liable for Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant PPI in the 

Prior Action under the doctrine of federal common law successor liability.

21. Defendant VPC, LLC is liable for Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant PPI in the 

Prior Action under the doctrine of federal common law successor liability.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

22. In approximately November, 2008, Plaintiff began her employment with PPI as a 

telephone clerk at PPI’s restaurant.

23. During approximately May, 2009, PPI hired Alex Marquez (“Marquez”) to work 

as a manager for PPI.

24. Beginning in approximately May, 2009, Plaintiff suffered acts of sexual 

harassment committed by PPI’s manager, Alex Marquez. In particular, Marquez continually 

made several sexually harassing comments to Plaintiff, including that he would spank her and 

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:1
- 5 -

that he wanted to sleep with her and have sex with her. Certain of Plaintiff’s co-workers 

witnessed these acts of harassment.

25. In approximately April, 2010, Plaintiff orally notified PPI of the illegal acts 

Plaintiff suffered, by among other things notifying one of PPI’s managers, Mr. Edgar Colon.

26. In approximately May, 2010, Plaintiff notified PPI and Defendant Basil 

Apostolou in writing of the illegal acts she suffered, by writing a letter to Defendant Basil “Bill”

Apostolou. 

27. Thereafter, Defendant Apostolou met with Plaintiff to discuss the complaints 

raised in Plaintiff’s letter. 

28. Defendant Apostolou subsequently told Plaintiff that he spoke with Marquez 

regarding Plaintiff’s complaints, and that he directed Marquez to stop harassing Plaintiff. 

However, Marquez continued to harass Plaintiff.

29. Subsequently, Plaintiff again complained to Bill Apostolou regarding Marquez’s 

harassment toward her. 

30. In response, rather than disciplining Marquez, Defendant Apostolou instead 

attempted to change Plaintiff’s work schedule in such a manner that Plaintiff and Marquez would 

no longer work the same shifts together. However, there remained shifts where Plaintiff was 

required to work with, and be managed by, Marquez, and Marquez continued to harass Plaintiff 

during those shifts.

31. In approximately early June, 2010, Defendant Apostolou required Plaintiff to 

attend a meeting regarding Plaintiff’s complaints of harassment. Present at the meeting were Bill 

Apostolou; his father, John Apostolou; and Giordano’s in-house counsel, Michaela CorcoranStapleton. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:1
- 6 -

32. During the meeting, John Apostolou accused Plaintiff of lying about her claims of 

sexual harassment, and told Plaintiff she would be required to take a lie detector test to prove her 

claims.

33. Defendant Basil Apostolou participated in the meeting, and made no effort to stop 

John Apostolou from demanding that Plaintiff take a lie detector test.

34. Shortly thereafter, on approximately July 15, 2010, Defendant Apostolou and PPI

terminated Plaintiff’s employment in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment.

35. The effect of the practices complained of above was to deprive Plaintiff of equal 

employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of 

her gender. 

36. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

37. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice 

or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. 

38. The unlawful employment practices complained of above have caused Plaintiff to 

suffer damages including, but not limited to, lost wages.

39. Plaintiff brought the Prior Action, Juana Sanchez v. Prudential Pizza, Inc., et al, 

No. 10 C 6289, against PPI and John Apostolou, alleging, among other things, a violation of the 

Employee Polygraph Protection Act.

40. John Apostolou submitted an affidavit in the Prior Action, admitting that he had 

told Plaintiff that Marquez was not the kind of person to do what she had alleged, and told 

Plaintiff that Marquez had indicated that he would be willing to take a lie detector test. 

41. During the course of litigating the Prior Action, all of the assets of PPI were 

transferred to, or were purchased by, Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, LLC. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:1
- 7 -

42. Defendant VPC Corp. and/or Defendant VPC, LLC, continued, in substantially 

the same form, the business of Prudential Pizza, Inc., operating the business from the same 

location, using many of the same employees to make the same products as PPI did.

43. The Court in the Prior Action entered judgment against John Apostolou in the 

amount of $10,000, under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. 

44. The Court in the Prior Action entered judgment against PPI in the amount of 

$30,000, relating to Plaintiff’s claims of harassment, discrimination and retaliation under Title 

VII, and her claims under the Act.

COUNT I

Violation of Title VII – Discrimination Based on Gender – Successor Liability

45. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 44 as 

Paragraph 45 of this Count I.

46. At all times relevant, there was in effect a federal statute, the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., which provides: 

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to 

discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, 

color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment 

in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of 

employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an 

employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national 

origin.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:1
- 8 -

47. PPI was aware, or should have been aware, of Title VII and that it is illegal to 

treat an employee differently and/or to terminate an employee’s employment because of the 

employee’s gender. 

48. During Plaintiff’s employment with PPI, she was subjected to acts of sexual 

harassment and discrimination by PPI’s employees, managers and/or owners.

49. This illegal gender discrimination and sexual harassment created a hostile and 

abusive work environment for Plaintiff.

50. PPI’s actions as set forth above were willful, intentional and/or made in reckless 

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

51. PPI’s conduct as described above constitutes a willful violation of Title VII.

52. Judgment has been entered against PPI for its violation of Title VII.

53. Defendant VPC Corp. is a successor in interest to PPI, and as such, must be held 

accountable for the actions of PPI and liable for the judgment against PPI.

54. Defendant VPC, LLC is a successor in interest to PPI, and as such, must be held 

accountable for the actions of PPI and liable for the judgment against PPI.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an order entering judgment against Defendant VPC 

Corp. and Defendant VPC, LLC, jointly and severally, and awarding Plaintiff the following 

relief:

a. Back pay from July 15, 2010 through the date of judgment, for all amounts 

Plaintiff would have earned had Plaintiff been paid her full hourly wages for all hours 

normally worked during the workweek, to which Plaintiff would have been entitled 

had she remained employed by Defendant PPI through the date of judgment;

b. Front pay;

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:1
- 9 -

c. Compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental 

anguish, and future pecuniary loss;

d. Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred;

e. Pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded under (a) and (c) above;

f. Punitive damages in an amount which will serve to punish and deter Defendants

and to deter others from such acts in the future; 

g. All liability arising from the judgment entered against PPI in the Prior Action; and

h. Such other legal and equitable relief as this Court may deem proper.

COUNT II

Violation of Title VII – Unlawful Retaliation – Successor Liability

55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference by reference Paragraphs 1 

through 44 as Paragraph 55 of this Count II.

56. At all times relevant, there was in effect a certain federal statute, Title VII, which 

provides, 

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate 

against any of its employees ... because he has opposed any practice made an 

unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a 

charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, 

proceeding or hearing under this subchapter.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

57. PPI was aware, or should have been aware, of Title VII and that it is illegal to 

treat an employee differently and/or to terminate an employee’s employment because of the 

employee’s gender.

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:1
- 10 -

58. Plaintiff made multiple complaints to PPI regarding the illegal discrimination and 

sexual harassment that she was suffering at the hands of PPI’s manager, Marquez, which resulted 

in a hostile work environment.

59. Shortly after Plaintiff’s last complaint of sexual harassment and discrimination, 

PPI terminated Plaintiff’s employment, either in whole or in part, because of her gender, and in 

retaliation for her complaints regarding Marquez. 

60. PPI’s conduct as set forth above is so harmful it would dissuade a reasonable 

worker from filing a discrimination complaint.

61. PPI’s actions as set forth above were willful, intentional, and/or made in reckless 

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

62. PPI’s conduct as described above constitutes a willful violation of Title VII.

63. Judgment has been entered against PPI for its violation of Title VII.

64. Defendant VPC Corp. is a successor in interest to PPI, and as such, must be held 

accountable for the actions of PPI and liable for the judgment against PPI.

65. Defendant VPC, LLC is a successor in interest to PPI, and as such, must be held 

accountable for the actions of PPI and liable for the judgment against PPI.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an order entering judgment against Defendant VPC 

Corp., and Defendant VPC, LLC, jointly and severally, and awarding Plaintiff the following 

relief:

a. Back pay from July 15, 2010 through the date of judgment, for all amounts 

Plaintiff would have earned had Plaintiff been paid her full hourly wages for all hours 

normally worked during the workweek, to which Plaintiff would have been entitled 

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:1
- 11 -

had she remained employed by Defendants PPI, VPC Corp., and/or VPC, LLC, 

through the date of judgment;

b. Front pay;

c. Compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental 

anguish, and future pecuniary loss;

d. Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred;

e. Pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded under (a) and (c) above;

f. Punitive damages in an amount which will serve to punish and deter Defendants 

and to deter others from such acts in the future; 

g. All liability arising from the judgment entered against PPI in the Prior Action; and

h. Such other legal and equitable relief as this Court may deem proper.

COUNT III

Violation of Employee Polygraph Protection Act

66. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference by reference Paragraphs 1 

through 44 as Paragraph 66 of this Count III.

67. At all times relevant, there was in effect a certain federal statute, the Employee 

Polygraph Protection Act, which provides, at 29 U.S.C § 2002:

(I)t shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce-

(1) directly or indirectly, to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or 

prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;

(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire concerning the results of any lie detector test of 

any employee or prospective employee;

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:1
- 12 -

(3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment 

or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against--

(A)any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to 

take or submit to any lie detector test, or

(B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any 

lie detector test; or

(4) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment 

or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against, any employee or 

prospective employee because—

(A)such employee or prospective employee has filed any complaint or 

instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this 

chapter,

(B)such employee or prospective employee has testified or is about to testify 

in any such proceeding, or

(C) of the exercise by such employee or prospective employee, on behalf of 

such employee or another person, of any right afforded by this chapter.

66. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act defines “employer” as “any person 

acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or 

prospective employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 2001.

67. Defendant Basil Apostolou was acting directly or indirectly in the interest of PPI

and John Apostolou, in relation to Plaintiff Juana Sanchez, when Defendant Basil Apostolou 

participated in the meeting in which his father, John Apostolou, told Plaintiff she would be 

required to take a lie detector test to prove her claims of sexual harassment as set forth above.

68. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant Basil Apostolou’s illegal demand that 

Plaintiff be subjected to a lie detector test.

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:1
- 13 -

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an order entering judgment against Defendants VPC 

Corp., VPC, LLC, and Basil Apostolou, jointly and severally, and awarding Plaintiff the 

following relief:

a. Compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, 

and future pecuniary loss;

b. Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred;

c. Pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded under (a) and (c) above;

d. Punitive damages in an amount which will serve to punish and deter Defendants and to 

deter others from such acts in the future;

e. All liability arising from the judgments entered against PPI and John Apostolou in the 

Prior Action; and

f. Such other legal and equitable relief as this Court may deem proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeffrey Grant Brown

One of the attorneys for Plaintiff

Jeffrey Grant Brown

Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C.

221 North LaSalle Street

Suite 1414

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 789-9700

Case: 1:12-cv-04860 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:1