Cook County Bureau of Health Services Policy on nurse practitioners, Def. Ex. 6, the Court finds
a reasonable jury could conclude that the County found a reason to rescind Antunovich’s
collaborative agreements because her supervisors wanted her terminated for testifying against the
County and filing EEOC complaints.

The County argues that Antunovich does not have direct evidence of retaliation because
Reilly, who decided to rescind her collaborative agreements, did not know that she had testified
in Szymanski. Def. Reply at 2-3. But Antunovich has testified that she told Kelly in person that
she might have to miss work to testify in Szymanski. Pl.’s Dep. at 129. The following day she
wrote a letter to Kelly, which she also delivered to Reilly and Raba, explaining that she had to be
in court for a case that “is well known to hospital [sic] administration.” Pl.’s Ex. 6; Pl.’s Dep. at
130-31. Antunovich says that she saw Reilly open the letter. Pl.’s Dep. at 131. And Reilly was
present at the April 5 meeting in which everyone’s disgust with Antunovich was discussed. Pl.’s
Dep. at 54-55, Antunovich has introduced enough evidence to raise a genuine issue as to
whether Reilly knew of her protected activity.

The Court recognizes that in Stone the Seventh Circuit said that “mere temporal
proximity between the filing of the charge of discrimination and the action alleged to have been
taken in retaliation for that filing will rarely be sufficient in and of itself to create a triable issue.”
Stone, 281 F.3d at 644, But Antunovich does not rely solely on the close proximity of the
rescission of her collaborative agreements to her EEO testimony. She has also provided evidence
that her supervisors told her they were disgusted with her and that her collaborative agreements
fell within County guidelines. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to

Antunovich, the Court concludes that a reasonable trier of fact could find in her favor.



meeting, Raba, Robert Pitzaferro, business manager for the Department of Medicine, and Dr.
Brendan Reilly, chief of the Department of Medicine, had said they were “disgusted” with
Antunovich and had tried to figure out “what to do with [her]” because no one “wanted to have
anything to do with [her].” Jd. at 55. He further stated that he would be replacing Raba as her
direct supervisor because Raba did not want to have anything to do with her. Jd. at 53.

On April 9, Pitzaferro sent Antunovich a letter saying Reilly had rescinded her
collaborative agreement with Dr. James Calvin, a cardiologist, and giving her until April 30 to
get another collaborative agreement, which she had to have to be eligible to practice in Illinois.
Def. Ex. 9. On May 1, Antunovich delivered a collaborative agreement to Kelly, Reilly and
Pitzaferro, but within 15 minutes Reilly rejected the agreement and suspended her. Pl.’s Dep. at
82-84. On May 22, Antunovich was discharged at a personnel hearing, of which she had not
received prior notice, because she could not work without a collaborative agreement. Id. at 86-
87; Pitzaferro Dep. at 139-42.

The County argues that Antunovich’s collaborative agreements were rescinded because
Reilly decided only full-time doctors could supervise nurses. But Pitzaferro testified that the
collaborative agreement rejected by Reilly on May 1 met each requirement set by the County.
Pitzaferro Dep. at 128. Furthermore, Antunovich has provided evidence that when Reilly
rejected her collaborative agreements, they should have been forwarded to a hospital committee.
Barker Dep. at 62; Def. Ex. 6. But they were not. Barker Dep. at 37-38; Pitzaferro Dep. at 133.
Given that Cook County Hospital had 160 nursing vacancies when Antunovich was fired,
Pitzaferro Dep. at 122-23, she had two cardiologists willing to supervise her work, Saksena Dep.

at 32-33 and Calvin Dep. at 50-52, and both cardiologists could supervise Antunovich under the


Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the County’s motion for summary judgment
(docket #9]. The case is set for a status hearing on October 9, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the

possibility of settlement.

WA eH WA,

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judg

Date: October 3, 2003



Minute Orde Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

s' id
send Magistrate Judge Matthew F. Kennelly “than Asigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5307 DATE 10/3/2003
CASE Antunovich vs. County of Cook
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

a a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) o Ruling/Hearingon__setfor__at

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor_ at

(6) o Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___———ssetfor_— at.

(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_____at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) O)Local Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) 1 FRCP41(a)(2).

qo) {Other docket entry] For the reasons set forth on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order,

the Court denies the County’s motion for summary judgment (9). The case is set for a status hearing on
10/9/03 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the possibility of settlement.

(il) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document

Number

No notices required.

umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff,

Notified counse] by telephone.

V_ | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

courtroom
OR deputy’s
initials

mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
KATHY S. ANTUNOVICH, ) DOCKETED
oti ) Cr a9

Plaintiff, ) 2003

)
y. ) Case No. 02 C 5307

)
COUNTY OF COOK, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:

Plaintiff Kathy Antunovich has sued Cook County alleging that she was fired from her
position as a nurse at Cook County Hospital in retaliation for her EEO activity. The County
moves for summary judgment, claiming Antunovich was dismissed because she did not have the
requisite written agreement with a full-time physician to work as a nurse in County facilities.
Because the Court finds several genuine issues of material fact exist, the Court denies the
County’s motion for summary judgment.

“Summary judgment is not appropriate ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7" Cir.
2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). Therefore, the Court
must look at the evidence “as a jury might, construing the record in the light most favorable to
the nonmovant and avoiding the temptation to decide which party’s version of the facts is more

likely true.” Jd. The Seventh Circuit has identified two ways a plaintiff alleging retaliation can



prevent summary judgment. See Stone v. City of Indianapolis Pub. Util. Div., 281 F.3d 640, 644
(7" Cir. 2002). Under the method salient to this case, the plaintiff must “present direct evidence
(evidence that establishes without resort to inferences from circumstantial evidence) that [sJhe
engaged in protected activity (filing a charge of discrimination) and as a result suffered the
adverse employment action of which [s]he complains.” Jd. If the evidence is contradictory, the
case must go to trial. Jd.

The parties agree that Antunovich filed five EEOC complaints and testified on April 3,
2002, on behalf of a co-worker suing the County under Title VII in Szymanski v. County of Cook,
No. 00-CV-4737 (N.D. Ill.). Def.’s Facts {{] 6, 16. Title VII prohibits an employer from
retaliating against an employee “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). Construing the evidence in the record in favor of Antunovich, the Court finds that a
jury could conclude that the collaborative agreements Antunovich needed to be able to keep her
job were rescinded in retaliation for her protected EEO activity.

Antunovich has provided evidence that after she was named as a potential witness by
Evelyn Szymanski, she heard two nurse coordinators say her participation in the case was
disloyal and disrespectful and she did not deserve her job and should be disciplined. P1.’s Dep. at
100-01. After Antunovich had filed two EEOC complaints, Dr. John Raba, her supervisor, called
her into his office and told her that if she discussed her problems with someone outside of the
department, he would have her transferred to another department—or even to an ambulatory clinic
as far away as the Indiana border. /d. at 116-17. And five days after she testified in Szymanski,

Dr. Russell Kelly, the acting chairman of the Cardiology Division, told her that at an April 5