IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court awards Plaintiff front pay in the amount of $84, 726.00.

“D
David H. Coar
United States District Judge

Dated: January 23, 2003

-4.



employment is in any way related to adverse comments made by agents of Cook County. Indeed,
her testimony was that, of the 33 applications made, she heard back from one entity to whom she
applied. Thus, there is no solid evidentiary base to support a reasoned conclusion as to how long
it will take her to find (or if she is likely to find) a comparable or superior position. Based on the
testimony of the existence of a shortage, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff should be able to
obtain comparable or superior employment within 2 years from the date of her termination.

Front pay will compensate her until that time. Two years’ salary at $82,363.00 cquals
$164,726.00. That amount will be reduced by the amount she claims to be able to earn until that
time, which is $40,000 per year (a total of $80,000 for two years), leaving a total of front pay
award of $84,726.00.

Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order to equitably “deem” the termination null and void and to
award her pension and other benefits as though she had never been terminated, There is no
evidence to support such relief. Plaintiff offered no evidence as to how her pension benefits were
affected (if at all) by her termination, or what (if any) other benefits she had. The charge to make
the Plaintiff whole and the power to issue equitable relief should not be used to mask a failure of

proof. This aspect of Plaintiff's requested relief is denied.'

' The Court will, however, by separate order, order Defendant to expunge her
personnel file as to suspension and termination, and any other disciplinary action related to the
issues in this case.

-3-



Mute Onder Form (06/97)

¥

: United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge David H. Coar Sitting Judge if Other
ot Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 9588 DATE 1/23/2003
CASE Szymanski v. County of Cook
TITLE
[ln the following box (a) indicate the pasty tiling the motion, c.g, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state brielly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.|
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.)
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) o Answer brief to motion duc. . Reply to answer brief due :
(4) i) Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) ma) Status hearing{held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on set for _ at
(4) q Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) u ‘Trial[set for/re-set for] on al
(8) im [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) Ol General Rule 21 OO FRCP41(a)(1) €) FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) «6 [Other docket entry] Hearing on the issue of equitable relief held. For the reasons stated in the

attached memorandum and opinion order, the court awards Plaintiff front pay in the amount of

$84,726.00. a (he
dl) (For further detail see attached memorandum opinion and order.]

No notices required, advised in open court, Document

Number

No notices required. number of notices

AN 29 2003

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

c

Notified counsel by telephone.

wv | Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form, Tsai ne

Copy to judge/magistrale judge.

ate muided notice
courtraam

mds(te) deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in! =!
central Cterk’s Office mailing deputy initials



a]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT yee
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS HOCH E

EASTERN DIVISION JAN 29 2803
EVELYN J.D. SZYMANSKI, )
) No, 01 C 9588
Plaintiff, )
) HONORABLE DAVID H. COAR
v. )
)
COUNTY OF COOK )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

A jury found that Defendant, Cook County, retaliated against the Plaintiff, Evelyn
Szymanski, by, among other things, suspending and subsequently terminating her from about
April 8, 2002. Plaintiff is now before the Court seeking reinstatement or front pay.
Reinstatement is the presumptive remedy in a case involving termination. However, given the
history of distrust and strained relations between the Plaintiff and her supervisors at the ASC unit
at Cook County, it is highly likely that reinstatement will result in future complaints about the
implementation of and compliance with the order.

To illustrate the difficulties that a reinstatement order would raise, a summary review of
the facts is necessary. Plaintiff worked as a nurse practitioner in the Fantus Clinic at the former
Cook County Hospital. In 2001, new Illinois legislation required the licensing of nurses serving
as nurse practitioners. For purposes of this analysis, I will use the terms nurse practitioner and
Advance Practice Nurse (“APN”) interchangeably. In order to obtain her license, Plaintiff was

required to enter into a collaborative agreement with a physician within the same service.



Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that Dr. Raba, the Medical Director of the Fantus unit, refused to
approve physicians who were willing to enter into collaborative agreements with her, and he
coerced other physicians into refusing to enter into such agreement with her. Under Cook
County’s policy, the decision to approve a physician is left to the sound discretion of the Medical
Director. Similarly, the decision of whether or not to serve as a collaborating physician is left to
the physician. If this Court were to order her reinstated into the Fantus unit, she would still need
to enter into a collaborative agreement. It is clear to this Court that, because of the mistrust that
exists between Plaintiff and Dr. Raba, any refusal by the Medical Director to approve a physician
or any refusal by a physician to enter into an agreement would result in accusations of further
retaliation. Even if this Court were to order Plaintiff reinstated to a unit outside of Fantus, future
litigation is a virtual certainty. Argument by counsel at the hearing on equitable relief madc it
abundantly clear that assignment to any unit that Plaintiff did not like would lead to allegations
that the assignment was punitive. For these reasons, reinstatement is not appropriate in this case.
Front pay, in lieu of reinstatement, will be awarded. The problem with a front pay award
in this case is that the record is sparse as to elements necessary to calculate the award. Plaintiff
requests that she be awarded the difference between what she has earned since her termination
from working part time until she turns 65, which is approximately 18 years from now. There are
several problems with this proposal. There were several references in the testimony to the
existence of a severe nursing shortage in the Chicago area. (This was the only evidence as to the
state of the job market for nurses.) Plaintiff testified to having “applied” for 33 positions and
having received only one response. This apparent contradiction was not explained or addressed

in the testimony or argument. Plaintiff has not suggested that her failure to find full-time

-2-