UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTp pa a ky
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIQUCKETFD Sep 2 amp

In the Matter of Eastern Division SEP 2 5 2002

Amy Wiginton, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly ph * © Sing, Sale Sar
situated, by) hey NL JO ed

Case Number:

,
CB Richard Ellis JUDGE Al SFA
APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR:

Plaintiff, Amy Wiginton MAGISTRATE diper..

(A)

, @®)
“UA yl “Et wstwe go

NAME NAME

Kenneth A. Wexler Elizabeth Fegan Hartweg

Tin FIRM

Kenneth A. Wexler and Associates Kenneth A. Wexler and Associates

STREET ADDRESS ” STREET ADDRESS ;

One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000 One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000

GUySTATEZIP CIYSTATEZIP

Chicago, IL 60602 Chicago, IL 60602

Eee Cis sa6200

TDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE) IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

03127810 06229226

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? YES [v7] NO Cc] MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? YES LC] No [v]

‘TRIAL ATTORNEY? yes [wo No _] TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES [v] No LJ
DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL? vs [v] xo [|

© (D)

ae mal =

NAME NAME
JoDee Favre

FIRM FIRM

Favre & Allen

STREET ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS

121 East Main Street

CHTYISTATEZIP CITVSTATEZIP

Belleville, IL 62220

TELEPHONE NUMBER TELEPHONE NUMBER

(618) 236-7726

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE) IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? vs [] x [v] MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? ves [] ¥0
TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES [v] No C_] TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES i= No
DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL? ves [| No ica DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL? YES C No



favors, and by refusing job benefits to and otherwise retaliating against women who refused its
agents’ requests for sexual favors.

34. Defendant has also discriminated against women on the basis of sex by treating them
differently than their male co-workers in the terms, conditions and privileges of their employment.

35. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly the
sexually harassing behavior.

36. Defendant was aware of the above conduct at all relevant times.

37. Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered damages as a result of defendant’s
common course of conduct alleged above.

COUNT IT
(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

38. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.

39. Defendant, through its managers and employees, intentionally engaged in extreme
and outrageous conduct and CBRE, through its managers and employees, perpetrated such conduct
in the course of plaintiff and the Class’ employment.

40. Defendant, through its managers and employees, acted with the intent to inflict severe
emotional distress on plaintiff and the Class, or with the knowledge that there was at least a high
probability that their conduct would inflict severe emotional distress on plaintiff and the Class.

41. The conduct, described above, engaged in by defendant, through its managers and
employees, was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

42. The extreme and outrageous conduct of defendant, its managers and employees, has

proximately caused plaintiff and the Class to suffer from severe and ongoing emotional distress.

-14-



employment, and unreasonably interfere with their work performance;

(c)  Areasonable person would experience the work environment at the

CBRE as hostile, and plaintiff and the Class perceived and continue to perceive their

work environment as hostile and abusive;

(d) The abusive and hostile work environment has been and continues to
be pervasive throughout CBRE; and

(e) _ Plaintiffand the Class have suffered severe emotional distress as well

as other physical and economic injury as a result of the sexual harassment.

14. Plaintiff and the Class have also been subjected to sexual harassment as a result of
supervisors conditioning the awarding of favorable job assignments and other job related benefits
on submission to their sexual demands. The rejection of such demands has resulted in an alteration
in the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s and the Class’ employment, and has unreasonably interfered.
with their work performance.

15. Plaintiff has repeatedly complained to management about the hostile work
environment in which she was forced to work. Plaintiff's complaints have been ignored. Further,
CBRE failed to exercise reasonable care in preventing sexual harassment or to correct any of the
sexually harassing behavior.

16. In addition, plaintiff and the Class have been subjected to a pattern and practice of
discrimination on the basis of sex as a result of a company-wide anti-female attitude and this pattern
and practice has had a significant effect on the terms, conditions and privileges of their employment.

17. Plaintiff and the Class have also been subjected to the intentional infliction of

emotional distress, and have been damaged as a result of CBRE’s negligent supervision and retention

5.



DATED: September 25, 2002

Kenneth A. Wexler

Elizabeth Fegan Hartweg
KENNETH A. WEXLER AND ASSOCIATES

One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000

Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 346-2222
Fax: (312) 346-0022

JoDee Favre
FAVRE & ALLEN
121 East Main Street
Belleville, IL 62220
Tel: (618) 236-7736
Fax: (618) 236-7746

AMY WIGINTON, individually and on behalf
of the Class, plaintiff

By:
One of Her meys

-18-



commented on Ms. Wiginton’s figure during a CBRE World Conference at
Mandalay Bay, stating, “My, don’t you just have the prettiest little figure,” while
looking her body up and down;

(e) Having heard that Ms. Wiginton had suffered a miscarriage, David
Hinchman, a CBRE broker from the Kansas City office, asked Ms. Wiginton, “So,
how’s the baby-making going?” at a firm dinner in front of male colleagues. When
Ms. Wiginton failed to provide details, Hinchman proceeded to tell Ms. Wiginton
that he practiced Tantra Sex, which he explained as creating longer-lasting orgasms
and a heightened state of awareness during orgasms. Hinchman further explicitly
described the orgasms he had experienced and directly asked Ms. Wiginton whether
she had orgasms;

(f) At a later date, after Ms. Wiginton had a baby, her supervisor,
Kozarits, asked, “Does [your husband] like the size of your breasts?” and “Does
[your husband] love your breasts?”and further stated “Tell [your husband] he should
get all he can of them now.” Kozarits commented on and inquired whether Ms.
Wiginton would be having sex with her husband after the six-week check-in after
giving birth. Kozarits further told Ms. Wiginton he loved her “voluptuous figure,”
in response to which Ms. Wiginton called Kozarits a pig.

(g) | While Ms. Wiginton was on maternity leave, her male supervisor,
Kozarits, circulated an e-mail to the 45 men for whom Ms. Wiginton worked
implying that the father of the child was a male colleague as the result of an illicit

sexual affair;

-10-



(e) Scott Stubblefield (“Stubblefield”), a broker who worked from

CBRE’s Columbus, Ohio office and, on information and belief, now manages the St.

Louis, Missouri office, has been overheard asking his male colleagues, “Does your

assistant give good head?”;

(f) Specific examples of these types of comments include: males
routinely asked their pregnant female co-workers whether they intended to breast

feed and routinely commented on the size and shape of their changing figures; Gary

Fazio, a broker in Oak Brook, openly asked a pregnant female employee in front of

numerous males, “So, how far are you dilated?”; Pete Adamo, another CBRE broker

who works in the Oak Brook office asked a female employee “Do you shave your

crotch?”; David Justh, a broker in Oak Brook, openly commented on an assistant’s

breasts and told his assistant (in front of others) that she should be working in a

factory after berating her in front of others and causing her to cry;

Each of these comments and topics of conversation were not isolated incidents but are examples of
the types of lewd and sexually charged comments by male employees and members of management
that are an everyday occurrence at CBRE.

20. Plaintiff and members of the Class have also been subject to unwanted touching,
kissing, groping, staring and other forms of harassing attention by co-workers or supervisors. For
example:

(a) Jim Hochman, in-house counsel at CBRE, pulled his pants down and
flashed company personnel in South Beach, Florida while on a CBRE Corporate

Services trip. Ona different trip to Key West, Florida, Hochman and Steve Kozarits,

-7-



of numerous CBRE employees.

18. | Among the evidence of the abusive and harassing work environment at the company
are the sexually-explicit and pornographic material disseminated at CBRE, including birthday cards
portraying naked women and the inclusion of pornographic materials, such as a book entitled “101
Nights of Great Sex,” as “White Elephant” gifts at the annual CBRE office holiday parties.

19. In addition, plaintiff and similarly situated women have been subjected to a daily
barrage of lewd remarks, propositions and sexist insults, as well as leering glances and “elevator
eyes” directed their way from co-workers and supervisors. A small sampling of the types of
unwanted and offensive comments made to plaintiff and the Class on a daily basis include:

(a) “She’s got a real nice rack;” “I love your breasts;” “Her breasts are

huge;” “How big are your breasts now?” (during a telephone conversation); and “You

have beautiful breasts;”

(b) Male employees openly ask women about their orgasms, their sexual
history, and their sexual interests;

(c) Male employees openly “rate” the figures of women with whom they
do business, commenting on their size, their shape, their breasts, their “asses” and
their sexuality;

(d) Jeff Barrett, the managing director of CBRE’s Oak Brook, Illinois

office, among others, routinely gives birthday cards to male brokers, to be opened in

front of the female employees, that display nude or bikini-clad women with

prominently displayed breasts, at which time the male employees engage in lewd

talk;



Civil Cover Sheet es * Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Civil Cover sneM2C 68 3 2

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. The data
is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained herein neither replaces nor

supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is author s ¢ Northern District of
ame PODEE ANDERSEN

MAGIST;
Plaintiff(s): AMY WIGINTON, individually and on behalf . . IISTRATE JUD:
of all persons similarly situated. Defendant(s):CB Richard Ellis GE ASHMAN
County of Residence: Cook County, Illinois County of Residence: Los Angeles County, California
Plaintiff's Atty: Kenneth A. Wexler Defendant's Atty: 4
KENNETH A. WEXLER AND DOKETED
ASSOCIATES SEP 2 5 2002

One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
(312) 346-2222

IL Basis of Jurisdiction: 3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)

III. Citizenship of Principal Parties

(Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A
Defendant:- N/A
IV. Origin : 1. Original Proceeding
V. Nature of Suit: 442 Employment
VI.Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e

VIL. Requested in Complaint
Class Action: Yes

Dollar Demand:
Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

Signature:

owe: 9425 Jor :

If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in your browser and change it. Once correct, print this
form, sign and date it and submit it with your new civil action. Note: You may need to adjust the font size in your browser display to make
the form print properly. Revised: 06/28/00

yr

http://www. ilnd.uscourts.gov/PUBLIC/Forms/auto_js44.cfm 25/2002



Examples include:

(a) Ata Special Properties Group (“SPG”) outing at a bar in St. Simons
Island, Georgia, Steve Kozarits (Kozarits”), Ms. Wiginton’s supervisor, encouraged
her to dance with Stubblefield, Stating “Go dance with Stubby. You’ll make his
night.” Ms. Wiginton repeatedly stated that she was not interested. When Ms.
Wiginton finally did at Kozarits’ behest, Stubblefield rubbed his body, including his
erect penis, against Ms. Wiginton, over her protests and struggles to get away;

(b) George Relias, Ms. Wiginton’s former supervisor, grabbed her breasts
(about which Ms. Wiginton complained to management and Human Resources).
After this incident, Relias continually stared at Ms. Wiginton’s breasts and denied her
the opportunity to move her cubicle away from his office to an open cubicle on the
other side of the office when she Tequested.

(c)  Kozarits, Ms. Wiginton’s supervisor at the time she was
constructively discharged, propositioned Ms. Wiginton constantly; required Ms.
Wiginton to have close physical contact with him while sitting in meetings and while
traveling; commented on a daily basis about her breasts, her legs, and her clothes;
questioned her regarding her sexual life, including asking every Monday “So, did you
have sex this weekend?”; and called her “Wiggles” in front of colleagues and clients
referencing her breasts. Ms. Wiginton constantly requested that Kozarits stop his
harassing behavior. Kozarits’ Tesponse to Ms. Wiginton’s request that he stop
harassing her was always, “No, you love it” or “You know I love you.”

(d) Chuck Finney, a broker in CBRE’s Dallas, Texas office, openly

-9-



on * ®

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DOCKETE
EASTERN DIVISION 2002
sep 25

cae GZ 68 82

AMY WIGINTON, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CB RICHARD ELLIS, ) Ma
) Gis
Defendant. ) TRA TE JUDGE
ASHMAN ;
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT a

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees of CB rhara ys
(“CBRE” or the “Company’”), by her attorneys, alleges as follows: AL a

1. This is a class action brought by plaintiff Amy Wiginton (“Ms. Wiginton’) on behalf 2
of herself and other similarly situated women (the “Class”) against CBRE, to remedy discrimination
and harassment on the basis of sex, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII’). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys fees and other appropriate legal and equitable relief.
Plaintiff also asserts claims under the Illinois common law for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent supervision and negligent retention.

2. Plaintiff is a female who was constructively terminated from her position as a CBRE
employee. Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile, offensive and intimidating work environment at the
offices maintained by CBRE in the Chicago area (collectively, “Chicago Office”), in addition to
various other locations maintained by CBRE throughout the United States. The hostile work

environment, which exists company-wide, altered the terms and conditions of the plaintiffs

employment. Plaintiff and numerous other female CBRE employees have been subjected to

-\



CLASS ALLEGATIONS
25. Plaintiff sues on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons under Rule 23(a)
and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defined as follows:.

All women employed by CB Richard Ellis at any time between
January 1, 1997 and the present (the “Class Period”).

26. | CBRE has employed more than 1,000 women nationwide during the Class Period.
Therefore, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

27. — Allmembers of the Class have been damaged by the same common course of conduct
alleged herein, and this common course of conduct has affected the Class as a whole. This common
course of conduct presents questions of law and fact which are common to the Class, and
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. These questions
include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) whether CBRE engages in a pattem and practice of discrimination
against female employees by allowing and promoting a hostile, intimidating and
offensive work environment directed toward its female employees at its offices;

(b) whether CBRE otherwise engages in a common course of conduct that
discriminates against plaintiff and other members of the plaintiff Class on the basis
of sex with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment;

(c) whether members of CBRE management condone and participate in
the sexual harassment and sexual discrimination of its female employees;

(d) whether CBRE has exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct

promptly any sexually harassing behavior;

-12-



(h) After returning from the company trip in Key West, Florida, where
employees went to the bar where naked women’s bodies are painted, Hochman and
Kozarits separately recounted, in detail, their experiences to Ms. Wiginton. Further,
Kozarits stated, “If you were wearing a wet t-shirt, you would have fit in perfect,”
referring to Ms. Wiginton’s breasts; and

q@ When Hochman ran into Ms. Wiginton in a parking lot while
accompanied by two male management personnel, Hochman called out to Ms.

”

Wiginton, “Hey Aimless.” Ms. Wiginton sent Hochman an e-mail complaining

about the derogatory nature of the nickname and later discussed the issues with

Hochman in person. Hochman responded: “That’s a pet name. That’s what I call all

my ex-girlfriends.” (Of course, Ms. Wiginton never was his girlfriend).

22. _ Plaintiffwas told that her life could be made easier if she submitted and played along
with the sexual advances of her colleagues.

23. Atall times relevant to this action, the existence and severity of the sexually harassing
environment was fully known by CBRE management.

24. As set forth herein, there is a pervasive and severe pattern and practice of sexual
discrimination at CBRE, including a hostile work environment, individual instances of harassment,
denial of job benefits to women because of their sex, retaliation and other forms of abuse. Each

paragraph above describes a pattern and practice of sex discrimination created and sustained by the

defendant CBRE that constitutes a hostile work environment.

-ll-



among other management personnel, took company employees to a bar where
women’s naked bodies are painted. Both Hochman and Kozarits later returned to
their CBRE offices and recounted, separately, the naked women they saw to female
CBRE employees. On still other occasions, Hochman openly told jokes that were
derogatory to women, including jokes referring to “blonde pussy;”

(b) | Hochman’s “flashing” incident is not isolated. At firm parties, male
colleagues routinely remove their clothes, engage in stripteases and rub themselves
against their female colleagues; and

(c) For office camping and other overnight trips, male management
personnel explicitly direct that the male spouses of female employees are not to be
invited and advise female employees that “they’re not married” while on the road
because “they are separated from their spouses” and are “allowed” to engage in
inappropriate sexual behavior with their male colleagues. Women are also
encouraged to take off their underwear during canoeing and swimming activities.
During these trips, male employees, including management, openly touch women’s
breasts, groins and bodies, rub their groins against women’s bodies, and explicitly

proposition women for sex.

21. In addition to being present for degrading comments and sexual jokes regarding

women generally, Ms. Wiginton, like the members of the Class, was subjected on a daily basis to
harassment that included: i) verbal comments regarding her breasts, her body, her sexual history,
her husband’s sexual interests, her orgasms; ii) verbal propositions for sex; and iii) unwanted

touching, including being rubbed by men’s penises and having her breasts groped and grabbed.

-8-



PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Amy Wiginton is a resident of Brookfield, Illinois and was employed as a
Marketing Director at CBRE’s Oak Brook, Illinois office, at which she worked from December 7,
1997 until the time she was constructively discharged from CBRE as a result of the hostile work
environment on December 31, 2001.

11. Defendant CBRE is a worldwide commercial real estate services company organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware and engaged in property sales, leasing, and management;
corporate services; facilities and project management; mortgage banking; investment management;
capital markets; appraisal and valuation; research and consulting. CBRE has approximately 10,000
employees in more than 250 offices, maintaining its corporate headquarters in Los Angeles,
California. CBRE also maintains five offices in the Chicago metropolitan area. In 2001, CBRE
reported $1.17 billion in net revenues.

ALLEGATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS-WIDE DISCRIMINATION

12. _ Plaintiffand the Class have been and continue to be victims of a pattern and practice
of sexual harassment, other forms of sex discrimination and other forms of abuse while employed
at CBRE.

13. Specifically, plaintiff and the Class have been subjected to severe and pervasive
sexual harassment, as follows:

(a) There is and was a sexually hostile, intimidating and offensive work
environment at CBRE directed at plaintiff and the Class;
(b) The work environment at CBRE has been, and remains, sufficiently

severe so as to alter the terms and conditions of plaintiff's and the Class members’

4.



COUNT It
(NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION)

43. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.

44. Defendant had and has a duty to supervise all managers and employees employed at
CBRE.

45. Defendant negligently supervised managers and employees employed at CBRE, as
set forth above, by permitting them to severely abuse, assault and batter plaintiff and members of the
Class because of their sex.

46.  Defendant’s negligent supervision proximately caused plaintiffand the Class to suffer
injuries including, but not limited to, mental anguish and other forms of personal injury.

COUNT IV
(NEGLIGENT RETENTION)

47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.

48. Defendant knew, or should have known, that the employees, managers and
supervisors referred to above, as well as others not identified herein, had harmed female employees
in the past by their conduct, and this harmful conduct presented a danger that they would continue
to harm female employees.

49. Defendant retained the employees, managers and supervisors, whom it was aware
presented a danger of inflicting harm on female employees, even after defendant was informed of
the danger.

50.  Defendant’s retention of these unfit employees, manager and supervisors proximately
caused harm to plaintiff and the Class, including, but not limited to, mental anguish and other forms

of personal injury.

-15-



demotion or termination, upon any supervisor or manager who engages in sexual harassment or sex
discrimination or permits any such conduct to occur in his or her work area or among employees
under his or her supervision, or who retaliates against any person who complains or participates in
any investigation or proceeding arising out of any such conduct;

G. Order CBRE to revise its supervisory appraisal process and include performance
evaluations for the handling of equal employment opportunity issues as an element in supervisor
appraisals and to link such evaluations directly to supervisor salary/bonus structure;

H. Order CBRE to provide annual sexual harassment training to all employees,
managers, supervisors and other management personnel, and to provide such training to all persons
charged with the handling of complaints of sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination,

L Award plaintiff and the Class all back pay, front pay, benefits, and any other
remuneration to which they would have been entitled but for defendant’s discrimination;

J. Award plaintiff and the Class compensatory and punitive damages;

K. Award plaintiff the costs of this action, including the fees and costs of experts,
together with reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

L. Grant plaintiff and the Class such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary

and proper.

DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages so triable in this action.

-17-



5. Furthermore, while CBRE does maintain a written sexual harassment policy or
written procedure for employee complaints of sexual harassment, it involves reporting to the very
same management personnel who have expressly engaged in behavior to sexually harass and
denigrate plaintiff and members of the Class, thus rendering the policy completely ineffective and
meaningless.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and
1343(4), which confer original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action to recover damages or
to secure equitable relief (i) under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of Civil Rights;
and (ii) under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seg. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction of plaintiffs’
claims arising under state law.

7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) inasmuch as the unlawful
employment practices are alleged to have been committed in the Northern District of Illinois and the
defendant, CBRE, can be found in the Northern District of Illinois.

8. Atall relevant times, defendant constitutes an “employer” within the meaning of Title
VIL, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b).

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

9. Ms. Wiginton filed timely charges of sex discrimination with the EEOC, on her own
behalf and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. In September 2002, the EEOC issued a Notice
of Right to Sue to Ms. Wiginton. Plaintiff has complied with all statutory prerequisites to the filing

of this action.



persistent unwelcome and offensive touching and groping; they have had their breasts, buttocks and
genitals grabbed; they have been flashed by their male colleagues and supervisors in various states
of undress; they have had vulgar comments and degrading references about themselves and women
generally directed at them on a daily basis; they have been subjected to discussions among male
colleagues and superiors about women’s sexual performances, their own sexual performances, and
the size, shape and relative merits of women’s body parts; and they have been allowed — or not
allowed — to interface with customers based on an individual woman’s sex quotient.

3. CBRE management, including but not limited to supervisors and members of the
General Counsel’s office, at CBRE offices nationwide, is responsible for not only condoning — but
also perpetuating — a hostile work environment at CBRE. On numerous occasions, members of
Company management have harassed Ms. Wiginton and members of the Class and permitted male
employees to harass plaintiff and members of the Class without reprimand. CBRE management has
observed sexually explicit behavior in its offices and at company events and has consistently failed
to report it or stop it, allowing the offensive and oppressive environment in which the plaintiff and
members of the Class have worked or continue to work to persist. CBRE has been and continues
to be aware of the existence of the hostile work environment, and the other discriminatory acts
committed against female employees on a regular basis.

4. Plaintiff and members of the Class have both requested that the harassing conduct
stop and complained to CBRE’s Human Resources Department but management has either been
unresponsive, waited an unreasonable amount of time before responding or forced plaintiff and
members of the Class to confront their harassers directly, causing intimidation and retaliation,

without any repercussions to the harassers.


(e) whether CBRE has retaliated against any or all of the Class members
for complaining about the sexual harassment and/or discrimination;

(f) whether the members of the Class have sustained damages, and, ifso,
the proper measure of damages; and

(g) | whether CBRE’s discriminatory policies and practices should be
eliminated, and, if so, the proper procedure for doing so.

28.  Theclaims of the individual named plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class and
do not conflict with the interests of any other members of the Class in that all have suffered from the
same wrongful common course of conduct of the Company and its agents.

29. The individual named plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
Class. Plaintiff's attorneys are qualified to pursue this litigation and have extensive experience in
class actions, including employment discrimination actions.

30.  Acclass action is superior to other methods for the fast and efficient adjudication of
this controversy. A class action regarding the issues in this case creates no problems of
manageability.

COUNTI
(DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII)

31. Plaintiff repeats and realleges every allegations above as if fully set forth herein.

32. Defendant has discriminated against plaintiff and the Class by subjecting them to a
hostile, offensive and intimidating work environment based on sex.

33.  Inaddition, defendant has discriminated against plaintiff and the Class by permitting

job related benefits to be granted to those women who submitted to its agents’ requests for sexual

-13-



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff and the Class respectfully request that this Court grant the following
relief:

A. Certify this case as a class action, the named plaintiff herein as an adequate Class
representative and plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Class;

B. Enter a judgment that the acts and practices of defendant complained of herein are
in violation of the laws of the United States and the State of Illinois;

Cc. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining CBRE, its agents and employees from (i)
continuing to discriminate against plaintiff and Class members because of their sex; (ii) engaging
in the sexual harassment of female employees; (iii) creating, facilitating or permitting the existence
of a work environment that is hostile to female employees; (iv) retaliating against employees who
complain, in whatever manner, about sex discrimination, including sexual harassment; and (v)
otherwise depriving plaintiff and the Class of their rights and privileges secured by federal law;

Dz. Order CBRE to ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken to avoid the
occurrence of further incidents of sexual harassment or sex discrimination against its female
employees;

E. Order CBRE to adopt and enforce a policy for the prevention of sexual harassment
and any other forms of discrimination based on sex, which shall include (i) the presence of
independent personnel to whom complaints of sexual harassment, or other forms of sex
discrimination may be directed; (ii) provisions for the confidentiality of any such complaints; and
(iii) provisions requiring the complete and impartial investigation of any such complaint filed;

F. Order CBRE to impose substantial discipline, such as suspension without pay,

-16-