1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS – EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT M. PODLASEK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 

vs. )

)

THE OFFICE OF THE STATE’S )

ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY, ) 

an Agency of the State of Illinois, and )

THE COUNTY OF COOK. )

) JURY DEMANDED

Defendants. )

________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, ROBERT M. PODLASEK, by and through his attorneys, HOLMAN & 

STEFANOWICZ, LLC, complains of the Defendants, THE OFFICE OF THE STATE’S 

ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY, an Agency of the State of Illinois, and THE COUNTY OF 

COOK., as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action seeks redress for the improper termination of the Plaintiff’s

employment and wrongful discrimination in employment by the Defendant, THE OFFICE OF 

THE STATE’S ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY, in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights of equal 

protection in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. § 

12101 et seq.; and in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”) 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et 

seq.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction of the Federal claims herein pursuant to the provisions 

of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the supplemental Illinois 

claims, jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. On or about February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Illinois Department of 

Human Rights (“IDHR”).

4. On or about January 24, 2020, the EEOC issued the Plaintiff a Notice of Right-toSue on his EEOC Charge. (A copy of the Plaintiff’s Notice is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.”) 

The Plaintiff’s cause of action was filed within 90 days of the receipt of his Notice of Right-toSue. 

5. Venue herein is proper under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b). The unlawful practices 

complained of in this Complaint occurred within this District, the employment records relevant 

to this matter are maintained and administered within this District, the Plaintiff is a resident of 

this District, and the Defendant’s principle place of business is within this District.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, ROBERT M. PODLASEK (“PODLASEK”) is a resident of the Village 

of Barrington, in the County of Cook, in the State of Illinois. PODLASEK was employed as an 

Assistant State’s Attorney with the Defendant, THE OFFICE OF THE STATE’S ATTORNEY 

OF COOK COUNTY, and had been so employed since on or about June 3, 2003.1 On or about 

1 PODLASEK had worked at the STATE’S ATTORNEY prior to his final stint.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:2
3

May 8, 2018, PODLASEK’s employment as an Assistant State’s Attorney was improperly 

terminated. 

7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, THE OFFICE OF THE STATE’S 

ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY (hereinafter “STATE’S ATTORNEY”) was and is a Cook 

County funded agency of the State of Illinois under the elected leadership of Kimberly M. Foxx, 

as the State’s Attorney of Cook County.

8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, THE COUNTY OF COOK (hereinafter 

“COOK COUNTY”), was and is an Illinois municipal corporation, body politic, and unit of local 

government, which provides and controls the funding of Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY. As 

a result of the funding provided by COOK COUNTY to Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, 

COOK COUNTY is a necessary party to this cause of action.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

9. The last position held by PODLASEK was as an Assistant State’s Attorney 

assigned to the Special Prosecution Bureau, more specifically, PODLASEK was a First Chair

Assistant State’s Attorney in the Public Corruption and Financial Crime Unit.

10. During PODLASEK’s employment with Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, his 

performance far exceeded his employer’s legitimate expectations; and he had never been warned 

that his performance was substandard and/or put him at risk of termination.

11. During PODLASEK’s employment with Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, he 

did not engage in any willful act of misconduct which would merit termination from his 

employment as an Assistant State’s Attorney with Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:3
4

12. For approximately one year prior to his termination, PODLASEK noticed certain 

medical changes occurring, which included, without limitation: speech changes including 

speaking slower, softer, and slurring; slowed movement, including making simple tasks difficult 

and time-consuming, impaired posture and balance, and left arm stiffness and loss of movement.

13. In or about March 2018, PODLASEK began seeing a medical specialist in 

connection with the medical changes that he was experiencing.

14. In or about March 2018, PODLASEK’s direct supervisor, Deidre Dyer, Deputy 

Supervisor of the Special Prosecution Bureau, had a conversation with PODLASEK in which she 

stated, “Dave [Williams, Supervisor of the Special Prosecution Bureau] asked me ‘do you think 

Bob [Podlasek] is drinking on the job.’” 

15. PODLASEK advised Deidre Dyer that he was not drinking on the job, and that he 

was currently seeing a specialist and is going through neurological testing to determine if he has 

Parkinson’s disease. PODLASEK advised Deidre Dyer that many of the symptoms of Parkinson 

disease, including, without limitation, speech changes, slowed movement, and impaired posture 

and balance, mimic alcohol use and abuse. PODLASEK told Deidre Dyer that he wanted to 

meet with Dave Williams in order to explain to him that he was not drinking on the job, and that 

the alleged conduct of PODLASEK was in fact symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.

16. Parkinson’s disease is a progressive nervous system disorder that affects 

movement and some cognitive abilities. In Parkinson’s disease, certain nerve cells (neurons) in 

the brain gradually break down or die. Many of the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are due to 

a loss of neurons that produce a chemical messenger in your brain called dopamine. When 

dopamine levels decrease, it causes abnormal brain activity, leading to the symptoms of 

Parkinson’s disease.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:4
5

17. Shortly after his discussion with Deidre Dyer, PODLASEK met with David 

Williams, Supervisor of the Special Prosecution Bureau, and Deidre Dyer, Deputy Supervisor of 

the Special Prosecution Bureau, and advised them that he was going to need to take some days

off in connection with additional neurological testing and treatment for his Parkinson’s disease. 

David Williams responded, in essence “Thank God, I thought something else was going on with 

you and you were drinking on the job, please take as much time as you need.” PODLASEK

again emphasized that many of the symptoms of Parkinson disease that he was experiencing, 

including, without limitation, speech changes, slowed movement, and impaired posture and 

balance, mimic alcohol use and abuse. PODLASEK’s request to take any necessary days was 

approved.

18. Early evening on Friday, May 4, 2018, PODLASEK was allegedly involved in a 

minor auto accident within a block of his home. Unaware of the alleged accident, PODLASEK

was approached by the police near the driveway of his home. While PODLASEK was being 

questioned by the police, PODLASEK exhibited multiple symptoms consistent with Parkinson’s 

disease: difficulties standing on his own, impaired posture and balance, confusion about the 

alleged accident, and slow and slurred speech. 

19. On May 4, 2018, as a result of the symptoms that PODLASEK was exhibiting, 

the Barrington Police arrested PODLASEK and charged him with driving under the influence of 

alcohol.

20. On the morning of Saturday, May 5, 2018, PODLASEK and his wife contacted by 

telephone his direct supervisor, Deidre Dyer, Deputy Supervisor of the Special Prosecution 

Bureau, and advised her of his arrest, and advised her that it was his belief that the symptoms 

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:5
6

that he was exhibiting in the presence of the police were as a result of his Parkinson’s disease 

and not alcohol intoxication.

21. On May 5, 2018, Kathy Wallace, the Director of Human Resources for 

Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, contacted PODLASEK by telephone and told him that “as a 

result of your arrest you are suspended without pay,” and told PODLASEK not to come into the 

office.

22. On May 6, 2018, PODLASEK contacted his physician concerned about the events 

and symptoms he experienced on the early evening of May 4, 2018. PODLASEK’s physician 

wanted to see him first thing the next day.

23. On May 7, 2018, PODLASEK visited his physician and described the events that 

had occurred on May 4, 2018. PODLASEK’s physician opined that PODLASEK had a 

neurological event as a result of his Parkinson’s disease, and referred PODLASEK for immediate 

additional neurological testing.

24. On May 7, 2018, as a result of his physician’s opinions and orders, PODLASEK

made a request on the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s on-line system for time-off due to 

his medical conditions. PODLASEK’s request was not approved.

25. On May 7, 2018, PODLASEK and his wife called the Defendant, STATE’S 

ATTORNEY’s Human Resource Department regarding ordinary disability benefits for 

PODLASEK due to his medical conditions. 

26. On May 8, 2018, Kathy Wallace, the Director of Human Resources for 

Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, contacted PODLASEK and advised him that “you are 

terminated, effective immediately.”

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:6
7

COUNT I

(DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA)

27. PODLASEK restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 above as 

though fully set forth herein.

28. The actions of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, as perpetrated by its 

agents and as described and complained of hereinabove, are unlawful employment practices in 

that they likely have the effect and did have the effect of discriminating against, depriving and 

tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise adversely affecting PODLASEK because 

of his disability and/or his perceived disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

29. Under the ADA, as a result of PODLASEK’s health condition -- Parkinson’s 

disease -- PODLASEK is considered to have a disability, because he has a physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities; or PODLASEK is 

regarding as having such an impairment by the Defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) and (C).

30. At the time of his termination, PODLASEK was a qualified individual with a 

disability, in that with or without a reasonable accommodation PODLASEK was able to perform 

the essential functions of the position he held as an Assistant State’s Attorney. 42 U.S.C. § 

12111(8).

31. At the time of his termination, PODLASEK was qualified for the position of 

Assistant State’s Attorney and was meeting the legitimate performance expectations of his 

employer.

32. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, discriminated against PODLASEK by 

suspending and terminating his employment because of his disability -- Parkinson’s disease -- or 

as a result of his perceived disability -- Parkinson’s disease. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:7
8

33. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, 

wrongful conduct and improper suspension and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, 

PODLASEK suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and 

suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, damage to his reputation, and other 

consequential and special damages.

34. Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, wrongful conduct and improper suspension 

and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or done 

with a reckless disregard to PODLASEK’s right to be free from discrimination and retaliation. 

WHEREFORE, PODLASEK, respectfully requests:

a. All wages and benefits PODLASEK would have received but for the 

discrimination, including pre-judgment interest and reinstatement to the 

position of Assistant State’s Attorney;

b. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined to compensate 

PODLASEK for depression, humiliation, anguish, emotional distress, and 

defamation, caused by the Defendant’s conduct;

c. The Defendant be required to pay prejudgment interest to PODLASEK on 

these damages;

d. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the 

discriminatory and wrongful practices complained of herein;

e. A permanent injunction requiring that the Defendant adopt employment 

practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements of 

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.;

f. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured 

that the Defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of 

herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law; and

g. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:8
9

COUNT II

(FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE A KNOWN DISABILITY 

IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA)

35. PODLASEK restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 above as 

though fully set forth herein.

36. The actions of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, as perpetrated by its 

agents and as described and complained of hereinabove, are unlawful employment practices in 

that the Defendant deprived PODLASEK of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., by failing to make reasonable accommodations to the known 

physical or mental limitations of PODLASEK, an otherwise qualified individual.

37. Under the ADA, as a result of PODLASEK’s health condition -- Parkinson’s 

disease -- PODLASEK is considered to have a disability, because he has a physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities; or PODLASEK is 

regarding as having such an impairment by the Defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) and (C).

38. Prior to his termination, PODLASEK was a qualified individual with a disability, 

in that with or without a reasonable accommodation PODLASEK was able to perform the 

essential functions of the position he held as an Assistant State’s Attorney. 42 U.S.C. § 

12111(8).

39. Prior to his termination, PODLASEK was qualified for the position of Assistant 

State’s Attorney and was meeting the legitimate performance expectations of his employer.

40. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, failed and refused to engage in an 

interactive process with PODLASEK once the Defendant was advised by PODLASEK that he 

had a need for a reasonable accommodation as a result of his physical or mental limitations --

Parkinson’s disease. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:9
10

41. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, failed and refused to make a reasonable 

accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of PODLASEK -- Parkinson’s 

disease -- who was an otherwise qualified individual with a disability or perceived disability. 42 

U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). 

42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, 

wrongful conduct of not engaging in an interactive process with PODLASEK and refusing to 

make a reasonable accommodation for PODLASEK, which ultimately lead to the improper

suspension and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, PODLASEK suffered mental 

anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages 

and benefits, damage to his reputation, and other consequential and special damages.

43. Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, wrongful conduct of not engaging in an 

interactive process with PODLASEK and refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for 

PODLASEK, which ultimately lead to the improper suspension and termination of 

PODLASEK’s employment, was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or done with a reckless 

disregard to PODLASEK’s right to be free from discrimination and retaliation. 

WHEREFORE, PODLASEK, respectfully requests:

a. All wages and benefits PODLASEK would have received but for the 

discrimination, including pre-judgment interest and reinstatement to the 

position of Assistant State’s Attorney;

b. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined to compensate 

PODLASEK for depression, humiliation, anguish, emotional distress, and 

defamation, caused by the Defendant’s conduct;

c. The Defendant be required to pay prejudgment interest to PODLASEK on 

these damages;

d. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the 

discriminatory and wrongful practices complained of herein;

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:10
11

e. A permanent injunction requiring that the Defendant adopt employment 

practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements of 

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.;

f. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured 

that the Defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of 

herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law; and

g. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

COUNT III

(RETALIATION AND INTERFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA)

44. PODLASEK restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 above as 

though fully set forth herein.

45. The actions of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, as perpetrated by its 

agents and as described and complained of hereinabove, are unlawful employment practices in 

that the Defendant deprived PODLASEK of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., by retaliating and interfering with PODLASEK for 

exercising his rights under the ADA in making requests for reasonable accommodations to the 

known physical or mental limitations of PODLASEK, an otherwise qualified individual.

46. Under the ADA, as a result of PODLASEK’s health condition -- Parkinson’s 

disease -- PODLASEK is considered to have a disability, because he has a physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities; or PODLASEK is 

regarding as having such an impairment by the Defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) and (C).

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:11
12

47. Prior to his termination, PODLASEK was a qualified individual with a disability, 

in that with or without a reasonable accommodation PODLASEK was able to perform the 

essential functions of the position he held as an Assistant State’s Attorney. 42 U.S.C. § 

12111(8).

48. Prior to his termination, PODLASEK was qualified for the position of Assistant 

State’s Attorney and was meeting the legitimate performance expectations of his employer.

49. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, failed and refused to engage in an 

interactive process with PODLASEK once the Defendant was advised by PODLASEK that he 

had a need for a reasonable accommodation as a result of his physical or mental limitations --

Parkinson’s disease. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

50. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, failed and refused to make a reasonable 

accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of PODLASEK -- Parkinson’s 

disease -- who was an otherwise qualified individual with a disability or perceived disability. 42 

U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). 

51. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, retaliated and/or interfered with 

PODLASEK because he exercised his rights under the ADA by requesting a reasonable 

accommodation for his disability -- Parkinson’s disease. 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) and (b).

52. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, 

wrongful conduct of retaliation and/or interference with PODLASEK because he exercised his 

rights under the ADA by requesting a reasonable accommodation for his disability, which 

ultimately lead to the improper suspension and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, 

PODLASEK suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:12
13

suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, damage to his reputation, and other 

consequential and special damages.

53. Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, wrongful conduct of retaliation and/or 

interference with PODLASEK because he exercised his rights under the ADA by requesting a 

reasonable accommodation for his disability, which ultimately lead to the improper suspension 

and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or done 

with a reckless disregard to PODLASEK’s right to be free from discrimination and retaliation. 

WHEREFORE, PODLASEK, respectfully requests:

a. All wages and benefits PODLASEK would have received but for the 

discrimination, including pre-judgment interest and reinstatement to the 

position of Assistant State’s Attorney;

b. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined to compensate 

PODLASEK for depression, humiliation, anguish, emotional distress, and 

defamation, caused by the Defendant’s conduct;

c. The Defendant be required to pay prejudgment interest to PODLASEK on 

these damages;

d. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the 

discriminatory and wrongful practices complained of herein;

e. A permanent injunction requiring that the Defendant adopt employment 

practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements of 

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.;

f. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured 

that the Defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of 

herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law; and

g. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:13
14

COUNT IV

(DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE IHRA)

54. PODLASEK restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 above as 

though fully set forth herein.

55. The actions of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, as perpetrated by its 

agents and as described and complained of hereinabove, are unlawful employment practices in 

that they likely have the effect and did have the effect of discriminating against, depriving and 

tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise adversely affecting PODLASEK because 

of his disability and/or his perceived disability, in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 

775 ILCS 5/2-102.

56. The Illinois Human Rights Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against any

individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of a disability. 775 

ILCS 5/1-103(Q); 775 ILCS 5/2-102.

57. By its conduct described herein, Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, subjected 

PODLASEK to disability discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 

5/2-102. 

58. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, failed and refused to engage in an 

interactive process with PODLASEK once the Defendant was advised by PODLASEK that he 

had a need for a reasonable accommodation as a result of his physical or mental limitations --

Parkinson’s disease. 775 ILCS 5/2-102. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:14
15

59. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, failed and refused to make a reasonable 

accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of PODLASEK -- Parkinson’s 

disease -- who was an otherwise qualified individual with a disability or perceived disability. 

775 ILCS 5/2-102. 

60. The Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, discriminated against PODLASEK by 

suspending and terminating his employment because of his disability -- Parkinson’s disease -- or 

as a result of his perceived disability -- Parkinson’s disease. 775 ILCS 5/2-102. 

61. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, 

wrongful conduct and improper suspension and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, 

PODLASEK suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and 

suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, damage to his reputation, and other 

consequential and special damages.

62. Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, wrongful conduct and improper suspension 

and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or done 

with a reckless disregard to PODLASEK’s right to be free from discrimination and retaliation. 

WHEREFORE, PODLASEK, respectfully requests:

a. All wages and benefits PODLASEK would have received but for the 

discrimination, including pre-judgment interest and reinstatement to the 

position of Assistant State’s Attorney;

b. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined to compensate the 

Complainant for depression, humiliation, anguish, emotional distress, and 

defamation, caused by the Defendant’s conduct;

c. The Defendant be required to pay prejudgment interest to PODLASEK on 

these damages;

d. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the 

discriminatory and wrongful practices complained of herein;

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:15
16

e. A permanent injunction requiring that the Defendant adopt employment 

practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements of 

the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.;

f. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured 

that the Defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of 

herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law; and

g. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

COUNT V

(IMPROPER USE OF THE FACT OF AN ARREST IN VIOLATION OF THE IHRA)

63. PODLASEK restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 above as 

though fully set forth herein.

64. The actions of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, as perpetrated by its 

agents and as described and complained of hereinabove, are a civil rights violation as a result of 

the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, improper use of the fact of PODLASEK’s arrest as the 

basis for the suspension and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, in violation of the 

Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-103.

65. The Illinois Human Rights Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against any 

individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of the fact of an 

arrest. 775 ILCS 5/2-103.

66. By its conduct described herein, Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, suspended 

and terminated PODLASEK’s employment based upon the fact of his arrest in violation of the 

Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-103.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:16
17

67. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, 

wrongful conduct and improper suspension and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, 

PODLASEK suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and 

suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, damage to his reputation, and other 

consequential and special damages.

68. Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, wrongful conduct and improper suspension 

and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or done 

with a reckless disregard to PODLASEK’s right to be free from discrimination.

WHEREFORE, PODLASEK respectfully requests:

a. All wages and benefits PODLASEK would have received but for the 

discrimination, including pre-judgment interest and reinstatement to the 

position of Assistant State’s Attorney;

b. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined to compensate 

PODLASEK for depression, humiliation, anguish, emotional distress, and 

defamation, caused by the Defendant’s conduct;

c. The Defendant be required to pay prejudgment interest to PODLASEK on 

these damages;

d. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the 

discriminatory and wrongful practices complained of herein;

e. A permanent injunction requiring that the Respondent adopt employment 

practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements of 

the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/2-103.

f. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured 

that the Defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of 

herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law; and

g. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:17
18

COUNT VI

(RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE IHRA)

69. PODLASEK restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 above as 

though fully set forth herein.

70. The actions of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, as perpetrated by its 

agents and as described and complained of hereinabove, are a civil rights violation as a result of 

the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, improper retaliation as a result of PODLASEK’s 

request for a reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of the 

PODLASEK -- Parkinson’s disease -- in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 

5/6-101(A).

71. The IHRA makes it unlawful to retaliate against any individual in the terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment because the individual requested, attempted to request, 

used, or attempted to use a reasonable accommodation as allowed by the IHRA. 775 ILCS 5/6-

101(A).

72. By its conduct described herein, Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY, retaliated 

against PODLASEK because he exercised his rights under the IHRA by requesting a reasonable 

accommodation for his disability, which ultimately lead to the improper suspension and

termination of PODLASEK’s employment, in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 

ILCS 5/6-101(A).

73. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, 

wrongful conduct of retaliation and/or interference with PODLASEK because he exercised his 

rights under the IHRA by requesting a reasonable accommodation for his disability, which 

ultimately lead to the improper suspension and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:18
19

PODLASEK suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and 

suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, damage to his reputation, and other 

consequential and special damages.

74. Defendant, STATE’S ATTORNEY’s, wrongful conduct of retaliation and/or 

interference with PODLASEK because he exercised his rights under the IHRA by requesting a 

reasonable accommodation for his disability, which ultimately lead to the improper suspension 

and termination of PODLASEK’s employment, was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or done 

with a reckless disregard to PODLASEK’s right to be free from discrimination and retaliation. 

WHEREFORE, PODLASEK, respectfully requests:

a. All wages and benefits PODLASEK would have received but for the 

discrimination, including pre-judgment interest and reinstatement to the 

position of Assistant State’s Attorney;

b. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined to compensate 

PODLASEK depression, humiliation, anguish, emotional distress, and 

defamation, caused by the Defendant’s conduct;

c. The Defendant be required to pay prejudgment interest to PODLASEK on 

these damages;

d. A permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the 

discriminatory and wrongful practices complained of herein;

e. A permanent injunction requiring that the Defendant adopt employment 

practices and policies in accord and conformity with the requirements of 

the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.;

f. The Court retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as it is assured 

that the Defendant has remedied the policies and practices complained of 

herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law; and

g. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:19
20

THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.

Respectfully submitted,

PLAINTIFF,

s/ Brian R. Holman

________________________

By: One of his Attorneys

Brian R. Holman

Dennis H. Stefanowicz, Jr.

HOLMAN & STEFANOWICZ, LLC

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 9305

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 258-9700

BRH@HS-ATTORNEYS.COM

DHS@HS-ATTORNEYS.COM

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:20
21

Case: 1:20-cv-02357 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:21