IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JUANITA BALDERAS, )

) 

Plaintiff, )

) Case No.

v. )

)

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPANY, ERICK CHASKO, )

and MARCOS SALAMANCA, )

) 

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

The plaintiff, Juanita Balderas, by her attorneys, files the following Complaint against 

defendants Illinois Central Railroad Company, Erick Chasko, and Marcos Salamanca pursuant to 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 

ILCS 5/101, et seq., and the Illinois Gender Violence Act, 740 ILCS 82, et seq.

THE PARTIES

1. Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company (“IC”), is an Illinois corporation 

with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. It is an indirect subsidiary of Canadian National 

Railway Company (“CN”). IC is a rail carrier that operates in numerous states, including Illinois.

2. Defendant Erick Chasko is a managerial employee of IC.

3. Defendant Marcos Salamanca is a nonmanagerial employee of IC.

4. The plaintiff, Juanita Balderas, is employed by IC. She is a resident of Chicago

Heights, Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a).

7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

8. The Northern District of Illinois has personal jurisdiction over the defendants

because they reside in and/or do business in this District.

9. Ms. Balderas has satisfied the administrative requirements for filing her Title VII 

claims. She timely filed an EEOC charge (No. 440-2019-01899) on December 28, 2018, then 

timely filed an amended charge on August 7, 2019. She received a Notice of Right to Sue from 

the EEOC dated December 20, 2019 (Exhibit A).

10. This Complaint is timely filed within 90 days of the plaintiff’s receipt of the 

Notice of Right to Sue.

11. On January 16, 2020, Ms. Balderas served a written request on the Illinois 

Department of Human Rights within 30 days of the EEOC’s Notice asking the Department to 

adopt the EEOC’s findings on the cross-filed charge and issue a Notice of Dismissal. She is 

currently awaiting that Notice.

FACTUAL BASIS OF CLAIMS

12. Ms. Balderas is a Hispanic female who is 41 years old. She has been employed by 

IC since December 2017.

13. Ms. Balderas was the only female in her training class of approximately 24 

individuals.

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2
3

14. Ms. Balderas performed her duties satisfactorily throughout her employment.

15. Ms. Balderas began working for IC as a Laborer in the Woodcrest, Illinois yard 

on December 17, 2017. She was trained as a Hostler and became licensed as a Locomotive 

Engineer one month later. In approximately February 2018, she was moved to IC’s Kirk yard in 

Gary, Indiana.

16. In May 2018, Ms. Balderas was promoted to the position of Leadman. She was 

the only female Leadman in her yard. 

17. As a five-day Leadman, she earned more per hour than in her prior position, had 

Fridays and Saturdays off, and earned 10 hours of overtime per week.

18. Ms. Balderas’ direct supervisor was Erick Chasko. Shortly after she began the 

Leadman position, Mr. Chasko began treating her differently than her male counterparts. For 

example, he refused to train or work directly with her, as he did with another male trainee. He 

would not answer her calls or emails when she needed help, instead focusing only on training the 

male employee. When she called him, Mr. Chasko would respond directly to her subordinates, 

cutting her out of the process.

19. Ms. Balderas was also harassed and belittled by both Mr. Chasko and others. For 

example, another male employee cursed at her, called her names like “dummy” or “stupid,” and 

told her she did not know how to do the job. 

20. Others in the yard stated that this job was not for a woman and called Ms. 

Balderas derogatory names.

21. On a daily basis, Ms. Balderas worked in locomotives covered in drawings of 

male and female genitalia, breasts, curse words, and sexual comments. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3
4

22. She was informed that her name and phone number were written on the men’s 

locker room wall. 

23. Several male coworkers kept sexist and lewd graffiti, pictures, and calendars in 

the offices. They also urinated with the door to the bathroom open on several occasion.

24. Ms. Balderas’ supervisor and male coworkers actively sabotaged her work by

actions such as causing trains under her supervision to be delayed, not answering the radio when 

she called, not following her directives, and working extra slowly when she was in charge.

25. Ms. Balderas was harassed by several others on a near-daily basis. In one 

example, she was locked out of her locomotive by all three of the male workers in the yard, after 

which a male co-worker came toward her cursing and shouting. She reported this incident to her

supervisor and other management. 

26. Ms. Balderas’ male coworkers could be heard by anyone in the vicinity, including 

management, making negative comments to and about Ms. Balderas on the radio. 

27. On another occasion, Ms. Balderas received a pornographic picture on her cell 

phone from an anonymous phone number in Hobart, Indiana. On information and belief, the 

picture was sent from someone who worked for IC.

28. Ms. Balderas sent the picture to Angela Lee, IC’s Human Resources Associate. 

She also complained to managers Janet Washington, Manny Salazar, and Aaron France about 

this and other harassment. None of her complaints resulted in any improvement.

29. After several weeks of harassment, Ms. Balderas could not tolerate the situation 

any longer. She bid out to another position of 2-day Leadman on the 2nd shift. In this position, 

she lost 10 hours of overtime per week and took on a much-less-desirable schedule in order to 

avoid the harassment. Her supervisor on that shift was Todd Hunt.

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4
5

30. However, the situation did not improve. On October 12, 2018, Ms. Balderas was 

accosted by an electrician named Marcos Salamanca after she assigned him a task. He came into 

the office and began yelling that she did not know what she was doing, calling her a “lazy 

motherfucker,” a “piece of shit,” a “stupid bitch,” and a “woman who didn’t know her job.” He 

said “you ain’t shit” and asked, “why do they have a woman working here?”

31. Several people witnessed this assault. 

32. Ms. Balderas immediately called her supervisor, Todd Hunt, who came and took a 

report.

33. The next day, on October 13, 2018, the harassment began again. As Ms. Balderas

came into work, she heard other workers, including Salamanca, on the radio cursing her, calling 

her a “lazy fuck,” and stating, “she doesn’t know what she is doing.” Salamanca said he was 

“tired of that lazy motherfucker with a magnet on her ass - she never gets out of that chair.”

34. These and other radio transmissions are recorded by IC and, on information and 

belief, such recordings are kept in the regular course of business.

35. Salamanca then came into the office and began to argue with Ms. Balderas. He 

said, “fuck you, you dumb bitch” – “you piece of shit – you ain’t a woman.” He approached her 

aggressively several times, pointed his finger at her, and yelled at her.

36. Alarmed at the situation, Ms. Balderas went to sit at the table. At one point, she 

turned around and looked back to see Salamanca was charging toward her. Ms. Balderas was in 

fear that he would physically attack her. At least three other workers saw this and got up from 

the table to stop him from attacking her. They removed him from the office and Ms. Balderas

called Todd Hunt, her supervisor, to report the assault. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5
6

37. Ms. Balderas also reported the assault to Janet Washington by leaving her a 

voicemail in which she stated she could not take the harassment anymore. 

38. Ms. Balderas was asked to write a statement and get back to work. A few hours 

later, she was told to go home and not return to work until she heard from manager Manny 

Salazar.

39. The following day, October 14, 2018, Ms. Balderas got a call from her union 

representative stating she was out of service until further notice. She was off work for three

weeks, losing many hours of overtime.

40. On October 17, 2018, Ms. Balderas was asked to come to the Homewood, Illinois

office to meet with Manny Salazar. She told him everything that had happened. She was advised 

that all Leadman jobs had been abolished on October 14, 2018 and that all of the other male 

Leadmen were now working as Relief Foreman. Mr. Salazar offered her a position as a Relief 

Foreman and she accepted.

41. The day Ms. Balderas was scheduled to begin as a Relief Foreman, her union 

representative called and said she was still out of service because she was still “under 

investigation.” She continued to wait and lose overtime hours. 

42. On October 29, 2018, Ms. Balderas was told by her union representative to attend 

a meeting with Manny Salazar and Duane Spears, IC’s Human Resources Manager. At the 

meeting, she was told there was no evidence that what she reported was true, and that no 

employees or supervisors were willing to talk about the incidents that occurred, but that the 

investigation would continue. 

43. Ms. Balderas was also told that the Relief Foreman position was no longer offered 

to her, because there were now “no positions available.” She was directed to bid for a Hostler 

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6
7

position. On November 2, 2018, she was instructed to return to work at the Woodcrest yard in 

Homewood, Illinois as a Hostler on the 11 pm to 7 am shift.

44. This was a demotion for Ms. Balderas in status, compensation, and the hours she

was assigned to work. She earned a lower hourly rate and lost 10 overtime hours per week. She

also lost the choice of days off that she used to visit her grandchildren as part of a court-ordered 

custody arrangement. 

45. Of the other four male Leadmen who became Relief Foreman, they are all still 

working as Relief Foreman. Additionally, another male employee received a position as Relief 

Foreman after Ms. Balderas was told the position was abolished.

46. Marcos Salamanca, the individual who assaulted Ms. Balderas, is now back in the

Kirk yard, the same yard where both he and Ms. Balderas worked together. On information and 

belief, he has not been disciplined. 

47. Ms. Balderas was not allowed to return to the Kirk yard and was sent to a 

different yard. Two weeks after she began there, Erick Chasko was brought in as the supervisor.

Ms. Balderas was now reporting again to Mr. Chasko, the same supervisor at the Homewood 

yard who harassed her and treated her differently than her male colleagues at the beginning of 

her tenure at IC. 

48. Ms. Balderas applied to several different positions that she was qualified for in an 

attempt to get away from her harassers. She was denied each position. 

49. On December 13, 2018, Ms. Balderas received a letter from Angela Lee stating 

that IC had completed its investigation into her complaint against Marcos Salamanca and her

complaints about her treatment as a Leadman. The letter concluded, without providing any 

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7
8

information about the underlying investigation, that “we were unable to conclude that any 

violation of our Prohibited Harassment, Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Policy occurred.”

50. Ms. Balderas filed an EEOC charge alleging discrimination based on sex and race 

and retaliation on December 28, 2018. After she filed her initial EEOC charge, she continued to 

be discriminated against and experienced additional retaliation.

51. In December 2018, Ms. Balderas seriously injured her back while on the job and 

was unable to return to work. She was placed on unpaid medical leave by IC.

52. On January 21, 2019, her doctor released her for light duty. 

53. Ms. Balderas sent the release to Heather Lifonti, the Risk Officer for IC, and 

asked IC to return her to work at a light duty position. IC refused to make any accommodations 

for Ms. Balderas and refused to return her to work or to retrain her for a position compliant with 

her restrictions. 

54. IC has returned other individuals (who were not in protected groups and/or who 

had not engaged in protected activity) to work light duty positions, including informally 

arranging for them to work at light duty tasks, after an injury.

55. At the present time, Ms. Balderas is still out of work without pay and has been for 

some fifteen months. She was forced to borrow from her retirement benefits for a period of six 

months, but that source of funds has now been terminated. 

56. Ms. Balderas was cleared a second time for light desk duty on December 31, 

2019. She informed IC, which again refused to accommodate her.

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8
9

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Sex harassment, discrimination, and imposition 

of a hostile work environment in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

Against Defendant IC

57. Ms. Balderas realleges each of the paragraphs set forth above.

58. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. 

(“Title VII”), prohibits employers from denying employees equal employment opportunities with 

respect to terms, conditions, benefits or privileges of employment based on their sex or gender, 

whether intentionally or unintentionally.

59. Title VII also prohibits harassment of a person because of that person’s sex that is 

severe or frequent enough to create a hostile work environment.

60. The defendant IC is an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII, and Ms. 

Balderas is an “employee” within the meaning of Title VII.

61. As alleged above, IC denied Ms. Balderas the equal terms, conditions, benefits or 

privileges of employment because of her sex or gender. 

62. As alleged above, IC caused and allowed Ms. Balderas to be sexually harassed 

and allowed a hostile work environment to be created and perpetuated. 

63. Ms. Balderas’ sex or gender were motivating factors in the defendant’s conduct 

towards her. 

64. The defendant’s actions were willful, intentional and/or done maliciously or with 

callous disregard or reckless indifference to Ms. Balderas’ federally protected rights. Exemplary 

damages are warranted to prevent similar unlawful conduct.

65. Ms. Balderas was damaged by the defendant’s conduct.

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9
10

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Discrimination in violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.

Against Defendant IC

66. The plaintiff realleges each of the paragraphs set forth above.

67. Section 12112(a) of the ADA provides that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate 

against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, 

the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and 

other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).

68. The ADA provides that a person who is not actually disabled may be classified as 

disabled under the statute if the person is “regarded as” disabled by her employer. 42 U.S.C.S. § 

12102(2)(c).

69. Ms. Balderas was a qualified person with a disability or else was regarded as 

disabled by IC.

70. The defendant IC violated § 12112(a) of the ADA by discriminating against Ms. 

Balderas, refusing to return her to work on account of her disability or perceived disability, and 

refusing to accommodate her.

71. Ms. Balderas was damaged by IC’s conduct.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Retaliation in violation of the 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. 

Against Defendant IC

72. Ms. Balderas realleges each of the paragraphs set forth above.

73. Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against anyone who engages in 

protected activity, including by opposing conduct reasonably believed to be unlawful under Title 

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:10
11

VII or by participating in an employer’s internal investigation into allegations of conduct 

reasonably believed to be unlawful under Title VII.

74. As described above, Ms. Balderas engaged in protected activity by opposing and 

reporting conduct by defendant IC that she reasonably believed was unlawful under Title VII.

75. As described above, the defendant retaliated against Ms. Balderas for engaging in 

protected activity. 

76. The defendant’s actions were willful, intentional and/or done maliciously or with 

callous disregard or reckless indifference to Ms. Balderas’ federally protected rights. Exemplary 

damages are warranted to prevent similar unlawful conduct by the defendant.

77. Ms. Balderas was damaged by the defendant’s conduct. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Sex harassment, discrimination, and imposition of a hostile work environment

in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/101, et seq.

Against Defendants IC, Chasko, and Salamanca

78. Ms. Balderas realleges each of the paragraphs set forth above.

79. Under the Illinois Human Rights Act, “unlawful discrimination means 

discrimination against a person because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin, 

ancestry, age, sex, marital status, order of protection status, disability, military status, sexual 

orientation, pregnancy, or unfavorable discharge from military service ....” 775 ILCS 5/1-

103(Q).

80. Under the IHRA, “sexual harassment” means “any unwelcome sexual advances or 

requests for sexual favors or any conduct of a sexual nature when ... such conduct has the 

purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating 

an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.” 775 ILCS 5/2-101(E). The definition 

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11
12

of “harassment” also includes “any unwelcome conduct on the basis of an individual’s ... sex.” 

Id. at E-1.

81. The IHRA makes it unlawful “for any employer to refuse to hire, to segregate, to 

engage in harassment ... or to act with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of 

employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure or terms, 

privileges or conditions of employment on the basis of unlawful discrimination or citizenship 

status.” 775 ILCS 5/2-102(A).

82. As alleged above, the defendants violated the IHRA by discriminating against the 

plaintiff, engaging in and/or permitting harassment, and creating and/or permitting the creation 

of a hostile, offensive, or intimidating work environment based on sex. 

83. Defendants IC and supervisor Chasko became aware of the conduct but failed to 

take reasonable corrective measures.

84. Defendants’ actions against Ms. Balderas have deprived her of her human rights 

and caused great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, pain and 

suffering, inconvenience, financial crisis, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses and 

other consequential damages.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Illinois Gender Violence Act, 740 ILCS 82, et seq.

Against IC and Salamanca

85. Ms. Balderas realleges each of the paragraphs set forth above.

86. The Illinois Gender Violence Act, 740 ILCS 82, et seq., provides that “gender 

related violence” is a “form of sex discrimination.” 740 ILCS 82/5.

87. “Gender related violence” is defined as “violence or physical aggression 

satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois that are committed, at least in part, on 

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:12
13

the basis of the person’s sex ...” or a “threat of an act described in (1) ... causing a realistic 

apprehension that the originator of the threat will commit the act.” 740 ILCS 82/5.

88. “Battery” occurs, as defined by 720 ILCS 5/12-3, when a person “causes bodily 

harm to an individual or ... makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an 

individual.” 

89. “Assault” occurs, as defined by 720 ILCS 5/12-1, when a person “engages in 

conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.”

90. As described above, Ms. Balderas had a realistic apprehension that defendant 

Salamanca would commit battery.

91. As described above, defendant IC was informed of this conduct but took no steps 

to remedy or stop it.

92. The Act provides that any person who has been subjected to gender-related 

violence as defined in Section 5 of the Act may bring a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, 

and other appropriate relief against the person or persons perpetrating that violence. 740 ILCS 

82/10.

93. The defendants’ actions were willful, intentional and/or done maliciously or with 

callous disregard or reckless indifference to Ms. Balderas’ rights. Exemplary damages are 

warranted to prevent similar unlawful conduct.

94. Ms. Balderas was damaged by the defendants’ conduct.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Juanita Balderas, prays for relief from the defendants as to 

all counts of her Complaint as follows:

A. An order declaring that the defendants violated the laws set forth above;

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:13
14

B. An order enjoining future such violations;

C. Reinstatement to the position that Ms. Balderas would have had but for the illegal 

conduct;

D. Payment of Ms. Balderas’ lost past and future wages and benefits (including any 

and all types of compensation and benefits);

E. Compensatory damages, emotional and mental distress damages, punitive 

damages, statutory damages, liquidated damages, and civil penalties; 

F. Payment of Ms. Balderas’ attorneys’ fees and all costs of litigation (including 

statutory fees and expert witness fees); 

G. Pre-and post-judgment interest; and 

H. All other and relief, whether legal or equitable, that the Court may deem 

appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

The plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues raised in the foregoing Complaint. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jamie S. Franklin

Jamie S. Franklin

Jamie S. Franklin, ARDC No. 6242916

THE FRANKLIN LAW FIRM LLC

53 West Jackson Blvd., Ste. 803 

Chicago, IL 60604 

(312) 662-1008 

(312) 662-1015 (fax) 

jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:14
15

Susan Pavlow

LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN M. PAVLOW

53 West Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1215

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 322-0094

smpavlow@mac.com

Electronically filed on March 18, 2020

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:16





Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:22
Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:23
Case: 1:20-cv-01857 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:24