UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

 

John McDonald,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.B. Pritzker, in his official capacity as 

Governor of Illinois, and Grace B. Hou, 

in her official capacity as Secretary of 

the Illinois Department of Human 

Services,

Defendants.

Case No. __________________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF, AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 

Plaintiff John McDonald, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby 

alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. The State of Illinois has announced that COVID-19 gives it the right to 

shut down services to intellectually and developmentally disabled individuals 

because, in the State’s view, those individuals cannot be trusted to wash their hands 

or wear a face mask. That such rank discrimination still exists, as a matter of official 

policy at the highest level of state government, is both morally repugnant and plainly 

illegal. Because the State’s flagrantly discriminatory policy violates federal antidiscrimination statutes and the Equal Protection Clause, this Court should enjoin the 

State’s actions discriminatorily shutting down the essential services provided by 

Community Day Services (“CDS”) programs, as well as award damages for the harm 

that Defendants have caused.
- 2 -

2. CDS programs, and their predecessor Developmental Training 

programs, have long offered critically important services to the intellectually and 

developmentally disabled citizens of this State. These programs offer disabled 

citizens assistance in gaining and improving self-help, socialization, and adaptive 

skills in a non-residential setting; training on quantitative skills; and enhancing 

productive work activities. 

3. To combat the transmission of COVID-19, Defendant Governor J.B.

Pritzker has declared a state of emergency. Once Illinois began to “flatten the curve” 

on COVID-19 transmissions, Defendant Governor Pritzker began to reopen the State 

and restart the economy, announcing his “Restore Illinois” Plan to return to work in 

phases. Currently in “Phase 3 – Recovery,” non-essential manufacturing and other

non-essential businesses can reopen with social distancing, personal protective

equipment, and adequate sanitation practices. Furthermore, both outdoor recreation 

and non-overnight day camps for children may re-open under “Phase 3,” as long as 

adequate safety measures are in place. And upon entering “Phase 4 – Revitalization,”

which the entire State is on pace to enter on June 26, all manufacturing, nonessential businesses, outdoor recreation, bars and restaurants, health and fitness 

clubs, and movie theaters can open while following approved safety guidance, and 

public gatherings of 50 or fewer people can resume.

4. Unlike all of these entities, Defendants have omitted CDS programs

from the State’s restart efforts despite their obvious similarities to manufacturing 

businesses and non-overnight day camps for children, both of which are presently
- 3 -

allowed to operate. Instead, Defendants have shuttered these CDS programs 

completely since March 17, 2020, and have recently announced the closures will 

extend at least through August 31, 2020. Moreover, while even recreational 

businesses like bars, fitness clubs, and movie theaters will soon be able to operate if 

following approved safety guidance, the essential services CDS programs offer to the 

disabled citizens of this State will remain shuttered by Defendants’ decree. 

5. Defendants have refused to consider whether CDS programs can abide 

by the health and safety protocols developed by State and national experts, which 

would render CDS programs just as safe as the businesses and programs currently 

allowed to operate, instead contending that the intellectually and developmentally 

disabled are simply incapable of sufficiently “following instructions, understanding 

the need for and/or maintaining social distancing, hand washing[,] and the need to 

wear masks in enclosed environments” as a class of persons. John F. Schomberg, 

General Counsel to Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs., Letter to Counsel for Plaintiff (June

19, 2020), Attached as Exhibit A. Thus, DHS has explicitly admitted that its decision 

to deprive Plaintiff of the essential CDS program he requires is based on the “serious 

and pervasive social problem” of disability discrimination, including “overprotective 

rules and policies” and “exclusionary qualification standards and criteria” that 

Congress expressly endeavored to stamp out. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(2), (5). 

6. While the COVID-19 pandemic has led to difficult decisions across the 

country, it does not provide states with cover to violate their citizens’ federal statutory 
- 4 -

and constitutional rights, notwithstanding Defendants’ appalling and openly 

discriminatory beliefs about disabled people. 

7. Defendants’ ongoing closure of all CDS programs for disabled 

individuals violates Plaintiff’s right to be free from discrimination under Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and his rights under the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

8. This action seeks immediate relief from Defendants’ shuttering of CDS 

programs for the disabled, by way of a temporary restraining order or preliminary 

injunction, a permanent injunction, and a declaratory judgment that the challenged 

action is contrary to federal law, unconstitutional, and void. This action further 

seeks compensatory damages for Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional conduct. 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 

9. Plaintiff John McDonald is a 46-year-old man with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. He is deaf and legally blind, but able to communicate 

primarily with sign language. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, he has 

received services from CDS providers, primarily working at the Community 

Workshop and Training Center, Inc. (“CWTC”), in his hometown of Peoria, Illinois. 

10. Defendant Pritzker is and was Governor of Illinois and is and was 

acting under color of state law, in his official capacity, at all times relevant herein. 

He lives and works in Cook County, Illinois. Defendant Pritzker’s principal place of 

business is the Office of the Governor, James R. Thompson Center, Chicago, Illinois. 
- 5 -

His address for service of process is Office of the Governor, 100 W. Randolph St., 16-

100, Chicago, IL 60601.

11. Defendant Hou is and was Secretary of the Illinois Department of 

Human Services (“DHS”) and is and was acting under color of state law, in her official 

capacity, at all times relevant herein. In her official capacity, Defendant Hou, 

through her agency’s Division of Developmental Disabilities, is responsible for 

providing comprehensive services, including CDS services, to people with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities. Defendant Hou’s principal place of business is in the 

Chicago Office of DHS, Chicago, Illinois. Her address for service of process is 401 

South Clinton St., Seventh Floor, Chicago, IL 60607. 

12. This action raises federal questions under the Fourteenth Amendment 

of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, and under federal 

law, 29 U.S.C. § 794; 42 U.S.C. § 12132, as well as 42 U.SC. § 1983.

13. This Court has jurisdiction over these federal claims under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1343.

14. This Court has authority to grant the requested injunctive relief under 

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), the requested declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 

and 2202, and Plaintiffs’ prayer for costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 

42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

15. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391, as Defendants reside in this District and all Defendants are residents of the 
- 6 -

State of Illinois, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), and a substantial part of the events giving 

rise to the claims herein arose in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

BACKGROUND 

The Governor’s Response To COVID-19 

16. In early March 2020, public health officials began finding evidence of 

community transmission of the COVID-19 virus in Illinois. 

17. On March 9, 2020, in response to this finding, Defendant Governor 

Pritzker announced a state of emergency for the entire State of Illinois. 

Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation (Mar. 9, 2020).

1

18. Thereafter, Defendant Governor Pritzker, through a series of executive 

orders, prohibited public gatherings, closed all bars and restaurants to in-person 

dining, closed schools and nonessential businesses, and entered a statewide stay-athome order for all citizens not performing essential functions. See, e.g., Executive 

Order 2020-10 (Mar. 20, 2020).

2

19. Defendant Governor Pritzker deemed these measures necessary to stop 

the rapid spread of COVID-19, especially among our most vulnerable populations. Id. 

In particular, the CDC has explained that both the elderly, see CDC, Coronavirus 

1 Available at https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/gov/Documents/CoronavirusDisaster

Proc-3-12-2020.pdf.

2 Available at https://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/Executive-Orders/ExecutiveOrder2020-

10.aspx. 
- 7 -

Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Older Adults (Apr. 30, 2020),

3 and persons with underlying 

chronic medical conditions, see CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Clinical 

Questions about COVID-19: Questions and Answers (June 4, 2020),4 face increased 

threats from contracting COVID-19 when compared to the general population. The 

intellectually and developmentally disabled, on the other hand, “are not inherently 

at higher risk for becoming infected with or having severe illness from COVID-19.” 

CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People with Disabilities (Apr. 7, 2020).

5

20. On May 5, 2020, once Illinois began to “flatten the curve” on COVID-19 

transmissions, Defendant Governor Pritzker announced his supposedly “data-driven” 

“Restore Illinois” Plan, see Office of the Governor, Restore Illinois: A Public Health 

Approach to Safely Reopen Our State (May 5, 2020),6 under which each of four regions 

of the State would return to non-essential business and other normal operations once 

they met certain thresholds, Lecia Bushak, Ill. Newsroom, Gov. Pritzker Announces 

‘Restore Illinois’ Plan to Re-Open State in Five Phases (May 5, 2020).7 Defendant 

3 Available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/

older-adults.html.

4 Available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/faq.html#Trans

mission.

5 Available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/

people-with-disabilities.html.

6 Available at https://coronavirus.illinois.gov/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/

download/069t000000BadS0AAJ?operationContext=S1.

7 Available at https://illinoisnewsroom.org/gov-pritzker-announces-restore-illinoisplan-to-re-open-state-in-five-phases/. 
- 8 -

Governor Pritzker’s Plan expressly provides that it “can and will be updated to reflect 

the latest science and data.” Governor, Restore Illinois, supra. 

21. Upon announcing the Plan, Defendant Governor Pritzker also 

announced that the State had already progressed into “Phase 2 – Flattening,” which 

he claimed was marked by his issuing a modified stay-at-home order effective May 1, 

2020. Id.; see also Executive Order 2020-32 (Apr. 30, 2020).8

22. By June 3, 2020, all of Illinois entered “Phase 3 – Recovery” of the Plan. 

Executive Order 2020-38 (May 29, 2020)9; see also NBCChicago, Illinois Enters Phase 

3 of Reopening Plan: Here’s What’s Changing (May 29, 2020).10 In “Phase 3 –

Recovery” of the Plan, non-essential manufacturing and non-essential businesses are 

allowed to return to work with social distancing and by following Illinois Department 

of Public Health-approved safety guidance, and businesses are “encouraged to 

provide accommodations for COVID-19-vulnerable employees.” Governor, Restore 

Illinois, supra. Non-overnight recreational day camps for children are allowed to 

operate, as well as limited child-care services, consistent with approved safety 

8 Available at https://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/Executive-Orders/ExecutiveOrder

2020-32.aspx. 

9 Available at https://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/Executive-Orders/ExecutiveOrder

2020-38.aspx. 

10 Available at https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-enters-phase-3-ofreopening-plan-heres-whats-changing/2279871/. 
- 9 -

guidance and sanitation procedures. Governor, Restore Illinois, supra; Ill. Dep’t of 

Commerce, Day Camps Guidelines (May 24, 2020).

11

23. In “Phase 4 - Revitalization”—which can begin as soon as June 26, with 

Defendant Governor Pritzker recently announcing that all four regions are currently 

on pace to meet that transition date, NBCChicago, All 4 Regions in Illinois on Track 

to Enter Phase 4 Next Week, Pritzker Says (June 18, 2020)12—all manufacturing, 

non-essential businesses, outdoor recreation, bars, restaurants, health and fitness 

clubs, and movie theaters can open with approved safety guidance, and public 

gatherings of 50 or fewer people can resume. Governor, Restore Illinois, supra. 

Furthermore, all schools, institutes of higher education, summer programs, and 

child-care services are permitted to open with approved safety guidance. Id. 

24. On June 4, Defendant Governor Pritzker announced that all public and 

private schools serving pre-kindergarten through 12th grade in the State could open 

for summer school, following the completion of the regular 2019–2020 school year. 

Executive Order 2020-40 (June 4, 2020).13

11 Available at https://dceocovid19resources.com/assets/Restore-Illinois/business

guidelines3/summerprograms.pdf. 

12 Available at https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/all-4-regions-in-illinois-ontrack-to-enter-phase-4-next-week-pritzker-says/2291864/. 

13 Available at https://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/Executive-Orders/ExecutiveOrder

2020-40.aspx. 
- 10 -

CDS Programs And The State’s Unlawful Closure Of All Such Operations 

25. CDS programs provide intellectually and developmentally disabled 

adults assistance in gaining and improving self-help, socialization, and adaptive 

skills in a non-residential setting, with a particular emphasis on training in 

quantitative skills and enhancement of productive work activities. These programs 

offer both skills training and job coaching to help developmentally disabled 

individuals succeed in their communities and the workplace.

26. CDS programs also offer disabled adults opportunities to work both in 

the community and at the CDS program’s building. These jobs offer disabled adults 

additional skills and job training, while also providing many participants with their 

only opportunities to hold a job and earn income. 

27. DHS, under the direction of Defendant Secretary Hou, regulates and 

administers CDS programs, and both the State and DHS receive federal funding to 

assist with such programs. 

28. Beginning on March 17, DHS has shuttered all CDS programs for the 

disabled statewide, barring any of the disabled workers from returning to work or 

receiving services from such programs.

29. Disabled workers were paid through March 17, but have not received 

work or payment since, except for some lingering checks related to prior work. 

30. DHS’s COVID-19 guidance for CDS providers states that they may no 

longer provide their services to disabled workers, but that “CDS funds will be used to 
- 11 -

pay staff salaries” in the interim. DHS, UPDATED – COVID 19 Community Day 

Services (CDS) & Residential Rates and Reimbursement.

14 

31. CDS programs have been completely omitted from Defendant Governor 

Pritzker’s “Restore Illinois” Plan, even though there is no reason these programs 

cannot follow the same public-health guidelines required of the manufacturing 

businesses, non-overnight day camps, and child-care services that are presently 

allowed to operate. CDS facilities can be set up to follow social-distancing guidelines, 

and sanitation practices and mask requirements can easily be implemented.

32. On June 9, DHS issued an additional guidance letter to CDS providers 

stating that the prohibition of CDS program operations will extend until at least

August 31, 2020, to be “consistent with the Illinois Department of Aging and their 

decision to keep Adult Day Sites closed through August 31.” Allison Stark, Director, 

DHS Division of Developmental Disabilities, Letter to Providers (June 9, 2020). 

33. DHS has not given CDS providers any other guidance besides the initial 

notice of closure and this June 9 extension of closure through August 31. 

34. On June 17, 2020, Counsel for Plaintiff advised Defendants of the 

illegality and unconstitutionality of their discriminatory treatment towards the 

disabled citizens of this State. Misha Tseytlin & Sean T.H. Dutton, Letter to 

Defendants (June 17, 2020), Attached as Exhibit B. 

35. In response, Defendants explicitly admitted their prejudice against the 

disabled, based on claims that the entire group of persons like Plaintiff “have 

14 Available at https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=123490. 
- 12 -

incredible difficulty following instructions, understanding the need for and/or 

maintaining social distancing, hand washing and the need to wear masks in enclosed 

environments.”. Exhibit A at 2. Furthermore, Defendants erroneously contended 

that disabled individuals are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 because of 

underlying health conditions, Exhibit A at 1–2, even though disabled persons are not 

inherently at higher risk from COVID-19. Defendants reiterated that they 

“anticipate[d]” CDS programs will be allowed to restart, at the very earliest, by 

September 1, 2020. Id. 

The Damaging Effects of the State’s Discriminatory Decision on Plaintiff 

36. Plaintiff is a 46-year-old man who suffers from intellectual and 

developmental disabilities, leaving him with the intellectual capacity of a 7-year-old. 

37. Plaintiff is legally blind and deaf, and he communicates primarily 

through sign language. He lives with his sister, Karen, who is his caretaker.

38. Before COVID-19, Plaintiff was a regular participant at CWTC, a CDS 

program in his hometown of Peoria, Illinois, which he has attended on weekdays for 

over 20 years. 

39. CWTC has been in operation for over 60 years, and provides 

intellectually and developmentally disabled workers with certain jobs that meet their 

capabilities—in Plaintiff’s case, individually packaging construction hardware like 

nuts and bolts for a large manufacturing company—while also providing them 

attendant care and supervision.
- 13 -

Plaintiff working at CWTC.

40. CWTC has maintained long-term contracts with essential private firms, 

employing roughly 170 disabled workers to process and package products for these 

companies. See CWTC, CWTC.org, Organizational Employment.

15 

41. These contracts with manufacturing firms make CWTC an essential 

business under Defendant Governor Pritzker’s various executive orders, so CWTC

has continued providing its packaging services even during the COVID-19 shutdown 

of CDS programs. During this time, the work has been completed through the efforts 

of its non-disabled employees who have replaced CWTC’s disabled workers while 

DHS has forced CWTC to cease its CDS services.

42. In addition to the revenue CWTC receives from these contracts, it also 

receives grant funding to support its operations. See CWTC, CWTC.org, Annual 

Report at 2 (2019).

16 

15 Available at https://www.cwtc.org/organizational-employment/. 

16 Available at https://www.cwtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-AnnualReport.pdf.
- 14 -

43. CWTC is a superior provider of CDS programming, and its disabled 

workers get personal satisfaction and a sense of purpose from their participation in 

this program. CWTC also offers its disabled workers community programming, such 

as an art show, annual awards dinner, and more.

Plaintiff and his sister giving the keynote 

address at CWTC’s annual awards dinner.

44. CWTC has developed a plan to safely return to pre-COVID-19 

operations, including reducing disabled workers’ hours so that there are never more 

than 50 in the building at one time, maintaining appropriate distancing, instituting 

increased sanitation measures, and suggesting transportation modifications so fewer 

disabled workers take public transportation to the center. 

45. Other CDS providers are similarly competent to institute their own 

safety measures, consistent with all public-health guidelines, and to make their own 
- 15 -

determinations as to whether and when they can safely begin re-offering the essential 

services they provide to the disabled citizens of this State. 

46. Despite these extensive plans and competencies for re-opening, DHS’s

discriminatory decision orders closed CWTC and all other CDS providers through 

August 31 on an across-the-board basis, with devastating effects on those who most 

require DHS’s assistance, including Plaintiff. 

47. In particular, Plaintiff’s mental health has declined as a result of the 

State’s and DHS’s shuttering of CWTC, necessitating an increase in his antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications. He has also broken down in tears and 

asked his caretaker-sister if he still had a job or when he could return to work. 

48. Beyond these grave emotional and mental harms inflicted on disabled 

workers like Plaintiff, disabled workers are currently unable to earn any income or 

receive the other crucial services CDS programs provide, as a direct result of DHS’s 

closure of such programs through August 31. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

29 U.S.C. § 794 

49. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 48 as if fully 

set forth herein. 

50. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that “[n]o otherwise 

qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, 

be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 
- 16 -

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 

29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 

51. Plaintiff is disabled under the Rehabilitation Act, as his intellectual and 

developmental disabilities, deafness, and legal blindness substantially limit one or 

more of his major life activities. See Garg v. Potter, 521 F.3d 731, 736 (7th Cir. 2008). 

52. Plaintiff is fully qualified to participate in CDS programs and had been 

successfully doing so for over 20 years before the DHS shuttered these programs 

because of COVID-19. 

53. The State of Illinois and DHS receive federal funds to operate their 

programs, including programs for the disabled like CDS. 

54. Defendants have intentionally excluded Plaintiff from the benefits of 

CDS programs solely on the basis of his disability, as noted in Defendants’ abhorrent 

explanation of the basis for their decision, where Defendants stated that “individuals 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities . . . have incredible difficulty 

following instructions, understanding the need for and/or maintaining social 

distancing, hand washing and the need to wear masks in enclosed environments.” 

Exhibit A. 

55. The discriminatory basis for the State’s decision is also evident from 

DHS’s express allowance of non-disabled employees of CDS programs to continue to 

conduct essential functions that were previously assigned to the disabled workers in

CDS programs, as well as DHS’s decision to allow its funding to continue to be used 
- 17 -

to pay CDS employees’ salaries, while at the same time barring disabled adults from 

these programs, statewide, through August 31. 

56. Second, Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff by refusing to 

even consider making reasonable accommodations or modifications to the broadbased policy excluding all disabled people from participation in this vital program, 

regardless of the capabilities of any individual disabled person to comply with the 

State’s COVID-19 safety guidelines.

57. Many disabled citizens, including Plaintiff, are fully capable of following 

basic sanitation requirements, such as handwashing and mask-wearing, and have no 

underlying medical conditions that make them particularly susceptible to COVID-19.

But, instead of making reasonable accommodations to permit these individuals to 

resume participating in their CDS programs, Defendants have barred disabled 

individuals, as a class, from taking part in these critically needed programs until at 

least August 31.

58. Finally, Defendants’ discriminatory conduct is evident from the 

disparate treatment the disabled are facing as compared to the able-bodied, including 

the clear disparity between the State’s across-the-board prohibition on the safe 

resumption of CDS programs and the State’s rules for manufacturing businesses and 

non-overnight day camps for children, the latter of which are similar to CDS 

programs but which are currently allowed to operate under “Phase 3” of the 

Governor’s “Restore Illinois” Plan. 
- 18 -

59. Disabled adults have no greater risks from COVID-19 than the general 

population, CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People with Disabilities, 

supra, such as the general public who work at these manufacturing businesses and 

the children who attend these non-overnight day camps. 

60. Rather than treat Plaintiff and other disabled workers equally to these 

similar groups, Defendants have instead lumped them in with the elderly, tie-barring 

the re-opening of CDS services to similar programs for senior citizens. But, unlike 

the disabled, the elderly do face higher risks from COVID-19. See CDC, Coronavirus 

Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Older Adults, supra. 

61. There is no basis other than Plaintiff’s disability on which Defendants 

could have relied to shutter completely CDS programs, while allowing these similar 

groups to operate while following public-health guidelines, such as social distancing, 

mandating masks, and increased sanitation procedures. 

62. Defendants’ discrimination against the disabled evinces paternalistic 

concerns, and their blanket exclusion of all disabled adults from these programs 

violates Plaintiff’s rights under the Rehabilitation Act. See Knapp v. Nw. Univ., 101 

F.3d 473, 483, 485–86 (7th Cir. 1996). 

63. Defendants’ discriminatory treatment against Plaintiff—and other 

disabled citizens across Illinois—caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff grave 

emotional, mental, and financial harm. 

64. Plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy for the continuing irreparable 

harm Defendants have inflicted upon him, which cannot be fully and adequately 
- 19 -

addressed through an award of damages. Furthermore, Defendants will suffer no 

harm if required to comply with federal anti-discrimination law, and the public 

interest requires the government to abide by federal law. 

COUNT II 

Title II of the ADA 

42 U.S.C. § 12131 

65. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 64 as if fully 

set forth herein. 

66. Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding a disabled 

individual “from participation in,” or denying them the benefits of, any “services, 

programs, or activities of [the] public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

67. Plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability,” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12131(2), given that he is legally blind, deaf, and developmentally disabled, and he 

is fully qualified to continue to participate in the CDS programs he has been a part 

of for over 20 years, with or without a reasonable accommodation. 

68. Defendants have denied Plaintiff the services and programs of a public 

entity—DHS—by completely excluding him and all other disabled adults from CDS 

programs through August 31. 

69. Defendants have done so explicitly on the basis of his disability and their 

own prejudicial assumptions about the disabled, as evidenced by their June 19, 2020 

letter. Exhibit A. 

70. Defendants have also discriminated against the disabled under the ADA 

by refusing to allow, or even consider allowing, these programs to re-open with 
- 20 -

“reasonable accommodations” in place to address any specific disabled citizen’s ability 

to abide by the same social distancing, personal protective equipment, and adequate 

sanitation guidelines governing non-disabled participants in similar businesses and 

programs that have been, or soon will be, permitted to reopen under Defendant 

Governor Pritzker’s “Restore Illinois” Plan. And many disabled citizens, including 

Plaintiff, would not need reasonable accommodation at all because they are fully 

capable of following basic sanitation requirements, such as handwashing and maskwearing. Thus, it is unreasonable to refuse to make accommodations or modifications 

to the current restrictions, as such position is supported by neither facts nor science.

71. This statewide shuttering of CDS programs also constitutes disparatetreatment-based discrimination against the disabled, given that such programs have 

been treated less favorably than similar businesses and programs for the ablebodied—including manufacturing businesses, non-overnight day camps for children, 

and summer school for all children from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade—

which are presently allowed to operate while following public-health guidelines. 

72. Such discrimination and failure to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff is 

based on his status as a person with a disability, in violation of the ADA.

73. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, grave mental and 

emotional harm and lost wages as a result of Defendants’ malfeasance. 

74. Given the obvious nature of this disability discrimination and 

Defendants’ refusal to rectify the discrimination when presented with facts showing 
- 21 -

clear discriminatory treatment, Defendants’ actions also constitute deliberate 

indifference of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights. 

75. Plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy for the continuing irreparable 

harm Defendants have inflicted upon him, which cannot be fully and adequately 

addressed through an award of damages. Furthermore, Defendants will suffer no 

harm if required to comply with federal anti-discrimination law, and the public 

interest requires the government to abide by federal law. 

COUNT III 

Equal Protection 

U.S. Const. Amend XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

76. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 75 as if fully 

set forth herein. 

77. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides 

that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 

protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Equal Protection Clause’s 

“command” is that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Tennessee 

v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 522 (2004) (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 

Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)).

78. Laws and policies that discriminate against persons with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities are subject to “rational-basis review,” which requires 

the State to show a “rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and 

some legitimate governmental purpose.” Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 

531 U.S. 356, 366– 67 (2001). 
- 22 -

79. A “State may not rely on a classification whose relationship to an 

asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational”;

therefore, the Constitution prohibits discrimination that “rest[s] on an irrational 

prejudice against the mentally [disabled].” Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446, 450. 

80. Manufacturing employees, youth attendees of day camps, and children 

in Summer school classes from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade are “most like” 

the disabled workers in CDS programs, meaning they are the relevant comparators 

for treatment. Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, ___ F.3d ___, 2020 

WL 3249062, at *5 (7th Cir. June 16, 2020).

81. Plaintiff is similarly situated to these able-bodied citizens in the context 

of COVID-19. See CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People with 

Disabilities (Apr. 7, 2020), supra. 

82. Because Defendants have no legitimate basis to distinguish the disabled 

from the general population with respect to the decision to safely re-open under 

Defendant Governor Pritzker’s “Restore Illinois” Plan, this decision is “arbitrary” and 

“rest[s] on an irrational prejudice against the mentally [disabled].” Cleburne, 473 

U.S. at 446, 450. 

83. Defendants have explicitly discriminated against Plaintiff based on

nothing more than irrational prejudice about his intellectual and developmental 

disability. Exhibit A.

84. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer from 

Defendants’ unconstitutional misconduct. 
- 23 -

85. Plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy for the continuing irreparable 

harm Defendants have inflicted upon him, which cannot be fully and adequately 

addressed through an award of damages. Furthermore, Defendants will suffer no 

harm if required to comply with the Constitution, and the public interest requires the

government to abide by the Constitution. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the 

following relief:

a. A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction restraining 

Defendants, and all those acting in concert with them, from:

i. Mandating the continued shuttering of CWTC, which is presently able 

to safely open consistent with public-health guidelines; and 

ii. Enforcing the statewide closure of all Community Day Services 

programs through at least August 31, 2020;

b. A permanent injunction restraining Defendants, and all those acting in 

concert with them, from:

i. Mandating the continued shuttering of CWTC, which is presently able 

to safely open consistent with public-health guidelines; and 

ii. Enforcing the statewide closure of all Community Day Services 

programs through at least August 31, 2020;

c. A declaratory judgment that the statewide closure of all Community 

Day Services programs:
- 24 -

i. Violates Plaintiff’s rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

ii. Violates Plaintiff’s rights under Title II of the ADA;

iii. Is unconstitutional, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

d. Compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the 

ADA;

e. An award of costs of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920; and

f. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
- 25 -

Dated, June 23, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Misha Tseytlin

MISHA TSEYTLIN

SEAN T.H. DUTTON

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

227 W. Monroe Street

Suite 3900

Chicago, IL 60606

(608) 999-1240

(312) 759-1939 (fax)

misha.tseytlin@troutman.com

sean.dutton@troutman.com

BLAKE T. HANNAFAN

HANNAFAN & HANNAFAN, LTD.

180 N. Lasalle Street

Suite 3700

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 527-0055

(312) 527-0220 (fax)

bth@hannafanlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff John McDonald
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of June, 2020, a true and accurate copy of 

the foregoing was served on counsel for both Defendants, who have agreed to accept 

service via email, at the email addresses below:

Gary S. Caplan

Deputy General Counsel

Office of the Governor, J.B. Pritzker

gary.caplan@illinois.gov

Meghan Maine

Deputy General Counsel

Illinois Dep’t of Human Services

meghan.maine@illinois.gov

/s/ Misha Tseytlin

MISHA TSEYTLIN

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

227 W. Monroe Street 

Suite 3900

Chicago, IL 60606

(608) 999-1240

(312) 759-1939 (fax)

misha.tseytlin@troutman.com