1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.:

)

v. ) COMPLAINT

)

TENET HEALTHCARE and ) Jury Trial Demand

PIPELINE-WEST SUBURBAN MEDICAL )

CENTER, LLC, )

)

)

Defendants. )

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and 

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of 

disability and to provide appropriate relief to Maribel Quiroz. As alleged with greater particularity 

below, Tenet Healthcare (“Tenet”) violated the ADA when it failed to provide Quiroz a reasonable 

accommodation in January 2016, failed to permit her to return to work in April 2016 because of 

her disability, and discharged her in July 2016 because of her disability. Defendant Pipeline-West 

Suburban Medical Center, LLC (“Pipeline”) is a successor to Defendant Tenet for all purposes 

related to this action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12117(a), which incorporates by reference sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 194 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

Case: 1:20-cv-03579 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
2

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the 

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency of the United 

States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the 

ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 

12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Tenet has been a corporation incorporated under the laws of 

the state of Nevada doing business in the State of Illinois, in the city of Oak Park.

5. From at least July 2015 through January 2019, Tenet operated West Suburban 

Medical Center (“West Suburban”) in Oak Park, Illinois.

6. At all relevant times, Tenet has had at least fifteen (15) employees.

7. At all relevant times, Tenet has continuously been an employer engaged in an 

industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 101(5) and 101(7) of the ADA, 42 

U.S.C. § 12111(5), (7), which incorporate by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h).

8. At all relevant times, Tenet has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the 

ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).

9. Since at least January 2019, Pipeline has continuously been a corporation 

incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware doing business in the State of Illinois, in the 

city of Oak Park.

10. Since at least January 2019, Pipeline has had at least fifteen (15) employees.

Case: 1:20-cv-03579 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
3

11. At all relevant times, Pipeline has continuously been an employer engaged in an 

industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 101(5) and 101(7) of the ADA, 42 

U.S.C. § 12111(5), (7), which incorporate by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h).

12. In or about January 2019, Defendant Pipeline assumed operation from Defendant 

Tenet of all or a substantial portion of West Suburban.

13. Pipeline continues to operate West Suburban in the same location, in the same line 

of business, with substantially the same staff and resources as Tenet.

14. Pipeline had notice of the EEOC’s investigation of the matters alleged in this 

complaint through its agents with whom EEOC corresponded throughout the investigation.

15. Tenet could have provided both monetary and injunctive relief prior to the sale of 

West Suburban.

16. Since Pipeline assumed the operation of West Suburban, Tenet is unable to provide 

the injunctive relief sought in this matter.

17. Since Pipeline assumed the operation of West Suburban, Pipeline is able to provide 

both monetary and injunctive relief.

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

18. More than 30 days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Quiroz filed a charge of 

discrimination alleging a violation of Title I of the ADA by West Suburban, which was owned by 

Tenet. 

19. On September 4, 2019, EEOC issued an Amended Letter of Determination finding 

reasonable cause to believe that Defendants violated the ADA by failing to make reasonable 

accommodations to Quiroz’s disability and discharging her because of her disability.

Case: 1:20-cv-03579 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
4

20. The EEOC invited Defendants to engage in conciliation in an endeavor to eliminate 

the unlawful employment practices and provide appropriate relief.

21. EEOC engaged in communications with Defendants to provide them with the 

opportunity to remedy the discriminatory acts described in the Amended Letter of Determination.

22. The EEOC was unable to secure a conciliation agreement acceptable to the 

Commission.

23. On September 18, 2019, EEOC issued a Notice of Failure of Conciliation to 

Defendants.

24. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

25. In July 2008, Quiroz began working at West Suburban as a radiology tech.

26. Since July 2015, Quiroz has had an impairment that substantially limits the function 

of her skin.

27. During the relevant time period, Quiroz’s impairment was a disability within the 

meaning of the ADA.

28. During the relevant time period, Quiroz has been a qualified individual with a 

disability under Sections 3 and 101(8) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102 and 12111(8). 

29. Since at least January 2016, Defendant Tenet engaged in unlawful employment 

practices at West Suburban, in violation of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) & (b)(5), 

when it refused to permit Quiroz to return to work with a reasonable accommodation. Specifically:

a. In July 2015, Quiroz began a leave of absence related to her disability.

b. In 2015, Tenet was aware of Quiroz’s disability.

Case: 1:20-cv-03579 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
5

c. In January 2016, Quiroz informed Tenet that she was ready to return to work and 

provided Tenet with a doctor’s note stating that she needed a part-time schedule as 

an accommodation to her disability;

d. Tenet could have provided Quiroz with an accommodation to her schedule without 

undue hardship;

e. With this reasonable accommodation, Quiroz would have been able to perform the 

essential functions of her radiology tech job;

f. Tenet did not permit Quiroz to return to her position with a reasonable 

accommodation in January 2016; and

g. Rather than permitting her to return to her position, Tenet required Quiroz to take 

unpaid leave.

30. Since at least April 2016, Defendant Tenet engaged in unlawful employment 

practices at West Suburban, in violation of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) & (b)(5), 

when it refused to permit Quiroz to return to work. Specifically:

a. In March 2016, Quiroz was cleared to work without a reasonable accommodation

beginning in April 2016;

b. Quiroz informed Tenet that she could return to her position without a reasonable 

accommodation;

c. Tenet did not permit Quiroz to return in April 2016; and

d. Tenet required Quiroz to continue to take unpaid leave.

31. Since at least July 2016, Defendant Tenet has engaged in unlawful employment 

practices at West Suburban, in violation of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) & (b)(5), 

when it discharged Quiroz because of her disability.

Case: 1:20-cv-03579 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
6

32. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Quiroz of equal 

employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her 

disability. 

33. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

34. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice 

or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Quiroz.

35. Pipeline is a successor in liability to Tenet for all purposes related to this action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, EEOC respectfully prays that this court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in 

any employment practice that violates Title I of the ADA.

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which 

provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities and which 

eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

C. Order Defendants to make Quiroz whole by providing appropriate back pay with 

prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to 

eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.

D. Order Defendants to make Quiroz whole by providing compensation for past and 

future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, 

including but not limited to, job search expenses and medical expenses, in amounts to be 

determined at trial.

E. Order Defendants to make Quiroz whole by providing compensation for past and 

future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including 

Case: 1:20-cv-03579 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
7

but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts 

to be determined at trial.

F. Order Defendants to pay Quiroz punitive damages for its malicious, and/or reckless 

conduct, as described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public 

interest.

H. Award EEOC its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

EEOC requests a jury trial on all issues of fact raised by its Complaint.

SHARON FAST GUSTAFSON

General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Associate General Counsel

U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

131 M. St NE

Washington, DC 20507

GREGORY M. GOCHANOUR

Regional Attorney

JUSTIN MULAIRE

Supervisory Trial Attorney

/s/ Jonathan Delozano

JONATHAN DELOZANO

Trial Attorney

U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

Chicago District Office

230 S. Dearborn St., Ste 2920

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 872-9695

Case: 1:20-cv-03579 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7