1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TANVEER JOHAL, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, a public body 

corporate and politic under the laws of the 

State of Illinois,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, Tanveer Johal, M.D., by and through undersigned counsel, as her Complaint 

against the Defendant, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, a public body corporate and 

politic under the laws of the State of Illinois, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Tanveer Johal, M.D. (“Dr. Johal”) brings this civil action due to her 

suspension and termination from the Family Medicine Residency Program in Rockford, Illinois

operated by the University of Illinois and its College of Medicine in violation of the Fourteenth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution due to the denial of due process and equal protection 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. In addition, Dr. Johal’s action is brought to remedy discrimination on the basis of 

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

VII”) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

PARTIES

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
2

3. Defendant, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (“Defendant”), is a public 

body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Illinois operating a Family Medicine 

Residency Program through its College of Medicine in Rockford, Illinois (“the Program”). 

4. Dr. Johal is citizen of Canada and a physician granted a temporary medical permit 

in the State of Illinois. Dr. Johal was a resident in the Program from July 1, 2016 until May 24, 

2019.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as this case 

is a civil action that arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Dr. Johal’s due process rights 

by a state actor and under Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to remedy discrimination on 

the basis of sex and national origin.

6. This Court may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 

over Dr. Johal’s breach of contract claim as it arises from the same case or controversy as the claim 

giving this Court original jurisdiction.

7. Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that a substantial portion of the 

events giving rise to Dr. Johal’s claims occurred within this district. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On March 26, 2018, Dr. Johal entered into a Resident Agreement with Defendant 

whereby she accepted appointment to the Program for her third year of post graduate training 

(“PGY-3”). The term of the Resident Agreement was from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. A 

true and accurate copy of the Resident Agreement between Dr. Johal and Defendant is attached 

hereto as “Exhibit A”.

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
3

9. The Program is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical 

Education (“ACGME”). Family medicine residency programs accredited by ACGME require

residents to complete three years of training (36 months in total), with 12 months spent in each of 

the three post-graduate training years.

10. In order to be eligible for board certification by the American Board of Family 

Medicine (“ABFM”), a resident must complete the last two years of post-graduate training at the 

same ACGME accredited training program.

11. Dr. Johal successfully completed her first year of post-graduate training (“PGY-1”) 

at the Program between July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.

12. Dr. Johal successfully completed her second year of post graduate training (“PGY2”) at the Program between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018.

13. During PGY-2, Dr. Johal was placed on academic probation but successfully 

completed the probation before being promoted to PGY-3.

14. Because she was expected to complete PGY-3 and graduate from the Program on 

June 30, 2019, Dr. Johal sat for and passed the Family Medicine Certification Examination 

administered by the American Board of Family Medicine in April 2019.

15. On March 27, 2019, Dr. Johal registered for a continuing medical education course 

in Orlando, Florida scheduled between May 8 and May 13, 2019.

16. Dr. Johal had previously requested, and the Program granted her, permission to take

leave between May 8 and May 13, 2019 for continuing medical education.

17. Due to problems in her domestic life that included physical and emotional abuse by 

her husband, Dr. Johal canceled her registration in the continuing medical education course in 

Orlando, Florida. 

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
4

18. Dr. Johal did, however, take leave from the Program between May 8 and May 13, 

2019 to recover from psychological effects of domestic abuse, but did not inform the Program 

about her change in plans.

19. On May 16, 2019, Dr. Joseph Ross, the Program Director asked to meet with Dr. 

Johal in his office.

20. The Human Resources Director, Brett Ruiz, was also present.

21. The door to Dr. Ross’s office was shut while the meeting occurred. Dr. Ross was 

seated across from Dr. Johal at his desk and Mr. Ruiz was seated on a couch away from the desk.

22. Dr. Ross and Mr. Ruiz, both males, asked Dr. Johal where she had traveled during 

her leave.

23. Dr. Johal did not feel comfortable discussing her domestic issues with either Dr. 

Ross or Mr. Ruiz, so she incorrectly informed them that she had traveled to Orlando, Florida, but 

stated that she did not attend the continuing medical education course.

24. Mr. Ruiz stated that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides travel 

history documentation for foreign nationals. Mr. Ruiz asked Dr. Johal what the history would show 

if it were obtained. Dr. Johal stated that she could provide a paper I-94. However, Mr. Ruiz stated 

she could retrieve the history electronically through the DHS website right now.

25. Mr. Ruiz left Dr. Ross’s office for less than a minute to retrieve the copy of Dr. 

Johal’s passport that the Program maintained on file in the residency office for her visa application, 

so that Dr. Johal could use it to access the DHS I-94 travel history website.

26. The door to Dr. Ross’s office was left open while Mr. Ruiz went to retrieve the 

passport information and remained open for the remainder of the meeting. Passers-by, including 

residents, nurses and other staff, could overhear the conversation.

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
5

27. When he returned, Mr. Ruiz instructed Dr. Johal to use Dr. Ross’s computer to go 

to the DHS website and enter her passport and biographical information on the DHS website. Mr. 

Ruiz then requested that Dr. Johal click on the electronic consent to access the I-94 travel history 

report. The travel history was retrieved, and Mr. Ruiz asked if she would print the report and 

provide the University with a copy. 

28. Dr. Johal felt she had no choice but to agree and print the report.

29. Dr. Ross asked Dr. Johal to provide documentation substantiating her statements 

regarding her travel the following day and informed her that she should return to her scheduled 

lecture. 

30. In the morning on May 17, 2019, Dr. Johal confided in a senior female faculty 

member that she had been experiencing domestic violence and emotional abuse by her husband 

and that as a result, she had not been truthful with Dr. Ross and Mr. Ruiz about the fact that she 

changed her travel plans.

31. The senior female faculty member informed Dr. Johal that she would handle the 

situation and speak with Dr. Ross personally about it. The senior female faculty member further 

instructed Dr. Johal not to give Dr. Ross the documentation he requested.

32. In the late morning or early afternoon on May 17, 2019, the senior female faculty 

member spoke to Dr. Ross about her conversation with Dr. Johal. The senior female faculty 

member recommended to Dr. Ross that Dr. Johal be granted a leave of absence to seek assistance 

related to the domestic violence and emotional abuse. The senior female faculty member also 

recommended that Dr. Johal undergo a fitness for duty evaluation. The senior female faculty 

member further told Dr. Ross that she instructed Dr. Johal not to provide the documentation he 

requested.

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
6

33. In the late afternoon on May 17, 2019, Dr. Ross and Mr. Ruiz called Dr. Johal in 

for another meeting. During this meeting, Dr. Ross summarily suspended Dr. Johal for failing to 

provide the documentation he requested about her leave from May 8, 2019 to May 13, 2019. Dr. 

Ross acknowledged speaking to the senior female faculty member prior to his meeting with Dr. 

Johal. Dr. Johal requested that Dr. Ross allow her to speak to him outside of the presence of Mr. 

Ruiz so that Dr. Johal could discuss the matter with him privately, but Dr. Ross denied her request.

34. Dr. Johal was made to feel inferior on the basis of her sex when Dr. Ross denied 

her request to speak privately about the matter.

35. This was not the first time that Dr. Ross had made Dr. Johal feel inferior on the 

basis of her sex. In or about March 2017, Dr. Johal brought to Dr. Ross’ s attention the sexual 

discrimination and harassment she was facing by a senior male resident, who made comments 

regarding men’s superiority to women and his right to choose and have multiple wives according 

to his religion. Dr. Ross did not act upon this information. The male resident did not face any 

consequences and Dr. Johal continued to be subject to the harassment.

36. According to the Resident Agreement, a summary suspension may only be imposed 

if “in the best interest of patient or staff welfare.” See Exhibit A, Section V, Subparagraph c.

37. Dr. Ross did not allege that the suspension was in the best interest of patient or staff 

welfare.

38. According to the Resident Agreement, a general suspension may be imposed if a 

resident has “failed to comply with the Resident Duties set forth in [the] Resident Agreement.” 

See Exhibit A, Section V, Subparagraph c.

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
7

39. A general suspension, as opposed to a summary suspension, entitles a resident to 

the appeal procedures set forth in Exhibit B of the Resident Agreement. See Exhibit A, Section 

V, Subparagraph c.

40. Dr. Ross did not notify Dr. Johal of her right to appeal the suspension in accordance 

with Exhibit B of the Resident Agreement.

41. Male residents who had engaged in unprofessional conduct such as failing to attend 

CME conferences, or who were charged with driving under the influence which required a fitness 

for duty evaluation, did not receive similar treatment or disciplinary action.

42. Thereafter, during an in-person meeting with Dr. Ross and Mr. Ruiz on May 24, 

2019, Dr. Johal was given written notice that she was being terminated from the Program effective 

immediately for alleged: (i) failure to comply with University and residency policies; (ii) failure 

to meet ACGME professionalism competency; and (iii) providing false information related to 

leave taken from May 8, 2019 to May 13, 2019.

43. The notice did not inform Dr. Johal what University of residency policies she 

violated or how she failed to meet ACGME professionalism competency.

44. The notice stated that Dr. Johal could request an appeal within 14 days in 

accordance with Exhibit B of her Resident Agreement.

45. Immediately following her termination, Mr. Ruiz told Dr. Johal that because of her 

status as an H-1B worker she must immediately return to Canada and could not remain in the 

Program while she exercised any appeal rights afforded under her Resident Agreement.

46. Dr. Ross also told Dr. Johal that because of her status as an H-1B worker, the 

Program would not offer her the opportunity to make up any unauthorized leave taken from May 

8, 2019 to May 13, 2019.

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
8

47. Dr. Johal timely requested an appeal in accordance with Exhibit B of her Resident 

Agreement to the Resident Appeals Committee.

48. Dr. Johal’s appeal hearing was scheduled for June 18, 2019.

49. On June 3, 2019, Dr. Johal retained legal counsel who sent a letter to Dr. Ross 

concerning his failure to offer Dr. Johal an appeal related to the May 17, 2019 suspension in 

violation of the Resident Agreement, and the inadequacy of the termination notice. Dr. Johal’s 

counsel requested a hearing on the suspension and identification of which University and residency 

policies she had violated.

50. Neither the Program nor its counsel responded to the June 3, 2019 letter.

51. Graduate Medical Education Policy 704 of the University of Illinois College of 

Medicine Rockford, which is applicable to the Program, states that a resident has the right to 

present such information or materials (oral or written) as they wish to support their case. A true 

and accurate copy of Graduate Medical Education Policy 704 is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”.

52. In preparation for her appeal, Dr. Johal requested a letter of support from the senior 

female faculty member in whom she confided about the domestic violence and emotional abuse 

had been experiencing. 

53. Although the senior female faculty member had previously voiced her support for 

Dr. Johal and was of the opinion that Dr. Johal had serious issues related to domestic violence and 

physical and psychological abuse that needed to be recognized by the Program, the senior female

faculty member was instructed not to communicate further with Dr. Johal and that she could not 

write a letter of support for Dr. Johal’s appeal.

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
9

54. Also, in preparation for her appeal, Dr. Johal requested a letter of support from a 

co-resident in the Program whom she traveled with between May 8 and May 13, 2019. However, 

Program representatives stifled Dr. Johal’s request for a letter of support from her co-resident.

55. Dr. Ross and/or other representatives of the Program told residents that if they 

support Dr. Johal in her appeal, the University of Illinois would not provide legal representation if 

the matter resulted in litigation.

56. On June 11, 2019, counsel for Dr. Johal sent a letter to Dr. Ross requesting that the

Program immediately retract its statements to residents and inform them that they may choose to 

support Dr. Johal with no fear of retribution from the Program.

57. Neither the Program nor its counsel responded to the June 11, 2019 letter.

58. On June 18, 2019, the Resident Appeals Committee heard Dr. Johal’s appeal. Dr. 

Johal explained in detail, during the appeal hearing, the personal circumstances that caused her to 

change her travel plans.

59. For the first time during the hearing, Dr. Ross argued that Dr. Johal had a pattern 

of engaging in unprofessional behavior.

60. Additionally, during the appeal hearing, Dr. Ross stated that if Dr. Johal had been 

an American citizen, the University would have been able to extend her contract for an additional 

four days to accommodate for the change from CME to personal leave, but since she was not, the 

Program would have to pay to extend her visa for the additional days needed for Dr. Johal to 

complete PGY-3.

61. On June 26, 2019, the Resident Appeals Committee issued a decision sustaining 

Dr. Johal’s termination. The Resident Appeals Committee failed to address or acknowledge the 

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
10

information Dr. Johal provided concerning how her personal circumstances affected her decisionmaking.

62. In support of its decision, the Resident Appeals Committee incorrectly stated that 

Dr. Johal’s file contained statements from staff indicating that she engaged in a pattern of 

unprofessional behavior.

63. On June 26, 2019, Dr. Johal requested an appeal to the Associate Dean of Academic 

Affairs.

64. On July 8, 2019, the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs sustained the termination.

65. On July 8, 2019, Dr. Johal appealed the decision of the Associate Dean of Academic 

Affairs to the Regional Dean of the College of Medicine.

66. On July 17, 2019, the Regional Dean of the University of Illinois College of 

Medicine at Rockford sustained the decision of the Resident Appeals Committee and the Associate 

Dean of Academic Affairs.

67. Dr. Johal has exhausted her appeal rights through the Program and the University. 

68. Dr. Johal filed a charge of discrimination against Defendant (Charge No. 440-2019-

07213) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on or about September 

6, 2019, complaining of acts of discrimination on the basis of sex, national origin and retaliation.

69. On or about November 12, 2019, the EEOC issued to Dr. Johal a notice informing 

of her right to sue Defendant in federal court. A copy of the right to sue letter is attached hereto as 

Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS 

REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 1983 

(Declaratory, Injunctive and Monetary Relief)

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
11

70. Dr. Johal repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 69

above as if fully set forth herein.

71. Defendant, by and through its employees, acting under color or custom of state law 

in the course and scope of their employment, affirmatively acted to deprive Dr. Johal of her clearly 

established right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution through the following actions: 

a. Defendant failed to offer Dr. Johal a hearing on the May 17, 2019 suspension;

b. Defendant failed to give Dr. Johal accurate written notice of the reasons for her 

termination from the Program; and

c. GME Defendant interfered with Dr. Johal’s appeal rights under the Resident 

Agreement and GME Policy 704 “to present all information or materials (oral 

or written) as they wish to support their case.”

72. WHEREFORE, Dr. Johal respectfully requests that the Court award her the 

following relief: 

a. A declaratory finding that Dr. Johal was entitled to appeal the May 17, 2019 

suspension in accordance with the Resident Agreement and GME Policy; 

b. A declaratory finding that the Defendant, by and through its employees, 

interfered with Dr. Johal’s appeal rights under the Resident Agreement and 

GME Policy; 

c. An injunction compelling and requiring Defendant to reinstate Dr. Johal into 

the Program from which she was wrongfully terminated and to take all actions 

necessary to affect her reinstatement; 

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
12

d. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from in any way interfering with or 

precluding Dr. Johal from exercising any and all appeal rights pursuant to the 

Resident Agreement and GME Policy; 

e. An award of compensatory damages from the Defendant in an amount to be 

determined at trial;

f. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) in an 

amount to be determined at trial;

g. For prejudgment interest at the statutory rate; and 

h. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION 

REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 1983

(Declaratory, Injunctive and Monetary Relief)

73. Dr. Johal repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 69

above as if fully set forth herein.

74. Defendant, by and through its employees, acting under color or custom of state law 

in the course and scope of their employment, affirmatively acted to deprive Dr. Johal equal 

protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution through the 

following actions: 

a. Defendant acted with ill-will, animus, or spite towards Dr. Johal, thereby 

interfering with her procedural rights under the Resident Agreement and GME 

Policy; 

b. Defendant treated Dr. Johal differently than residents who are United States 

citizens; and

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
13

c. Defendant failed to apply the standards and policies affecting Dr. Johal as a 

resident in a uniform and equitable manner.

75. WHEREFORE, Dr. Johal respectfully requests that the Court award her the 

following relief:

a. A declaratory finding that Dr. Johal was entitled to appeal the May 17, 2019 

suspension in accordance with the Resident Agreement and GME Policy; 

b. A declaratory finding that the Defendant, by and through its employees, 

interfered with Dr. Johal’s appeal rights under the Resident Agreement and 

GME Policy; 

c. An injunction compelling and requiring Defendant to reinstate Dr. Johal into 

the Program from which she was wrongfully terminated and to take all actions 

necessary to affect her reinstatement; 

d. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from in any way interfering with or 

precluding Dr. Johal from exercising any and all appeal rights pursuant to the 

Resident Agreement and GME Policy; 

e. An award of compensatory damages from the Defendant in an amount to be 

determined at trial;

f. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) in an 

amount to be determined at trial;

g. For prejudgment interest at the statutory rate; and 

h. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
14

COUNT III 

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Declaratory, Injunctive and Monetary Relief)

76. Dr. Johal repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 69

above as if fully set forth herein.

77. Defendant, by and through its employees, breached its Resident Agreement with 

Dr. Johal through the following actions: 

a. Defendant summarily suspended Dr. Johal without contractual basis on May 

17, 2019; 

b. Defendant failed to offer Dr. Johal a hearing on the May 17, 2019 suspension;

c. Defendant failed to give Dr. Johal accurate written notice of the reasons for her 

termination from the Program; 

d. Defendant interfered with Dr. Johal’s appeal rights under the Resident 

Agreement and GME Policy 704 “to present all information or materials (oral 

or written) as they wish to support their case”; and

e. Defendant failed to apply the standards and policies affecting Dr. Johal as a 

resident in a uniform and equitable manner.

78. WHEREFORE, Dr. Johal respectfully requests that the Court award her the 

following relief:

a. A declaratory finding that Dr. Johal was entitled to appeal the May 17, 2019 

suspension in accordance with the Resident Agreement and GME Policy; 

b. A declaratory finding that the Defendant, by and through its employees, 

interfered with Dr. Johal’s appeal rights under the Resident Agreement and 

GME Policy; 

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
15

c. An injunction compelling and requiring Defendant to reinstate Dr. Johal into 

the Program from which she was wrongfully terminated and to take all actions 

necessary to affect her reinstatement; 

d. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from in any way interfering with or 

precluding Dr. Johal from exercising any and all appeal rights pursuant to the 

Resident Agreement and GME Policy; 

e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT IV

SEX DISCRIMINATION

(Declaratory, Injunctive and Monetary Relief)

79. Dr. Johal repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 69

above as if fully set forth herein.

80. During the course of Dr. Johal’s employment, and particularly after she reported to 

and sought support from a senior female faculty member about her being a victim of domestic 

violence, Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, discriminated against Dr. Johal 

through the following actions:

a. Heightened scrutiny of her professional judgment and her actions as compared 

to similarly situated male counterparts;

b. Dr. Johal was held to different terms and conditions of employment as 

compared to her similarly situated male counterparts; and

c. Dr. Johal was subject to action and conduct by male agents and employees of 

Defendant that made her feel as if she were inferior.

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
16

81. The discrimination described herein created an intimidating, hostile and offensive 

work environment perpetrated by Defendant’s agents and employees, which interfered with Dr. 

Johal’s emotional and psychological well-being and caused her to face disciplinary action that 

resulted in her termination from the Program and her inability to acquire board certification with 

the American Board of Family Medicine.

82. Defendant failed to adequately supervise or control or otherwise penalize the 

conduct, acts and failures of its employees and agents as described above.

83. WHEREFORE, Dr. Johal respectfully requests that the Court award her the 

following relief:

a. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from subjecting Dr. Johal to further 

unlawful discrimination or harassment;

b. Compensatory damages in an amount to which she is entitled for injuries 

attributable to Defendant’s conduct;

c. Attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing and prosecuting this action; 

d. Punitive damages;

e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

Dated: February 10, 2020

Respectfully Submitted;

TANVEER JOHAL, M.D.

By: /s/ Jenna E. Milaeger

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
17

Jenna E. Milaeger

Michael K. Goldberg

Priyanka U. Desai

GOLDBERG LAW GROUP, LLC

120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1675

Chicago, Illinois 60606

P: 312-930-5600

F: 312-930-0944

E-Mail: jmilaeger@goldberglawoffice.com

E-Mail: mgoldberg@goldberglawoffice.com

Case: 3:20-cv-50200 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17