-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, individually,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR 

BEECHER SCHOOL DISTRICT # 200U; 

BEECHER SCHOOL DISTRICT #200U 

and JAMES VIDMAR,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Now come the plaintiffs, by and through their lawyer, Steven Glink and complaining against the 

defendants, states as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

Defendant James Vidmar, while employed at Beecher High School as the band and choir

teacher, set up a hidden camera in the band and choir students’ changing area and after directing 

students to change into their uniforms in those rooms, secretly recorded students, including 

plaintiff, in a state of undress. This lawsuit seeks to hold the defendants liable for their conduct 

in violating the plaintiffs’ federal and state rights, which caused severe emotional distress to 

plaintiff.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
-2-

THE PARTIES

1. At all times relevant to this complaint, Jane Doe was a female student enrolled at Beecher 

High School who was under 18 years of age at the time of defendants’ illegal acts.

2. John Doe was/is Jane Doe’s biological father.

3. Both plaintiffs were and are residents of the Village of Beecher, Will County, Illinois.

4. At all times relevant to this complaint, Beecher School District # 200U (the district) was 

an Illinois school district organized and operated pursuant to the Illinois School Code.

5. The district’s principal business office is located in Will County, Illinois.

6. At all times relevant to this complaint, the members of the Board of Education (BOE or 

the board) for the district were elected and charged with the responsibility to operate the 

school district in compliance with Illinois law.

7. At all times relevant to this complaint, James Vidmar was employed by the BOE as a 

music teacher at Beecher High School.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

8. Jurisdiction id proper pursuant to 28 USC 1331.

9. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 USC 1392.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

10. On information and belief, the district is a recipient of federal funds.

11. Jane Doe was a student enrolled in defendant Vidmar’s music class.

12. From time to time, as a part of the school’s music activities, Jane Doe was directed by 

Vidmar to go into a choir dressing room and disrobe to change into her band/choir

uniform.

13. While performing his duties as band/choir teacher at BHS, Vidmar installed a secret 

camera in said dressing rooms with the intent to record the naked images of his female 

students.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
-3-

14. Unbeknownst to Jane Doe, her partially naked image was recorded and viewed by 

Vidmar.

15. Vidmar’s actions were discovered in November, 2018. Sometime after that, Jane Doe

was informed that her partially naked images had been recorded and viewed by Vidmar.

16. At the time she was informed, Jane Doe was a minor (17 years old). 

17. This complaint is filed less than one year from Jane Doe’s 18th birthday.

 COUNT I-VIOLATION OF TITLE IX

18. Plaintiffs incorporate their allegation in paragraphs 1-17 as their allegations for this 

count.

19. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 USC 1681, et. seq., provides that no 

person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the full 

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity 

receiving federal financial assistance.

20. Under Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S. Ct. 1946 (1979) and 

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 112 S. Ct. 1028 (1992), 

plaintiff Jane Doe has a private right of action for monetary damages, including punitive 

damages for if the school district/board of education shows deliberate indifference 

towards the plaintiff in dealing with sex discrimination and/or sexual harassment.

21. The school defendants owed a duty to Jane Doe prevent acts of sexual harassment/ sexual 

abuse committed by employees/ teachers against other students.

22. The school defendants also had a duty to protect female students, and Jane Doe in 

particular, from acts of sexual harassment and/or sexual abuse by employees.

23. The school defendants violated the duties owed to Jane Doe in one or more of the 

following ways:

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
-4-

a) Failed to properly investigate acts of sexual harassment/ sexual abuse by Vidmar

against female students;

b) Failed to take appropriate action to protect Jane Doe from acts of sexual 

harassment/sexual abuse by Vidmar at school or at school events;

c) Failed to provide adequate supervision of Vidmar on school property or at school 

events;

d) Failed to ensure that Janet Doe was able to participate equally to male students in 

school related activities and programs without being in fear of further acts of 

sexual harassment by Vidmar;

e) Failed to follow their own anti-sexual harassment policies.

24. The above described facts demonstrate an utter indifference to Jane Doe’s well-being and 

rights under Title IX.

25. As a direct and proximate result of the school defendants’ acts or omissions, Jane was 

denied an equal opportunity to participate equally in school sponsored programs because 

she becomes severely anxious seeing him or knowing he was in close proximity to her.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the school defendants’ acts or omissions, the plaintiffs 

have suffered severe emotional injuries.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court enter judgment in their favor in 

an amount in excess of $1.000,000 as compensatory damages.

Plaintiffs further pray that the Court enter an award of $1,000,000.00 in their favor 

against the school defendants as punitive damages for their reckless indifference towards 

Jane Doe.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
-5-

COUNT II-NEGLIGENCE (STATE LAW CLAIM)

27. Plaintiff realleges her allegations in paragraphs 1-26 above as her allegations for this 

count.

28. At all times relevant to this complaint, Jane Doe had a right to privacy in the images of 

her body as well as to the integrity of her body.

29. The school defendants owed a duty of care to Jane to ensure that Vidmar had no 

inappropriate contact with her.

30. The defendants owed a special duty of care to Jane because at that time, she was a minor 

and a student enrolled in their high school and as such, the defendants were in a 

fiduciary position of trust.

31. The BOE and the district are liable for Vidmar’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat 

superior.

32. The school defendants violated that duty to Jane in one or more of the following ways:

a. Carelessly and negligently failed to protect Jane from Vidmar’s sexually 

inappropriate behavior;

b. Carelessly and negligently failed to supervise Vidmar while he performed his 

duties as a teacher;

c. Was otherwise careless and negligent. 

33. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligent acts or omissions, Jane suffered

severe emotional distress and other personal injuries upon discovering what Vidmar had 

done.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in 

their favor against all of the school defendants, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of 

$1,000,000.00 plus costs.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
-6-

COUNT III-WILFUL AND WANTON AGAINST THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS

(STATE LAW CLAIM)

34. Plaintiffs reallege their allegations contained in paragraphs 1-26 as their allegations for 

count III herein.

35. The school defendants had a duty to refrain from acting with an utter indifference to 

Jane’s safety.

36. In violation of that duty, the school defendants acting willfully and wantonly towards

Jane in the following ways:

a. Willfully and with an utter indifference for Jane’s safety failed to protect her from

Vidmar’s behavior;

b. Willfully and with an utter indifference for Janet’s safety failed to supervise 

Vidmar on school property;

c. Willfully and with an utter indifference to Jane, failed to enforce their own sexual 

harassment policies;

d. Willfully and with an utter indifference to Jane, failed to inspect the music 

changing room for the presence of hidden cameras;

e. Was otherwise guilty of willful and wanton conduct toward Janet.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the school defendants’ willful and wanton acts or 

omissions, Vidmar was able to repeatedly and inappropriately record/ photograph Jane’s 

partially naked body, which caused Jane to suffer severe emotional distress and other 

personal injuries.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in 

their favor and against the school defendants, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of 

$1,000,000.00 plus costs.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
-7-

COUNT IV –VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER 42 USC 1983

38. Plaintiffs reallege their allegations contained in paragraphs 1-26 above as their 

allegations for this count.

39. The statute 42 USC 1983 prohibits a person acting under color of law from violating the 

rights of another.

40. At all times relevant to this complaint, Jane had a right to privacy in her bodily images. 

She also had a right to bodily integrity.

41. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, Jane had a right to equal 

treatment by state actors.

42. At all times relevant to this complaint, Vidmar acted under color of law.

43. Vidmar’s actions violated Jane’s right to privacy and bodily integrity.

44. Vidmar’s actions constitute sexual harassment and violate Jane’s right to equal 

protection because Vidmar discriminated against her based on her sex/gender.

45. As a direct and proximate cause of Vidmar’s acts Jane suffered severe emotional distress 

and other personal injuries.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their 

favor and against James Vidmar in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00 plus costs and 

attorney’s fees.

COUNT V- VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER 42 USC 1983

46. Plaintiffs reallege their allegations in paragraphs 1-26 above as there allegations in count 

V herein.

47. Under the Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Jane Doe had a right to 

due process of law.

48. All defendants violated Jane’s rights to due process of law because the acts described 

above shock the conscious.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
-8-

49. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ acts or omissions, Jane Doe has suffered 

severe emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Jane Doe respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter 

judgement against all defendants, jointly and severally in an amount of $1,000.000 plus costs 

and attorney’s fees.

COUNT VI-INVASION OF PRIVACY (STATE LAW CLAIM

50. Plaintiffs reallege their allegations in paragraphs 1-26 above as their allegations for this 

count.

51. Under Illinois law, Vidmar’s actions as described above constitute an intrusion into 

seclusion of Jane’s privacy.

52. The BOE and the district are liable for their employee’s actions via respondeat superior.

53. As a direct and proximate cause of the above-described acts or omissions by all 

defendants Jane’s has suffered severe emotional distress and other personal injuries.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in their 

favor and against all defendants, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00 

plus costs.

COUNT VII-FAMILY EXPENSE ACT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (STATE 

LAW CLAIM)

54. Plaintiffs reallege their allegations in paragraphs 1-26 above as their allegations for count 

VII herein.

55. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ negligent and/or willful and wanton 

acts or omissions, the Jane was injured emotionally. 

56. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Jane, who was a minor child at 

that time, incurred medical expenses for which the parents could be obligated to pay 

pursuant to the Family Expense Act, 750 ILCS 65/15.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
-9-

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their 

favor and against all defendants, jointly and severally for an amount in excess of $100,000 plus 

costs.

COUNT VIII-INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(STATE LAW CLAIM)

57. Plaintiffs reallege their allegations in paragraphs 1- 26 as their allegations for count VII

herein.

58. Vidmar’s actions of secretly installing hidden cameras in the female student’s dressing 

area with the intent to view them in a state of undress are extreme, outrageous and 

egregious.

59. Defendants knew or should have known that Vidmar’s actions of videoing and viewing

Jane’s private would cause her extreme and severe emotional distress.

60. Jane did in fact suffer severe emotional distress as a result of Vidmar’s actions.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter judgement in their 

favor against the defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000 plus costs.

COUNT IX- VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (STATE LAW 

CLAIM)

61. Plaintiffs reallege their allegations in paragraphs 1-26 above as their allegations for this 

count.

62. Section 5A of the Illinois Human Rights Act (“the Act”) prohibits sexual harassment in 

secondary schools. 775 ILCS 5/5A-101 et. seq.

63. Under subsection of the Act, Beecher High School is an institution of secondary 

education.

64. Under subsection C of the Act, Jane Doe is a student.

65. Under subsection D of the Act, Vidmar is a secondary school representative.

66. Under subsection E of the Act, Vidmar’s actions constitute sexual harassment.

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
-10-

67. The facts alleged demonstrate that the defendants violated section 102 of the Act (e.g., 

Civil Rights violations).

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in their 

favor and against all defendants, jointly and severally in the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus costs 

and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Respectfully Submitted,

By: s/ Steven Glink

Law Offices of Steven Glink, ARDC # 6180869

Attorney for Plaintiffs

3338 Commercial Avenue

Northbrook, Illinois 60062

847-480-7749 (voice)

847-480-9501 (facsimile)

steve@educationrights.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10