IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

DION GAINES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-3487

)

SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY )

THOMAS J. DART, in his Official )

Capacity and COUNTY OF COOK, )

ILLINOIS, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, DION GAINES (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, The 

Herbert Law Firm, make the following complaints against the Defendants, 

SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY THOMAS J. DART and COUNTY OF COOK, 

ILLINOIS, and states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought by Plaintiff, employee of Cook County Sheriff’s 

Officer pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et 

seq. pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 

ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. to redress the deprivation under the color of law of Plaintiff’s 

rights as secured by the Illinois and United States Constitutions. 

2. Plaintiff in the course of many years as a Cook County Sheriff’s Officer 

has been the target of internal investigations as a result of a filed complaint for 

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
2

FMLA violations pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 

et seq. 

3. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ policies, practices, and 

decisions had a disparate impact upon him based on his race, African-American.

4. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive 

damages, and liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as 

remedies for Defendants’ violations of his rights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims are conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 

1343.

6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to general venue statute, 28 

U.S.C. § 1391 because all parties reside in this judicial district and the events 

pertaining to the claims made in this complaint occurred in this district.

7. All conditions precedent to filing suit have been met. Specifically, 

Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) that was cross-filed with the 

Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”), as required by Section 42 U.S.C. § 

2000(e)(1) on March 4, 2020. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).

8. Exhibit “A” is a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s charge of 

discrimination.

9. The United States Department of Civil Rights Division issued a “right 

to sue letter” dated March 12, 2020. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “B”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
3

10. Exhibit “B” is a true and accurate copy of the right to sue letter.

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff, DION GAINES, is a male African-American employee of the 

Defendants, holding the position of Correctional Officer with the Cook County 

Sheriff’s Department.

12. Defendant, Thomas J. Dart (“Dart”) was and is, at all times relevant 

herein, the Sheriff of Cook County.

13. As the duly elected Sheriff of Cook County, Dart operates in his official 

capacity as the head of the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. Dart is responsible 

for the hiring, training and supervision of all personnel necessary to operate and 

maintain the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. Dart is sued in his official 

capacity.

14. Defendant County of Cook is a local public entity under the laws of the 

State of Illinois.

15. Defendant, Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County is directly liable as 

Plaintiff’s employer for the violations of Title VII as set forth herein below. 

Defendant Cook County, Illinois, a body politic, is not directly liable for any of the 

conduct herein described, but is the indemnitor of Defendant Dart pursuant to 750 

ILCS § 5/9-102. As such, Defendant Cook County, Illinois is a necessary party to 

this lawsuit.

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
4

FACTS

16. Plaintiff began his employment with the Cook County Sheriff’s 

Department on or about March 21, 2005 as a Correctional Officer.

17. Since the beginning of Plaintiff’s career with the Cook County Sheriff’s 

Office, he had minimal disciplinary history and has no substantial discipline on his 

record.

18. In and around April 2016, there was an incident on Plaintiff’s watch 

during which some detainees were out of their respective cells; when Plaintiff was 

told of this incident, he was ordered by his Sergeant and his Lieutenant to return 

the detainees to their cells; both ordered him to complete an incident report for the 

involved detainees as required under department directives. Plaintiff completed the 

reports as ordered by his supervisors.

19. In and around July 2016, Plaintiff received a disqualification letter for 

the Sergeant’s promotional list due to an alleged day of unauthorized pay dating 

back to December 31, 2015; however, this was an FMLA day that Plaintiff had 

previously taken that was incorrectly input as an unauthorized day off.

20. Related to the December 31, 2015 FMLA day off, Plaintiff had multiple 

supervisors review and approve said FMLA day more than two weeks before he 

used this day as part of his intermittent FMLA leave.

21. For approximately three months, Plaintiff attempted to resolve this 

issue with his employer, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to no avail.

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
5

22. Specifically, Plaintiff repeatedly provided the Defendants with 

documentation demonstrating that his day of unauthorized pay was, in fact, a 

FMLA protected intermittent leave of absence.

23. Yet, the Defendants failed to resolve the discrepancy related to 

Plaintiff’s FMLA authorized day off.

24. In and around September 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court 

alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). See Dion Gaines v. 

Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, et al., 2016-cv-08809. 

25. In and around October 2016 and approximately one month after 

Plaintiff filed his FMLA lawsuit, Plaintiff received notification that he had to report 

to the Office of Professional Regulation (“OPR”) in regards to an allegation made 

against him for “failure to perform assigned task” in relation to the April 2016 

incident. 

26. Plaintiff never received any discipline from his immediate supervisors 

in regards to the April 2016 incident which gave rise to the current charges against 

him. 

27. This open OPR investigation initiated in October 2016 remains 

pending and undetermined and is the basis for charges brought against Plaintiff

before the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board, in which, the Sheriff is seeking 

Plaintiff’s termination.

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
6

28. In and around January 2017, the Defendants, Thomas J. Dart and the 

County of Cook in Case No. 16-cv-08809, made an Offer of Judgment in regards to 

settling the matters in the FMLA lawsuit. 

29. During negotiation of the Defendants’ Offer of Judgment in Case No. 

16-cv-08809, Plaintiff asked that his name be restored to the promotional list for the 

position of Sergeant with the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. 

30. The Defendants in Case No. 16-cv-08809 rejected restoring Plaintiff’s 

name to the promotional list for the position of Sergeant as part of their Offer of 

Judgment and as a basis relied on the fact that the October 2016 OPR investigation 

related to the April 2016 incident remained pending and undetermined.

31. From January 2017 through August 2017, Plaintiff persistently 

inquired as to the status of his open OPR investigation all to no avail.

32. In and around February 2018, Plaintiff received an email ordering him 

to participate in a Loudermill hearing for an allegation of falsifying documents; the 

County changed the allegations from the April 2016 incident from “failure to 

perform assigned task” to “falsifying documents”. 

33. Plaintiff was advised that this allegation was because Plaintiff was 

viewed on the camera with his back to the tier; however, Plaintiff monitored the tier 

via the video monitoring system. 

34. The County arbitrarily brought these allegations against Plaintiff as a 

way to charge him with a separable offense. These allegations remain pending 

before the Cook County Sheriff Merit Board. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
7

35. In and around March 2018, Plaintiff produced documentation that 

exonerated him on the allegation of “falsifying documents” in regards to using the 

monitoring system to conduct a security check of the tier. 

36. Despite this exonerating evidence, in and around February 2019, the 

OPR investigation initiated in October 2016 remained pending and undetermined.

37. In fact, at this time, Plaintiff was now told that the basis for the 

“falsifying documents” allegations relates to his log book whether Plaintiff’s security 

check of the tier was physical or visual. The County’s theory of the allegations 

against Plaintiff changed for the third time.

38. As of today’s date, Plaintiff’s pending charges before the Cook County 

Sheriff’s Merit Board remain pending and undetermined.

39. Further, an open OPR investigation and pending merit board charges 

preclude Plaintiff from being appointed to any departmental promotions, or even 

lateral advancement within the department.

40. Plaintiff was never notified of any allegations in relation to the April 

2016 incident until approximately six months later after Plaintiff filed his lawsuit 

related to the FMLA leave.

41. Plaintiff participated in protected activity when he filed his federal 

lawsuit for violations of FMLA.

42. Plaintiff is being harassed and disproportionately treated for his 

participation in the protected activity of filing an FMLA complaint.

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
8

43. Defendants have used false and illegal reasons for taking adverse 

actions against the Plaintiff for his exercise of his FMLA rights; and, further have 

continued to retaliate against him for participating in protected activity.

44. Defendants’ actions have prevented Plaintiff from being promoted or 

making lateral advancement and have adversely affected the terms of Plaintiff’s 

employment.

45. Defendants’ intentional delay in coming to a resolution of the 

allegations against Plaintiff are to preclude Plaintiff from being promoted in 

retaliation for his participation in protected activity. 

46. Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiff to be intimidated by his 

employer and in the performance of his everyday duties. 

47. Plaintiff, while performing his daily job functions, fears that his 

supervisors will write him up for even minor infractions to further bring allegations 

against him. 

48. Plaintiff does not know any other employees that have received the 

treatment Plaintiff received, nor does he have any knowledge of other Correctional 

Officers that have had an open OPR investigation for over four (4) years.

49. Defendants’ actions have damaged the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has 

suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of wages, benefits, and other damages. 

50. Defendants willfully violated Title VII by retaliating against Plaintiff 

for exercising his FMLA rights, denying him a promotion, and discriminating 

against him because of his exercise of his FMLA rights. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
9

51. Defendants continue to retaliate against Plaintiff by the undue delay 

in the pending charges before the Sheriff’s Merit Board seeking his termination.

52. The actions by Defendants were taken deliberately and intentionally 

with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s civil rights.

53. The acts complained of were ratified, authorized and permitted by 

Defendants and its managers and supervisors. 

COUNT I 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000-2(a) 

Retaliation

54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set 

forth in paragraphs 1 - 53 above.

55. As described in the preceding paragraphs, the Plaintiff engaged in or 

was engaging in protected activity protected under FMLA, filing internal 

complaints regarding outstanding OPR investigations, grievances, memorandum 

and incident reports.

56. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions 

including failure to provide Plaintiff a safe working environment, failure to 

promote, and charges of termination against Plaintiff.

57. Plaintiff was subjected to the adverse employment actions because of 

his participation in filing under FMLA, filing internal complaints regarding the 

outstanding OPR investigations, grievances, memorandum and incident reports.

58. Defendants’ adverse employment actions directed at Plaintiff would 

not have occurred but for Plaintiff filing under FMLA, filing internal complaints 

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
10

regarding outstanding OPR investigations, grievances, memorandum and incident 

reports. 

59. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violations of Title VII, 

Plaintiff has suffered severe and substantial damages. These damages include 

litigation expenses including attorneys’ fees, reputation, humiliation, lost career 

opportunities, mental and emotional anguish and distress and other compensatory 

damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury and the Court.

COUNT II 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) 

Hostile Work Environment

60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set 

forth in paragraph 1 – 59 above.

61. As described in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants committed an 

unlawful employment practice by subjecting Plaintiff a hostile working environment 

by subjecting him to ongoing harassment, intimidation, ridicule, disproportionate 

disciplinary actions based upon his participation in protected activity.

62. Defendants knew of the harassment and failed to take prompt, 

effective remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment; and, in fact, 

perpetuated the harassment and retaliation against the Plaintiff.

63. The Defendants’ conduct occurred over several years and currently 

continues with the pending charges before the Sheriff’s Merit Board.

64. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violation of Title VII, 

Plaintiff suffered severe and substantial damage. These damages include litigation 

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
11

expenses including attorneys’ fees, reputation, humiliation, lost career 

opportunities, mental and emotional anguish and distress and other compensatory 

damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury and the Court.

COUNT III 

IDHR – 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. 

Retaliation

65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set 

forth in paragraphs 1 – 64 above.

66. As described in the preceding paragraphs, the Plaintiff engaged in or 

was engaging in protected activity protected under FMLA, filing internal 

complaints regarding outstanding OPR investigations, grievances, memorandum 

and incident reports.

67. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions 

including failure to provide Plaintiff a safe working environment, failure to 

promote, charges of termination against Plaintiff.

68. Plaintiff was subjected to the adverse employment actions because of 

his participation in filing under FMLA, filing internal complaints regarding the 

outstanding OPR investigations, grievances, memorandum and incident reports.

69. Defendants’ adverse employment actions directed at Plaintiff would 

not have occurred but for Plaintiff filing under FMLA, filing internal complaints 

regarding outstanding OPR investigations, grievances, memorandum and incident 

reports. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
12

70. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violations of IHRA, 

Plaintiff has suffered severe and substantial damages. These damages include 

litigation expenses including attorneys’ fees, reputation, humiliation, lost career 

opportunities, mental and emotional anguish and distress and other compensatory 

damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury and the Court.

COUNT IV 

IDHR – 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. 

Hostile Work Environment

71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set 

forth in paragraphs 1 – 70 above.

72. As described in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants committed an 

unlawful employment practice by subjecting Plaintiff a hostile working environment 

by subjecting him to ongoing harassment, intimidation, ridicule, disproportionate 

disciplinary actions based upon his participation in protected activity.

73. Defendants knew of the harassment and failed to take prompt, 

effective remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment; and, in fact, 

perpetuated the harassment and retaliation against the Plaintiff.

74. The Defendants’ conduct occurred over several years and currently 

continues with the pending charges before the Sheriff’s Merit Board.

75. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violation of IHRA, 

Plaintiff suffered severe and substantial damage. These damages include litigation 

expenses including attorneys’ fees, reputation, humiliation, lost career 

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
13

opportunities, mental and emotional anguish and distress and other compensatory 

damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury and the Court.

COUNT V 

Declaratory Relief 

 

76. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and 

Defendants concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiff contends that 

Defendants violated his rights under Title VII and the IHRA. Plaintiff is informed 

and believes and thereon alleges that the Defendants deny these allegations. 

Declaratory relief is therefore necessary and appropriate. 

77. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of the rights and duties of the respective 

parties.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

a. For a declaration that Defendants’ actions, policies and practices as 

alleged herein are unlawful;

b. For lost wages and all other compensation denied or lost to Plaintiff by 

reason of Defendants’ unlawful actions, in an amount to be proven at trial; 

c. For compensatory damages for Plaintiff’s emotional pain and suffering, 

in an amount to be proved at trial;

d. For liquidated damages;

e. For interest on lost wages, compensation and damages, including preand post-judgment interest and upward adjustment for inflations;

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
14

f. For an order enjoining Defendants from engaging in the unlawful acts 

complained of herein;

g. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§2000e-5(k), 775 ILCS 5/1-100 et seq., and other law; and

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

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury.

Dated: June 15, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kelly A. Krauchun

Kelly A. Krauchun (ARDC #6322639)

The Herbert Law Firm

206 S. Jefferson, Suite 100

Chicago, IL 60661

(312) 655-7660

Kelly.krauchun@danherbertlaw.com

/s/ Daniel Q. Herbert

Daniel Q. Herbert (ARDC #6273940)

The Herbert Law Firm

206 S. Jefferson, Suite 100

Chicago, IL 60661

(312) 655-7660

Daniel.herbert@danherbertlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03487 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14