Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/20644321/Federal-Complaint-Smiley-2
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 09:24:26
Document Index: 46833178

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2000', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1331', '§ 1334', '§ 1391', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 1988', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 1988', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 2000', '§ 1988']

Federal Complaint Smiley 2 | Plaintiff
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SURIYA H.SMILEY, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, SURIYA H. SMILEY (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorney, Kevin Vodak, of Council on American Islamic Relations, Chicago Chapter (CAIR-Chicago), complaining of Defendant, COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO (“Defendant”), states as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiff seeks redress for the violation of rights guaranteed to Plaintiff by Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and by 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended, as a result of race and national origin discrimination that she suffered during her employment with Defendant. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Plaintiff alleges violations of her civil rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; therefore, jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1334. 3. On June 3, 2009, Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (See Ex. A – Charge of Discrimination.)
The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on Plaintiff’s charge on September 23,
2009. (See Ex. B – Notice of Right to Sue.) 5. The violations alleged herein occurred in the Northern District of Illinois;
therefore, venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff, SURIYA H. SMILEY, is a woman of Palestinian national origin and
Arab ancestry, who currently resides in Illinois. She previously worked as a Radio Studio Operations professor in Defendant’s Radio Department. 7. Defendant, COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, is a private arts and media
educational institution in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant is an employer for the purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), as Defendant employed fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day for twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current and preceding calendar years. COMMON ALLEGATIONS 8. Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a part-time faculty member in the Radio
Department in 1994. Plaintiff was the only individual of Arab descent employed in the Radio Department. 9. Throughout the fourteen (14) years of her employment, Plaintiff exceeded
Defendant’s expectations. She has consistently received positive student evaluations regarding her coursework and teaching methods. 10. On December 4, 2008, Ms. Stephanie Downs, the Assistant Director of Student
Relations, notified Plaintiff that a student reported a complaint against Plaintiff. Ms. Downs refused to provide Plaintiff with any details about the student complaint.
Plaintiff and Ms. Downs scheduled to meet on December 9, 2008, to discuss the
student complaint. During the meeting, Ms. Downs questioned Plaintiff extensively about a particular student but again refused to provide details of the allegations of the complaint. 12. On January 13, 2009, Plaintiff received notification from the Department Chair,
Ms. Barbara Calabrese, that Plaintiff was found in violation of charges against her. Plaintiff asked for an explanation of the charges she allegedly violated, but Ms. Calabrese refused to discuss the issue. When Plaintiff told Ms. Calabrese “I do not feel any support from you,” Ms. Calabrese replied, “I am here for the students, not to support you.” 13. Plaintiff left a message with Ms. Downs on January 13, 2009, seeking the nature
of the charge. Ms. Downs did not reply to the message. As of January 13, 2009, Plaintiff was still not advised of the substance of the student complaint or the charges against her. 14. Plaintiff and a union representative met with Assistant Provost Louise Love and
Department Chair Calabrese on January 16, 2009. Ms. Love and Ms. Calabrese disclosed to Plaintiff allegations during this meeting that a student accused her of making anti-Semitic remarks to the student. The student alleged that Plaintiff, while taking class attendance, stated, “I should have known you were Jewish by the size of your nose.” 15. Plaintiff immediately and adamantly denied the allegations. She asked Assistant
Provost Love and Department Chair Calabrese if they conducted questioning of other students present in the class to confirm or deny the allegations. Ms. Love claimed that questioning of the other students required Plaintiff’s permission, to which Plaintiff responded, “You have my permission now.” Ms. Calabrese then claimed that they could not involve the students.
At the conclusion of the January 16, 2009 meeting, Assistant Provost Love and
Department Chair Calabrese stated, based on Mrs. Plaintiff’s denial, that they would conduct an investigation. 17. On the day following this meeting, Assistant Provost Love sent a letter to Plaintiff
informing her of the termination of her employment due to violation of Defendant’s AntiDiscrimination and Harassment Policy. 18. Plaintiff was not properly apprised of Defendant’s Anti-Discrimination and
Harassment Policy. After receiving Assistant Provost Love’s letter, she requested a copy of the policy, but the IT department could not locate the referenced document until a week later. 19. On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff again met with Assistant Provost Love, in an Subsequently, Plaintiff was informed that
attempt to appeal the employment termination.
Defendant lacked a procedure for part-time faculty to appeal decisions. 20. The reason for Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment remains
pretextual, as Plaintiff performed well as a faculty member for approximately fourteen (14) years, the student’s allegations were absurd, and Defendant refused to conduct an investigation into the student’s allegations. The teacher’s assistant and eight other students were present in class at the time Plaintiff allegedly directed anti-Semitic remarks toward the student, none of whom were contacted or questioned by Defendant. In fact, these other students confirmed that Plaintiff never made the alleged remarks or any anti-Semitic statements. 21. On information and belief, Defendant treated Plaintiff less favorably than
similarly situated employees who are not Palestinian or Arab when they were accused of false allegations of misconduct.
COUNT I TITLE VII – NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION 22. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges paragraphs one (1) through twenty-one (21) as set
forth fully herein. 23. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on her national origin,
Palestinian, by discharging Plaintiff from her employment based on false and pretextual reasons, as revealed by Defendant’s refusal to investigate the allegations and the clear evidence that Plaintiff did not commit the alleged misconduct. The nature of Defendant’s asserted reason for Plaintiff’s discharge reveals that she was targeted based on her Palestinian national origin. 24. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant was willful and malicious acts of
unlawful discrimination against Plaintiff because of her national origin, Palestinian, in violation of the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended. 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered
emotional distress, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, and other consequential damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SURIYA H. SMILEY, requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, and enter an Order awarding the following relief: A. B. C. All wages and benefits she would have received but for the discrimination; Compensatory damages; Punitive damages;
An order mandating that Defendant reinstate Plaintiff to her prior position, or front pay in lieu of reinstatement;
An award of costs, as provided by F.R.C.P. 54(d)(1); An award of reasonable attorneys fees, as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); or 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and
Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II TITLE VII – RACE DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiff reasserts and realleges paragraphs one (1) through twenty-one (21) as set
forth fully herein. 27. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on her race, Arab, by discharging
Plaintiff from her employment based on false and pretextual reasons, as revealed by Defendant’s refusal to investigate the allegations and the clear evidence that Plaintiff did not commit the alleged misconduct. The nature of Defendant’s asserted reason for Plaintiff’s discharge reveals that she was targeted based on her Arab race. 28. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant was willful and malicious acts of
unlawful discrimination against Plaintiff because of her race, Arab, in violation of the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended. 29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered
emotional distress, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, and other consequential damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SURIYA H. SMILEY, requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, and enter an Order awarding the following relief: A. B. C. D. All wages and benefits she would have received but for the discrimination; Compensatory damages; Punitive damages; An order mandating that Defendant reinstate Plaintiff to her prior position, or front pay in lieu of reinstatement; E. F. An award of costs, as provided by F.R.C.P. 54(d)(1); An award of reasonable attorneys fees, as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); or 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and G. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. COUNT III 42 U.S.C. § 1981 – RACE DISCRIMINATION 30. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges paragraphs one (1) through twenty-one (21) as set
forth fully herein. 31. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on her race, Arab, by discharging
Plaintiff from her employment based on false and pretextual reasons, as revealed by Defendant’s refusal to investigate the allegations and the clear evidence that Plaintiff did not commit the alleged misconduct. The nature of Defendant’s asserted reason for Plaintiff’s discharge reveals that she was targeted based on her Arab race.
The aforementioned conduct of Defendant was willful and malicious acts of
unlawful discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of her race, Arab, and has deprived Plaintiff the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of her employment relationship in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered
emotional distress, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, and other consequential damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SURIYA H. SMILEY, requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, and enter an Order awarding the following relief: A. B. C. D. All wages and benefits she would have received but for the discrimination; Compensatory damages; Punitive damages; An order mandating that Defendant reinstate Plaintiff to her prior position, or front pay in lieu of reinstatement; E. F. An award of costs, as provided by F.R.C.P. 54(d)(1); An award of reasonable attorneys fees, as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); or 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and G. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND 34. Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues of fact and law raised by the allegations
in this Complaint. Respectfully submitted, SURIYA H. SMILEY, Plaintiff,
/s/Kevin Vodak________________ KEVIN VODAK Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney #: 6270773 Council on American-Islamic Relations, Chicago Chapter (CAIR-Chicago) 28 East Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Ph: 312.212.1520 Fax: 312.212.1530
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulFederal Complaint Smiley 2 by Chicago Tribune0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadInterests: Books, Society & Culture, Social IssuesRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedSuriya H. Smiley vs. Columbia College Chicagoby Chicago TribuneDefendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’s Cross-motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims for Failure To Prosecute (Harris Doc. 95)by simalityComplaint - Maliarakis v. NYC DOEby pospislawTazewell County Jail suitby Journal StarMichigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 143 U.S. 293 (1892)by Scribd Government Docs(PC) Steele v. McMahon et al - Document No. 4by Justia.comTeen sues Charles Pugh, Detroit Public Schools over relationship by pkampeCREW v. Sec. of Education et al (formerly CREW V. Sec. Margaret Spellings, now CREW V. Sec. Arne Duncan): 10/12/2007 - Memorandum in Oppositionby CREWComplaint in Civil Casesby elvinperia22-1by Bill SantagataNepomuceno vs Herediaby leevetShort v. Johnston - Document No. 3by Justia.com121 KC Ex Parte R26 Relief - DFJ Oppby Eugene D. LeeStanley Hilton case - 2nd amended complaintby ollekeD.E. 1-2 NOTICE of REMOVAL by ACE USA, Inc., Illinois Union Insurance Company From Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, Case Number 251-12-99-CIV - Exhibit 2, Complaint for Declaratory Relief CIVby ACELitigationWatchMarilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, Roland Neil Meyers, and City of Wichita, Scott Redpath, Special Agent, Marilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, City of Wichita, Roland Neil Meyers, and Scott Redpath, Special Agent, 76 F.3d 1127, 10th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsBianchini Amended Complaintby the kingfishSarah is afraid I'm Coming for her Grandbabyby BillSchmalfeldtBonifac Lobo Robert v Lobo v Wong Wooi Mengby Nik Md SHernandez v LAPDby PINAC NewsG80RTY7Sby MainJusticeBurrows v. AT&T ERISA MSJby Northern District of California BlogWest v. Smith, 101 U.S. 263 (1879)by Scribd Government DocsLamison 106 Powell_Aby christopherbroichWatts v. Karmichael Family, LLC et al - Document No. 5by Justia.comJ.R. Wes Perrin v. Virginia Egger, as Town Manager of the Town of Telluride Town of Telluride, 113 F.3d 1246, 10th Cir. (1997)by Scribd Government DocsPerrin v. Egger, 10th Cir. (1997)by Scribd Government DocsGreat American Insurance Company v. Sami Hindiyeh et al - Document No. 5by Justia.comSimilar To Federal Complaint Smiley 2Skip carouselSuriya H. Smiley vs. Columbia College ChicagoDefendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’s Cross-motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims for Failure To Prosecute (Harris Doc. 95)Complaint - Maliarakis v. NYC DOETazewell County Jail suitMichigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 143 U.S. 293 (1892)(PC) Steele v. McMahon et al - Document No. 4Teen sues Charles Pugh, Detroit Public Schools over relationship CREW v. Sec. of Education et al (formerly CREW V. Sec. Margaret Spellings, now CREW V. Sec. Arne Duncan)Complaint in Civil Cases22-1Nepomuceno vs HerediaShort v. Johnston - Document No. 3121 KC Ex Parte R26 Relief - DFJ OppStanley Hilton case - 2nd amended complaintD.E. 1-2 NOTICE of REMOVAL by ACE USA, Inc., Illinois Union Insurance Company From Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, Case Number 251-12-99-CIV - Exhibit 2, Complaint for Declaratory Relief CIVMarilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, Roland Neil Meyers, and City of Wichita, Scott Redpath, Special Agent, Marilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, City of Wichita, Roland Neil Meyers, and Scott Redpath, Special Agent, 76 F.3d 1127, 10th Cir. (1996)Bianchini Amended ComplaintSarah is afraid I'm Coming for her GrandbabyBonifac Lobo Robert v Lobo v Wong Wooi MengHernandez v LAPDG80RTY7SBurrows v. AT&T ERISA MSJWest v. Smith, 101 U.S. 263 (1879)Lamison 106 Powell_AWatts v. Karmichael Family, LLC et al - Document No. 5J.R. Wes Perrin v. Virginia Egger, as Town Manager of the Town of Telluride Town of Telluride, 113 F.3d 1246, 10th Cir. (1997)Perrin v. Egger, 10th Cir. (1997)Great American Insurance Company v. Sami Hindiyeh et al - Document No. 5CREW v Cheney Memorandum OpinionHeartsprings, Inc. v. Heartspring, Inc., 143 F.3d 550, 10th Cir. (1998)Federal Complaint Smiley 2