Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN CORCORAN, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No.:
)
v. ) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
) CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ) SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIMS
)
Defendant. ) JURY DEMANDED
)

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action pursuant to the United States Constitution and the Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., as amended. This court

has jurisdiction under and by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and supplemental

jurisdiction under and by virtue of U.S.C. § 1367.

2. Venue is founded in this judicial district upon 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the acts

complained of arose in this district.

3. Plaintiff, BRIAN CORCORAN, has fully complied with the procedural

requirements of Title VII. He filed a charge for discrimination with the EEOC, received a right-to-

sue letter from the United States Department of Justice, and brought this lawsuit within the

applicable time period.

PARTIES

4. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff, BRIAN CORCORAN (hereinafter

“Corcoran” or “Plaintiff”), was employed by the Defendant THE CITY OF CHICAGO

(hereinafter the “City” or “Defendant”) as a police officer.

 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:2

5. At all times herein mentioned the Defendant was and is believed and alleged

hereon to be a political division of the State of Illinois, existing as such under the laws of the

State of Illinois. At all relevant times, the Defendant maintained, managed, and/or operated the

City of Chicago Police Department. Defendant is also an employer subject to suit under the

Title VII in that Defendant is in an industry affecting commerce and had 15 or more employees

in each of 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Plaintiff began employment with Defendant on or about November 22, 1993.

7. At all relevant times described herein, Plaintiff was employed in the position of a

police officer at the CPD’s 18th District Station. Plaintiff worked the 2nd watch at the 18th

District.

8. At all material times, Plaintiff performed his job according to his employer’s

legitimate expectations.

9. At all relevant times prior to April 11, 2009, Plaintiff’s regular duty assignment at

the 18th District was working as a patrol officer. During this time, the Plaintiff worked a relief

car; he was not assigned to work on a regular beat number or with a regular partner on a day to

day basis.

10. During the first week of April, 2009, Plaintiff overheard SGT. KELLY

BRAITHWAITE (hereinafter “Braithwaite”), a Caucasian female, call OFFICER ALVIN

CAMPBELL (hereinafter “Campbell”), an African-American male, a “fat lazy nigger” in the

18th District station. Plaintiff subsequently reported Sgt. Braithwaite’s statement to Officer

Campbell.

2
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:3

11. In early April, 2009, Officer Campbell reported to the CAPTAIN of the 18th

District, RANDALL ZAWIS (hereinafter “Zawis”), that the Plaintiff overheard Sgt.

Braithwaite’s comment. Several days later, the Independent Police Review Authority (“IPRA”)

opened up an investigation into Sgt. Braithwaite’s comments under Complaint Register (“CR”)

number 1025475.

12. Beginning on April 11, 2009, the Defendant, through its agents, undertook

intentional, severe, and humiliating retaliatory actions against the Plaintiff as described in

paragraphs 13 through 41 below.

13. On April 11, 2009, just days IPRA began their investigation into CR #1025475,

CAPTAIN KEN ANGARONE (“Angarone”) and Captain Zawis of the 18th District assigned

Plaintiff and Officer Campbell to Beat Number 1822F. Plaintiff had never been previously

assigned to Beat 1822F.

14. Starting on April 11, 2009, and at all relevant times thereafter, Beat 1822F’s

assignment was to a sit at a fixed post at Cabrini Green. Sgt. Braithwaite ordered Plaintiff and

Officer Campbell to keep their vehicle in-between the 364 and 365 West Oak Street Buildings

located at Cabrini Green at all times.

15. During his assignment to Beat 1822F, Plaintiff was required to request face to

face relief for lunch, personal breaks or other various forms of relief. Plaintiff could not leave

his post without another officer physically being present to relieve him of his post.

16. Prior to April 11, 2009, Beat Number 1822F was a roving patrol Beat assigned to

Officers WADELL HARDY and JAMES MARTIN from the 18th District. During this time,

Beat Number 1822F did not require face to face relief for lunch, personal breaks or other various

forms of relief.

3
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:4

17. During all relevant times, no officer in the 18th District who filled in for the

Plaintiff on Beat 1822F was required to stay at the fixed post in-between 364 and 365 West Oak

Street Buildings or required to seek face-to-face relief for lunch or personal time.

18. During all relevant times, Beat 1822F was known by officers in the 18th District

as the “punishment car”.

19. On or about May 6, 2009, Plaintiff asked the Watch Commander of the 18th

District on that date, LIEUTENANT BIALEK (hereinafter “Bialek”), why he was assigned to

Beat 1822F. Lt. Bialek told the Plaintiff in sum and substance that the Captain placed people on

Beat 1822F as punishment for various infractions.

20. In early May, 2009, Plaintiff was present at a roll call that Watch Commander of

the 18th District LIEUTENANT MACK (hereinafter “Mack”) conducted. During roll call, Lt.

Mack stated openly that “he did not agree with this punishment car 1822F” and that he would do

whatever he could to change it. However, Plaintiff was not reassigned from Beat 1822F at this

time.

21. On or about May 15, 2009, Sgt. Braithwaite presented Plaintiff with a false write-

up, aka a “SPAR”, for not being present at check-off at the 18th District. Sgt. Brathwaite was

aware on May 15, 2009 that Plaintiff was present at the 18th District check-off on May 15, 2009

with his fellow officers. Plaintiff subsequently requested a hearing on the SPAR with the

Commander of the 18th District, STEVE GEORGAS (hereinafter “Georgas”). After reviewing

the allegations in the May 15, 2009 SPAR, Commander Georgas concurred that Plaintiff should

suffer summary punishment. Plaintiff subsequently requested a hearing with the next level of

command, Central Control Group Deputy JAMES KEATING (hereinafter “Keating”), who

summarily dismissed the May 15, 2009 SPAR against the Plaintiff.

4
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:5

22. On or about June 3, 2009, SGT. CINDY SCHUMAN (hereinafter “Schuman”)

presented Plaintiff with a second false SPAR for not being present at check-off on June 1, 2009

at the 18th District. Commander Georgas ordered Sgt. Schuman to present Plaintiff with this

SPAR on June 3, 2009. The write-up was false because Sgt. Schuman was not present at check-

off on June 1, 2009 and no other Sergeant was present to check-off the Plaintiff on that date.

Plaintiff requested a hearing on this second SPAR with Commander Georgas. As a result of this

second SPAR, Plaintiff was suspended for one day.

23. On or about June 25, 2009, SGT. BRIAN BYRNE (hereinafter “Byrne”) arrived

at Plaintiff’s fixed location at Beat 1822F and told Plaintiff and Officer Campbell that they

needed to complete a To: From: report as to why they were in a vehicle at their fixed post.

Pursuant to the order issued on April 11, 2009, Plaintiff was assigned to Beat Car 1822F. Prior

to June 25, 2009, Plaintiff had never received any order stating that Beat 1822F was a foot post.

Plaintiff completed the To: From: statement at the 18th District, despite the fact that he was never

given any order that Beat 1822F was to be a foot post.

24. Several days after the June 25, 2009 meeting, Sgt. Byrne issued a third false

SPAR to Plaintiff based upon a failure to perform task assigned. The SPAR stated that “Officer

Corcoran was observed by Commander Georgas sitting in a squad car after being instructed by

Lt. Bialek that his assignment was to be standing in the lobby at 364-365 W. Oak.” Plaintiff

subsequently requested a hearing on the June 25, 2009 SPAR with the Acting Commander of the

18th District, Captain Angarone. As a result of this hearing, Captain Angarone dismissed the

June 25, 2009 SPAR against the Plaintiff.

25. After June 25, 2009, the Plaintiff’s assignment on Beat 1822F changed from

working a fix post patrol car in-between the Cabrini Green buildings located at 364 and 365

5
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:6

West Oak Street to a foot post standing in the lobby at 364 and 365 West Oak Street. No other

officers on the 2nd watch other than Beat 1822F had been assigned to be posted in the lobby

inside of a Cabrini Green building.

26. On September 9, 2009 Plaintiff provided a statement to IPRA Investigator

VINCENT JONES in the IPRA investigation into Sgt. Braithwaite’s comments about Officer

Campbell.

27. On or about January 15, 2010, Plaintiff’s assignment on Beat 1822F changed back

to a patrol car at a fixed post in-between the Cabrini Green Housing Development buildings

located at 364 and 365 West Oak Street.

28. On or about January 18, 2010, Sgt. Braithwaite met Plaintiff and Officer

Campbell at their fixed post at Cabrini Green. Sgt. Braithwaite stated to Plaintiff and Officer

Campbell that they could not get gas or a car wash for their vehicle from that date forward. Sgt.

Braithwaite could not give a reason for why Plaintiff could not get gas or a car wash for his

vehicle but indicated that “we all had a meeting about this, the Lieutenants and Sergeants and

you can’t go get a car wash or gas.” Prior to January 18, 2010, Plaintiff was allowed to get gas

and get a car wash whenever required.

29. On the same date, January 18, 2010, Plaintiff and Officer Campbell requested to

speak with Sgt. Byrne regarding Sgt. Braithwaite’s order. Sgt. Byrne indicated to the Plaintiff

that in the future, Plaintiff would need permission from Sgt. Byrne to get a car wash or gas.

30. At all relevant times, no other officers in the 18th District were required to seek a

Supervising Officer’s permission prior to obtaining a car wash or gas for their patrol cars.

6
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:7

31. On or about January 23, 2010, Sgt. Braithwaite gave Plaintiff a false counseling

form for being approximately ten minutes late for roll call despite the fact that Sgt. Braithwaite

never conducted a formal roll call on January 23, 2010.

32. On March 18, 2010, Lt. Mack indicated to Plaintiff that there would be new

responsibilities for Beat 1822F consistent with a new order from Captain Zawis. On March 19,

2010, Sgt. Braithwaite told the Plaintiff that the new order for Beat 1822F would be to perform

“walk downs” in the buildings located at Cabrini Green every hour. A “walk down” meant that

Plaintiff was to walk up and down the stairwells in the Cabrini Green buildings to check for

suspicious activity. No other officer in the 18th District had been assigned to conduct this

activity.

33. On March 18, 2010, Sgt. Braithwaite told Plaintiff that “everyone is hot and

heavy about your Beat.” Plaintiff understood this statement to mean that the supervision at the

18th District, including Captain Zawis, wanted Beat 1822F to meet certain quotas for activity.

34. In March, 2010, Plaintiff was assigned to work Beat 1822F with an Officer

LUCKETT (“Luckett”) because Officer Campbell was on medical leave. At that time, Sgt.

JOYCE (“Joyce”) told Officer Luckett unsolicited that Luckett could change assignments if he

so wished. Officer Luckett was chose to remain on Beat 1822F despite Sgt. Joyce’s suggestion.

35. Prior to March, 2010, Plaintiff has requested numerous times to be removed from

Beat 1822F. Plaintiff requested a change in assignment in writing on June 25, 2009 and verbally

requested to be taken off Beat 1822F on various occasions in-between April, 2009 and March,

2010 during conversations with Sgt. Byrne, Sgt. Hagan, Lt. Bialek, Lt. Mack, Commander

Georgas and Captain Angarone. Each and every one of Plaintiff’s requests were denied.

7
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:8

36. On or about March 5, 2010, Plaintiff made another verbal request to Lt. Mack to

be taken off of Beat 1822F. Lt. Mack told Plaintiff to hang in there until Captain Zawis retires

and stated that “this car is beyond insane; it’s mental.”

37. On March 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed an EEOC Charge against the Chicago Police

Department alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII.

38. On April 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a grievance based on the retaliatory actions

taken against him with Chicago Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”).

39. On May 12, 2010, Plaintiff was working Beat 1822F with his partner at the time,

Officer PARRISH SEVIER (“Sevier”). On that date, Plaintiff and Officer Sevier were inside a

building in Cabrini Green when Captain Zawis drove past their car. Captain Zawis subsequently

had Sgt. Byrne give the Plaintiff a false counseling session report for having reading material

and a laptop in his vehicle. Plaintiff did not have any reading material in his vehicle, and the

laptop in the car belonged to Officer Sevier and was in a laptop case consistent with CPD policy.

40. On or about May 12 or 13, 2010, Captain Zawis requested that Officer Sevier

write a To: From: statement saying that he did not want to work with the Plaintiff on Beat

1822F. Sevier refused to submit a To: From: statement to the Captain to that effect.

41. On May 16, 2010, Plaintiff was detailed out of the 18th District and assigned to

work in the 14th District.

42. As a result of the aforesaid acts of the Defendant, Plaintiff has lost income and

benefits in an amount to proven at the time of trial. Plaintiff claims such damages together with

prejudgment interest as permitted by law.

43. The aforementioned acts of the Defendant were reckless, willful, wanton,

malicious, oppressive, and in callous disregard to and indifference to Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff

8
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:9

requests the assessment of punitive damages and/or liquidated damages against the defendant in

a sum as determined according to law and proof.

COUNT I
PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

44. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through forty-three (43) as

though fully set forth at this place.

45. Plaintiff met his employer’s legitimate employment expectations.

46. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when he 1) reported Sgt. Braithwaite’s

racial statement to Officer Campbell in April, 2009, 2) participated in the IPRA investigation

after Officer Campbell reported to Captain Zawis that the Plaintiff heard Sgt. Braithwaite’s racial

statement in April, 2009, 3) filed a charge with the EEOC on March 26, 2010, and 4) filed a

grievance with the FOP on April 17, 2010.

47. After the Plaintiff engaging in said protected activity, the Defendant undertook

numerous acts of retaliation which included assigning the Plaintiff to work in a beat car located

in Cabrini Green for over a year, taking away the Plaintiff’s car for approximately four (4)

months, not allowing the Plaintiff to leave his post without face to face relief, not allowing

Plaintiff to obtain gas or car washes for his vehicle, providing the Plaintiff with three false

SPAR’s and two false counseling reports, and otherwise harassing Plaintiff in various ways

designed to impede his ability to work for Defendant.

48. There is a causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity and

Defendant’s retaliatory actions.

49. Similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity were

treated more favorably than Plaintiff.

9
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:10

50. Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s false write-ups, assignment of the Plaintiff to a

undesirable location, and changing of the Plaintiff’s duties is false and merely pretext for illegal

retaliation.

51. Defendant’s actions, as described above, are in violation of Title VII, as the

Defendant has engaged in acts of retaliation because of Plaintiff’s engagement in protected

activities.

52. As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful employment practices and in

disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights and sensibilities, Plaintiff has suffered the indignity of

discrimination, which has manifested in emotional distress, and further has negatively impacted

his future ability to support himself, harmed his earning capacity, disrupted his personal life, and

caused loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of life.

COUNT II
PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR
THE STATE SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through forty-three (43) as

though fully set forth at this place.

54. Defendant, through its employees, SGT. BRIAN BYRNE, SGT. KELLY

BRAITHWAITE, CAPTAIN RANDALL ZAWIS and COMMANDER STEVE GEORGAS

(hereinafter “Employees”), intentionally undertook severe and humiliating retaliatory actions

against the Plaintiff as described in paragraphs 13 through 41 above.

55. Defendant, by and through its Employees, knew or should have known that its

retaliatory conduct through assigning the Plaintiff to work in Cabrini Green, falsely writing up

the Plaintiff, and repeatedly providing the Plaintiff with false restrictions, would cause severe

emotional distress to Plaintiff because of the egregiousness of the conduct.

10
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:11

56. Defendant’s conduct, undertaken by and through its Employees, was extreme and

outrageous.

57. This conduct has in fact caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress in that it caused

him severe stress, frustration, and humiliation.

58. As a direct and proximate result of the acts set forth above committed by

Defendant, through its Employees, Plaintiff has sustained damages of a personal and pecuniary

nature.

59. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendant is liable for the acts of

SGT. BRIAN BYRNE, SGT. KELLY BRAITHWAITE, CAPTAIN RANDALL ZAWIS and

COMMANDER STEVE GEORGAS committed in the course of their employment with the

Defendant.

60. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff was

subjected to humiliation and indignities, and suffered mental and emotional pain and suffering all to

his damage in an amount to be ascertained at time of trial. Plaintiff claims compensatory damages

in a sum to be ascertained according to proof at time of trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brian Corcoran, by and through his attorneys, Ed Fox &

Associates, requests the following relief:

A. That Plaintiff be granted general and compensatory damages in an amount to be

determined at trial;

B. That Plaintiff be granted punitive or liquidated damages in an amount to be

determined at trial;

11
 Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:12

C. That the Court grant to Plaintiff his reasonably incurred attorneys' fees, costs,

litigation expenses, and pre-judgment interest; and

D. That the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just or

equitable.

BY: s/Jonathan R. Ksiazek

Jonathan R. Ksiazek
ED FOX & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys for Plaintiff
300 West Adams
Suite 330
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 345-8877
jksiazek@efox-law.com

12
Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:13

PLAINTIFF HEREBY REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY

BY: s/Jonathan R. Ksiazek

Jonathan R. Ksiazek
ED FOX & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys for Plaintiff
300 West Adams
Suite 330
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 345-8877
jksiazek@efox-law.com

13
Case: 1:10-cv-06825 Document #: 2 Filed: 10/22/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14