Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

SDAHRIE HOWARD, DENISE HOBBS, )

and ELLENOR ALTMAN, individually ) Case No. 17-cv-8146
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) Judge
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge
)
COOK COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, )
THOMAS J. DART, both individually and in )
his official capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
and COOK COUNTY, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Sdahrie Howard, Denise Hobbs, and Ellenor Altman, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated, complain as follows against

Defendants the Cook County Sheriffs Office (Sheriffs Office), and Thomas P.

Dart, in his official and individual capacities, and Cook County:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a class action complaint brought to remedy sex discrimination

in employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., the Illinois Civil Rights Act, 740 ILCS 740

ILCS 23/5(a)(1), and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

2. Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent are female correctional

officers, up to the rank of lieutenant, employed by the Cook County Sheriffs Office
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2

to guard and supervise pre-trial detainees at the Cook County Department of

Corrections (Jail). In performing their jobs, Plaintiffs and all other members of the

proposed class are chronically subjected to a sexually hostile work environment

resulting from the Sheriffs Offices acquiescence in extreme forms of sexual

harassment by male detainees who: routinely expose their genitalia to Plaintiffs

and other members of the class; brazenly masturbate in front of them, including, at

times, aiming ejaculations at them; grope and grab them; subject them to sexually

degrading insults and slurs; and threaten them with sexual violence.

3. Male correctional officers are rarely, if ever, subjected to this behavior.

4. The work environment that female correctional officers are forced to

endure at the Jail is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and

insult so severe and pervasive and so consistently traumatizing as to make the Jail

an objectively abusive and hostile workplace for women and make the terms and

conditions of employment for female correctional officers different than for men who

work in the same job titles.

5. The frequency and severity of the sexual harassment which women

employed at the Jail are forced to endure is escalating. Many members of the

proposed class in this case fear that it will escalate to the point of rape or, worse,

result in fatalities.

6. The Defendants are well aware of the frequency and scale of this

harassment. According to the Sun Times, the Sheriffs Office has acknowledged

that, in just the period between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 20, 2016, there were more

2
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3

than 200 incidents of Jail inmates exposing themselves or masturbating. https://

chicago.suntimes.com/news/jail-inmates-target-female-guards-lawyers-with-sexual-

abuse/.

7. The Cook County Public Defender, Amy Campanelli, has decried the

rising number of instances where her staff are subjected to inmates masturbating

and indecently exposing themselves as a crisis and a daily occurrence.

8. The majority of victims, however, are female correctional officers.

9. The Defendants named in this complaint have facilitated and

permitted the sexually hostile work environment by tolerating the chronic sexual

harassment, intimidation, and aggression against female staff at the Jail, and they

have failed to take steps reasonably calculated to stop or correct it.

10. Other correctional institutions do better. So can the Sheriff of Cook

County.

11. The legal obligation to protect employees from sexual harassment

extends to sheriffs and wardens. Adopting and implementing measures reasonably

calculated to curtail sexual harassment of female staff by male detainees is not

optional, as courts have repeatedly held. See Erickson v. Wisconsin Dept. of

Corrections, 469 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2006); Beckford v. Department of Corrections,

605 F.3d 951 (11th Cir. 2010); Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006).

12. At best, the Sheriffs Office has exhibited reckless indifference for the

rights of female correctional officers. As the Sheriffs chief policy director recently

explained, in the Sheriffs Offices view, sexual assaults of female staff are simply

3
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4

something that happens in custodial environments, period.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/cook-county-inmates-masturbating-

public-defenders/. Unless enjoined by this Court, the Defendants will continue to

tolerate sexual harassment of female correctional officers at the Cook County Jail.

13. On November 8, 2017, female lawyers and law clerks employed by the

Cook County Public Defender filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the detainee

behavior described in this complaint, and the Sheriffs Offices failure to curtail it,

have also created a hostile work environment for them. Brown et al. v. Cook County

et al., Case No. 17-C-8085 (N.D. Ill.) (Kennelly, J.). Under Local Rule 40.4, these two

cases are related: they involve some of the same issues of fact or law, including the

Defendant Darts legal obligation to curtail sexually assaultive behavior by male

detainees at the Jail; they grow out of many of the same occurrences; and they both

seek injunctive relief against some of the same defendants, to curtail the same

misconduct.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

1343 and under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(3).

15. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).

Plaintiffs are or have been residents of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of

Illinois. The acts that gave rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint occurred in

Illinois and in this District.

4
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

16. Plaintiffs have fulfilled all administrative prerequisites necessary to

maintain this action. They filed timely EEOC charges. Those charges, like this

complaint, contain class allegations and addressing the conduct described in this

complaint. And plaintiffs have timely filed this suit, within 90 days ago of receiving

notification of their right to sue.

PARTIES

17. Plaintiffs Sdahrie Howard, Ellenor Altman, and Denise Hobbs are

female correctional officers employed by the Sheriffs Office.

18. Defendant Cook County is a municipality organized under Illinois

County Code, 55 ILCS 5/1-1001 et seq., and is a necessary party to this complaint

for purposes of indemnifying the Sheriffs Office and Defendant Dart.

19. Defendant Cook County Sheriffs Office is a unit of local government,

organized under 55 ILCS 5/3-60016036, and has at all times relevant to this

complaint been the employer of correctional officers at the Cook County Jail, for

purposes of Title VII.

20. Defendant Thomas J. Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County, with

responsibility and authority for running the Jail, including for promulgating rules,

regulations, policies, and procedures governing both the conduct of detainees at the

Jail and the training and protection of staff employed by the Jail. He is a final

policymaker, with final policymaking authority, in regard to all policies, customs

and practices of the Sheriffs Office alleged in this complaint, and he performed all

5
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6

acts, omissions, and conduct attributed to him in this complaint under color of law.

He is sued in both his individual and official capacities.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

21. On information and belief, the Sheriffs Office is the second largest

sheriffs department in the United States. A substantial proportion of the

correctional officers assigned to the Jailseveral hundred at leastare females.

22. Plaintiffs Sdahrie Howard, Ellenor Altman, and Denise Hobbs are

certified Illinois peace officers, employed as Sheriffs Deputies, assigned to work at

the Cook County Jail as correctional officers.

23. Plaintiffs have each been subjected to sexual harassment by male

detainees at the Jail, including by having male detainees who have indecently

exposed to them, masturbated at them, sexually propositioned them, and assaulted

them. They have also witnessed other female correctional officers being similarly

victimized. Plaintiffs are veteran officers assigned to the Jail and have experienced

and witnessed sexual harassing and abusive conduct by male detainees during, and

before, the date 300 days prior to filing their charges of discrimination with the

EEOC, and the two-year period prior to the filing of this complaint.

24. Each of the Plaintiffs has also filed one or more incident reports

documenting sexual harassment against them by male detainees including reports

filed in 2016 or 2017. The named Plaintiffs have complained to Jail administrators

about the hostile work environment, to no avail. Each has and continues to suffer

damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants failure to take swift or

6
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7

effective corrective actions in response to the sexual harassment they have suffered.

The damages include severe mental anguish and other emotional distress;

headaches, stomach upset, and other physical symptoms of emotional distress;

nightmares; sexual dysfunction; fear and anguish when going to work; burnout;

depletion of sick leave; and fear of reprimand for pursuing their complaints.

25. The following are examples of the sexual harassment and violence to

which female correctional offices are chronically subjected by male detainees:

a. Indecent exposure, especially of genitalia;

b. Exhibitionist masturbation;

c. Ejaculated semen, aimed at female correctional officers;

d. Feces and urine, thrown at them;

e. Lewd gestures;

f. Physical assaults, including detainees rubbing their penises

against female officers buttocks and grabbing female officers

breasts;

g. Threats of sexual violence, such as: Im going to fuck you up,

bitch. Ill fuck the shit out of you. Im going to fuck you in

your ass. One inmate told an officer that he was going to beat

her, rape her, and force her to perform fellatio on him, and if she

didnt perform fellatio well enough, he would kill her;

h. Sexual slurs, such as: cunt, bitch, and whore; and

7
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8

i. Comments regarding their breasts, buttocks, curves, shape,

weight, or size.

26. The following are further examples of sexual harassment that female

correctional officers have been subjected to:

a. A female correctional officer walked down a dormitory tier and

was confronted by an entire tier of detainees with their penises

thrust through the chuck holes in their cell doors, through

which food is served.

b. A female correctional officer went to a cell to dispense

medication to a detainee. She found him lying on his bed

masturbating. When she stepped away from the doorway in

disgust, he rebuked her: Look at me while Im taking you!

c. Male detainees have threatened to rape or kill female officers

who complete incident reports or press charges against them for

sexual misconduct.

d. Detainees in Division 9 have formed the Savage Life gang,

whose primary objective is to engage in and orchestrate sexually

threatening behavior, directed at female officers.

27. Having endured extreme harassment, female correctional officers are

often discouraged from reporting it or from advocating for protection.

28. Female correctional officers have been toldby male supervisory

officers or Jail administratorsthat:

8
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9

a. Being exposed to detainee sexual misconduct is just part of the

job, that they signed up for the behavior, if you dont like it,

leave, or theyre locked up, what do you expect?

b. This is why you get paid $70,000, You have seen a penis

before, and Why is she complaining? She works at a fucking

jail?

c. Sexually harassing conduct is human nature.

d. Sexual comments by a detainee were a compliment.

e. Until you have a sex change, this is what you have to deal

with.

f. Threatened adverse action against female officers who have

sought legal assistance or file a lawsuit.

g. Advised female correctional officers that writing incident reports

is a waste of time, and that nothing will happen.

29. Female correctional offers have also been: (a) threatened with adverse

employment actions for considering seeking legal assistance or filing a lawsuit, and

(b) been advised that trying to pursue criminal charges is a waste of time and that

nothing will happen.

30. Female correctional officers have written incident reports to report

sexual harassment by male detainees that their superiors have refused to accept.

9
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10

31. Female correctional officers have watched male supervisors stand idly

by as male detainees masturbated in front of them, refusing to intervene or order

the detainees to stop.

32. After a male detainee threatened to rape a female officer, she reported

the threat over the radio. She was then instructed by supervisors not to do that

againlest other officers hear such comments.

33. Despite the discouragements, female correctional officers have

persisted. They have filed scores of incident reports documenting the sexual

harassment they have been subjected to. They have complained to their superiors.

They have filed grievances with Teamsters Local 700, their union. Teamsters Local

700 has filed a notice of safety and health concerns with the Occupational Safety

and Health officer of the Illinois Department of Labor describing how [o]fficers are

exposed to acts of a physical, sexual and degrading nature on a daily basis from the

detainees they monitor and how the unions notifications of these issues to

administration on multiple occasions and in multiple forums have been met with

a steadfast refusal to implement any remedial measures for officer safety. The

press has run stories. EEOC charges have been filed (and served on the Sheriffs

Office). Amy Campanelli, the Cook County Public Defender, has protested to

Defendant Dart. So far, however, all of this has been to no avail.

34. Hostility to the exercise and protection of legal rights appears to be

deep-seated at the Sheriffs Office. Among its General Orders, the office has a

Conduct Policy for employees that purports to prohibit employees from, among

10
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11

other things, Initiating or receiving any civil action for recovery of any damages or

injuries incurred in the course and scope of employment without first notifying, via

the chain of command, the department bead or the authorized designee and the

CCSO. Sheriff's Order 11.2.20.1, Section VI.B.b.

35. This complaint does not seek to impose strict liability on Defendants

for detainees harassing conduct. There are ample available steps that Defendants

could take that they have not taken.

36. Defendants do not provide training to correctional officers about how to

address sexual harassment by male detainees, decrease the opportunity for

detainees to repeat the behavior, or minimize the impact of the behavior.

37. On information and belief, Defendants do not have a written policy

regarding sexual harassment of their employees by detainees.

38. On information and belief, Defendants do not have a specific written

policy regarding exhibitionist masturbation, or other sexually aggressive behavior,

by male detainees.

39. There are available standard measures, used by other jails and

prisons, that Defendant could use, or use more often, to stop or mitigate sexual

harassment of female correctional officers, rather than acquiescing in and ratifying

it. These measures include: opaque or one-way mirrored coverings on cell doors and

windows, exposure control jumpsuits, without zippers or pockets, physical

restraints, serious disciplinary measures, isolation of repeat harassers, referrals for

prosecution, administrative segregation, zero tolerance policies, training of

11
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12

correctional officers to respond effectively, and counseling for traumatized

correctional officers.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

40. Plaintiffs seek to bring the claims in this complaint pursuant to Rule

23(b)(3) and/or 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to remedy the

Defendants pattern and practice of discrimination, on behalf of themselves and a

class consisting of all female correctional officers, sergeants, and lieutenants who

have worked at the Cook County Jail from April 22, 2015 to the present, except

those officers assigned exclusively to supervise female detainees.

41. There are several hundred members of the proposed class. They are too

numerous for joinder of all members to be practicable.

42. There are questions of fact and law common to the class, which are

well-suited to class-wide adjudication, and those common questions, which

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, including

the following: (a) whether the exhibitionist masturbation and other sexual

harassing conduct engaged in by male detainees at the Jail, and the Defendants

acquiescence in that conduct, creates a sexually hostile work environment for

women, and (b) whether Defendants have failed to take appropriate measures

reasonably calculated to curtail that harassment.

43. The claims of Plaintiffs Howard, Altman, and Hobbs are typical of the

claims of the class, and they predominate over any questions affecting only

individual class members.

12
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13

44. There are no disabling conflicts between Plaintiffs interests and the

interests of other class members, and Plaintiffs will vigorously prosecute and fairly

and adequately protect the interests of all class members.

45. A class action is superior to other methods for fairly and efficiently

adjudicating this controversy.

46. Plaintiffs counsel are experienced and accomplished in class action

litigation and are able and prepared to expend the resources necessary to litigate

this case.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.
Hostile Work Environment
(Against Defendant Sheriffs Office)

47. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all previous paragraphs of this

complaint.

48. Because of her sex, each Plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile work

environment, which has been so severe and pervasive as to alter the terms and

conditions of her employment by the Sheriffs Office.

49. At all relevant times, Defendant Sheriffs Office has possessed both

actual and constructive knowledge of the hostile work environment to which

Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class have been subjected and, yet,

despite that knowledge, failed to take appropriate steps reasonably calculated to

stop or mitigate the harassment that created that hostile work environment.

13
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14

50. The acts and omissions of Defendant Sheriffs Office constitute a

pattern and practice of discrimination against Plaintiffs and other members of the

proposed class.

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Sheriffs Offices failure

to take appropriate corrective steps to protect Plaintiffs and address male detainees

sexual harassment of them, all Plaintiffs, and all members of the proposed class,

have been injured and damaged.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Equal Protection, Enforced Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Against Defendants the Sheriffs Office and Dart)

52. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all previous paragraphs of this

complaint.

53. At all times relevant, Defendants Dart and the Sheriffs Office have

acted under color of law.

54. At all times relevant, Defendants Dart and the Sheriffs Office have

known that female correctional officers at Cook County Jail were being subjected to

indecent exposure, exhibitionist masturbation, threats of sexual violence, groping,

assault, and other sexual misconduct by male detainees.

55. With knowledge of that harassment, Defendants Dart and the Sheriffs

Office have nevertheless intentionally failed to take measures reasonably calculated

to end or mitigate that harassment of female correctional officers by male detainees,

and their failure to enforce effective discipline against male detainees, protect

female correctional officers, and eliminate or curtail sexual harassment against

14
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15

them has been so widespread and well-settled as to constitute the de facto

equivalent of a formal policy of sex discrimination. Alternatively, by their

acquiescence in and deliberate indifference to such open and notorious sexual

harassment they have denied Plaintiffs and all other class members equal

protection of the laws.

56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Darts and the Sheriffs

Offices failure to take appropriate corrective steps to protect them and address

male detainees sexual harassment of them, all Plaintiffs, and all members of the

proposed class, have been injured and damaged.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Illinois Civil Rights Act, 740 ILCS 23/5
(Against Defendants the Sheriffs Office and Dart)

57. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all previous paragraphs of this

complaint.

58. At all times relevant, Defendants Dart and the Sheriffs Office have

known that female correctional officers at Cook County Jail were being subjected to

indecent exposure, exhibitionist masturbation, threats of sexual violence, groping,

assault, and other sexual misconduct by male detainees.

59. With knowledge of that harassment, Defendants Dart and the Sheriffs

Office have nevertheless intentionally failed to take measures reasonably calculated

to end or mitigate that harassment of female correctional officers by male detainees.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Darts and the Sheriffs

Offices failure to take appropriate corrective steps to protect them and address

15
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16

male detainees sexual harassment of them, all Plaintiffs, and all members of the

proposed class, have been injured and damaged.

INDEMNIFICATION
(Defendant Cook County)

61. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all previous paragraphs of this

complaint.

62. Because the Sheriffs Office is funded by the County and the Sheriff is

an independently elected county officer, sued here, in part, in his official capacity,

under Illinois law, Cook County has a duty to indemnify Defendant Dart and the

Sheriffs Office against damages, including attorneys fees, recovered by Plaintiffs

by judgment or settlement of this action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class pray that this Court:

A. Certify the claims in this complaint for class-wide adjudication, under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and/or (c)(4).

B. Appoint Plaintiffs Sdahrie Howard, Ellenor Altman, and Denise

Hobbs, and as representatives on behalf of the Class;

C. Appoint Plaintiffs Counsel as Class counsel;

D. Declare that Defendants Sheriffs Office and Dart have engaged in a

policy, custom, or practice that deprives Plaintiffs and other class members of rights

protected by Title VII, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Illinois Civil Rights Act.

E. Order Defendants to adopt and implement policies, procedures, and

practices that will deter, control, and prevent the continued harassment of female

16
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17

correctional officers by male detainees and eliminate all vestiges of a hostile work

environment;

F. Appoint an independent monitor to oversee Defendants adoption and

implementation of the required policies, practices and procedures, and to report to

the Court;

G. Award Plaintiffs and the Class monetary damages;

H. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and

expenses, including expert costs; and

I. Order all other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may

require.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs request a jury trial for all claims that may be tried to a jury.

Dated: November 10, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

/s Marni Willenson
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Marni Willenson
[email protected]
Samantha Kronk
[email protected]
WILLENSON LAW, LLC
542 S. Dearborn St.
Suite 610
Chicago, IL 60605
312.508.5380

17
 Case: 1:17-cv-08146 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/17 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18

Joshua Karsh
[email protected]
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS
RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
70 W. Madison St.
Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 6060
312.604.2630

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18