IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
CRISTINA CORTEZ and
KIM KININMONTH

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROSEBUD RESTAURANTS, INC.;
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 15-cv-6984

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, Cristina Cortez (Cortez) and Kim Kininmonth
(Kininmonth) (jointly the Plaintiffs), by and through their attorneys, Pava & Lzaro,
LLC and for their Complaint against Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., (Rosebud) state as
follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
This action challenges pervasive and systematic sexual harassment and
discriminatory practices at the Rosebud chain of restaurants.

While employed by

Rosebud, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated female employees were subjected to
sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and a hostile work environment based on their
sex. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees suffered retaliation for complaining
about the harassment and discrimination they suffered, including the termination of their
employment. Plaintiff Cortez also alleges she was subjected to discrimination based on
her national origin.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

Plaintiffs claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1331 and 1343.

2.
1391(b).

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Defendants unlawful conduct took place within the jurisdiction of this

Honorable Court.
3.

Plaintiffs filed timely charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) and received a Notice of Right to Sue, thereby fully complying
with the procedural requirements under Title VII.
4.

On September 27, 2013, the EEOC issued a determination and found

reasonable cause to believe that Rosebud discriminated against a class of employees

based on their sex. The EEOC also found reasonable cause to believe that Rosebud
discriminated against a class of Hispanic employees based on their national origin.
PARTIES
5.

Cortez is a former Manager of Defendant. She resides in this judicial

district.
6.

Kininmonth is a former server of Defendant. She resides in Grand Rapids,

Michigan.
7.

At all relevant times, Defendant Rosebud has continuously been a

corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. Rosebud is
engaged in the restaurant and food service business and employs more than 800
individuals.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Defendant has engaged in Pervasive Sexual Harassment, Gender
Discrimination, and Retaliation
8.

Rosebud has and continues to engage in a pattern or practice of sex

discrimination against its female employees. Resebuds unlawful conduct includes, but is
not limited to, systematic and pervasive sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
9.

During Plaintiffs employment, before and afterwards, Defendants pattern

or practice of discriminatory conduct towards its female employees include, but is not
limited to:
a. Humiliating, intimidating, and demeaning its female employees and
creating a hostile and offensive work environment;
b. Negligently retaining men with known propensities to discriminate or
sexually harass women;
c. Making employment decision based on sex and taking sex into
consideration when making employment decisions;
d. Taking disciplinary actions against females (including terminating
females) under false pretenses;
e. Treating male employees better than female employees in many aspects of
employment;
f.

Paying women less than similarly situated men; and

g. Refusing to take adverse actions against male co-workers and managers

who engaged in sexual harassment and sexual discrimination.
10.

Among the issues faced by women employees at Rosebud is the touching

and grabbing of their buttocks and breasts; their exposure to hard core pornographic
materials; being referred to as cunt, fucking cunt, bitch, slut and whore; being exposed to
comments about their underwear, body parts, and sexual activity; invitations to sexual

intercourse or threesomes; exposure to humping and thrusting motions; and frequent use
of the words cocksucker and pussy.
11.

Complicit in Defendants pattern or practice of discrimination and

retaliation is its human resources or operations team, which is ineffective at resolving

complaints of gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

Defendants human

resources team defends discriminators and harassers and does not take adequate steps to
prevent retaliation against female employees who lodge complaints.
12.

Defendant does not foster an environment where women feel free to

complain of discrimination or harassment. Instead, females often feel intimidated from

coming forward and fear retaliation. Female employees recognize the futility of lodging
internal complaints.
13.

Defendants pattern or practice of systematically discriminating and

retaliating against females described above is an ongoing and continuing violation of the
civil rights laws.
14.

During the EEOC investigation into the present claim, several females

came forward and expressed that, like plaintiffs, they too were the victims of harassment
and discrimination while employed at Rosebuds.
15.

Two of these females have agreed to make their declarations form part of

the official record with this Court. Accordingly, plaintiffs attach their declarations as
Exhibit A of this Complaint.

Plaintiffs Were the Victim of Rosebuds Pattern or Practice of Unlawful Conduct

Cristina Cortez
16.

At or around February 2008, Defendants hired Cortez as a Manager.

17.

Throughout her time at Rosebud, Cortez outperformed and obtained great

standing among her peers.

18.

Due to her excellent performance, on two separate occasions Rosebud

transferred Plaintiff to affiliated restaurants. Namely, during her time at Rosebud, Cortez
worked at Balo, Carmines and Rosebud on Taylor.
19.

Notwithstanding her impressive job performance and consistent with the

allegations of gender discrimination against women, Cortez was a victim of Defendants

pattern or practice of systemic and pervasive sexual discrimination, harassment and
retaliation. She was also the victim of harassment and discrimination due to her national
origin Mexican.
20.

While at Carmines, a Manager by the name of Glen Ventura (Ventura),

referred to woman employees as whiny bitches and stupid fucking cunts. On at least
one occasion, he yelled at a female employee that she should stop being a whiny bitch
and get back to work.
21.

Ventura would also stand unprofessionally close to females and would go

as far as rubbing himself on female servers. He would make humping motions near
females and would grab their buttocks and other body parts. Cortez personally observed
this behavior on many occasions.

22.

Cortez complained about the above behavior to Alex Dana the owner

and highest-ranking officer of Defendant. She was told that Glen is harmless, he has
been here forever. The girls need to be big girls or words to that effect.
23.

On or about October 2008, Cortez was transferred to Rosebud on Taylor.

There, she reported to the General Manager of the restaurant Mr. Daniel Miller
(Miller).
24.

Miller would often smoke marijuana in the workplace and would have

someone deliver drugs to him.

25.

While at Rosebud on Taylor, a politician came to visit the restaurant.

Cortez was asked by Miller whether she was interested in the mans breshol meaning
his penis.
26.

During her time at Rosebud on Taylor, Cortez was appalled to find a

hardcore pornographic magazine in a desk that was shared by management. She

immediately threw it out.
27.

After Cortez had disposed of the magazine, Miller became angry and

yelled at Cortez about their removal. More pornographic magazines appeared a few days
later.
28.

Miller took further acts of harassment against Cortez in retaliation for her

opposition to his discriminatory behavior. Among the acts Miller took against Cortez
was that he ordered Cortez to organize the Managers closet. There, Cortez found a dark
purple silk bag, which contained a large black dildo. Shocked, Cortez turned away only
to be met with Miller, who had stayed to observe her and was laughing at her.

29.

During her time at Rosebud on Taylor, Miller would often get very close

to Cortez and inhale deeply. He would call Cortez mami, mamasita, and other
gender sex specific terms with sexual overtones. He would also refer to other female
employees as cunt, slut and whore.
30.

On or about November of 2009, a female server by the name of Sara (last

name unknown) complained to Cortez. She related that Miller and Dana asked her if they
could watch her and her female partner have sex. Dana indicated that he would give Sara
a diamond ring in exchange for letting them watch the sexual act.
31.

On or about December 2009, Dana and Cortez were having a business

dinner when Dana made sexual advances towards Cortez. He stated that he wanted to
take care of her and when Cortez replied that she didnt understand what he meant, in a
sexually suggestive manner he stated that she knew what he meant.
32.

During her time at Rosebud, Cortez learned that a male manager by the

name of George (last name unknown) had been accused of sexual harassment. Rather
than terminating his employment, Rosebud transferred George to the Schaumberg
restaurant as a general manager.
33.

At the Schaumberg location, George continued to harass and discriminate

against other women, including Kininmonth.

34.

Cortez was also subjected to harassment and discrimination based on her

national origin. After learning of her national origins supervisors would often joke that
she was going to turn the Italian restaurant into a Mexican restaurant, would often call
Mexican pigs, and stated the Mexican pigs would eat food out of the garbage.

35.

Cortez reported the discriminatory comments and behaviors of General

Phillies DeGeorge to Nancy Krause from HR and to Dana.

36.

In response she was told to just hang in there, thats Danny.

37.

Defendants did not conduct an investigation into Plaintiffs allegations.

38.

Shortly after she complained, Cortez was fired.

39.

She was told that we cant afford your salary.

40.

Rosebud claims to have eliminated Cortez position due to the economic

downturn.
41.

The reason provided for the termination is a pretext for discrimination and

retaliation.
42.

Within weeks of Cortez termination, Rosebud hired a white male to work

as a manager in the same restaurant.

Kimberly Kininmonth
43.

Kininmonth worked as a server at the Schaumberg, Illinois Rosebud

restaurant from approximately May 2007 through February 2008.

44.

During her employment, Kininmonth preformed all of her duties

satisfactorily, yet, she was treated differently than male servers because of her gender.
45.

Kininmonth and other female employees of the Rosebud Restaurant in

Schaumberg were the victims of a hostile work environment and gender discrimination.
46.

Kininmonth was often mistreated and screamed at due to her gender. She

was also referred to by one of her supervisors as a cunt, a fucking cunt and a bitch.
47.

The supervisors at the restaurant would often mistreat and sexually harass

its female employees including Kininmonth. Supervisors would make such comments as

wanting to see female employees in their bikinis, wanting to fuck on the counter, your
ass looks nice, I like that top and I can see down your shirt.
48.

A female server was told by a supervisor that if he were to eat anyone out

(meaning wanting to have oral sex with her) it would be you because you are the
cleanest.
49.

A bartender was told by a manager that he wanted to bend her over the bar

and have anal sex with her.

50.

During her time at Rosebuds, Kininmonth observed that management

wasnt paying servers and other employees their tips as required.

51.

Kininmonth organized the servers and busboys and asked them to retain

their paystubs.
52.

Kininmonth believes that management knew of her leadership within the

employees of the restaurant.

53.

Kininmonth directly observed Dana making derogatory comments and

using racial epithets against a server of Mexican decent.

54.

Kininmonth complained of the treatment she was receiving and observing

to management on many occasions. She was told that the appropriate individuals
including Human Resources would be notified of her complaints.
55.

Rosebuds failed to take any action to avoid harm.

56.

Kininmonth was fired within a month of voicing her complaints.

57.

On or about February 14, 2008, Kininmonth became upset after receiving

a barrage of screams from her supervisors. The manager told her you fucking bitch, I am

so sick of you. She was then told youre not going to stand here and fucking cry. Get
the fuck out of my restaurant.
58.

In the process, Kininmonth was touched violently by the general manager.

59.

Kininmonth was fired due to her gender and in retaliation for her

complaints.
Other Evidence of Unlawful Behavior
60.

This is not the first time that Defendant has faced allegations of

discrimination and retaliation against racial minorities and females.

61.

In a recent lawsuit in this district, Joseph Taylor -- who served as CEO for

Defendant -- claimed to have been retaliated against after he opposed discrimination and
harassment in the workplace. Joseph P. Taylor v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., 14-cv4177.
62.

More specifically Mr. Taylor claimed to have been fired after he sent a

letter to Defendants President Dana where he stated that I believe that the work
environment at several of our restaurants is not according to industry standards and may
actually be threatening, intimidating, hostile and possibly discriminatory to some of our
employees. Id.
63.

Moreover, two female ex-employees of Defendant have filed complaints

in this district claiming pregnancy discrimination. See Buffone v. Rosebud Restaurants,

Inc., 05-C-5551 and McDonnel v. Resebud Restaurant Inc.,10-0383. In Buffone a jury
returned a verdict for plaintiff. The McDonnel v. Resebud Restaurant Inc., 10-00383,
McDonnel argues she was fired because of her pregnancy. That lawsuit was settled.

10

64.

There is also a pending case in this district from a class of individuals

based on their race, African American, who allege that Defendant discriminates based on
race in their hiring practices. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, v. Rizza
Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., et. al. 13 CV 06656.
65.

The actors/discriminators who discriminated against the African American

applicants and females in the above cases are the same actor/discriminators who
discriminated against Plaintiffs.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
TITLE VII SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION
(On Behalf of Both Plaintiffs)
66.

Plaintiffs re-asserts and re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through fifty-seven

(65) as if fully set forth herein.

67.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq., as

amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, (Title VII) makes it unlawful to discriminate
against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis
of sex.
68.

The above acts taken by Defendant amount to discrimination based on sex

in violation of Title VII.

69.

Despite Defendants knowledge of the harassing treatment toward

Plaintiffs and other female employees, they failed to take any appropriate action to
prevent or correct the discriminatory work conditions imposed on Plaintiffs.
70.

Defendant has allowed the discrimination alleged herein to exist and to go

unremedied toward Plaintiffs for so long that it amounts to a policy or practice and
constitutes Defendants standard operating procedure.

11

71.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs, allege differential treatment, hostile work

environment and disparate impact theories of liability under Title VII.

72.

By its conduct described herein, Defendant subjected Plaintiffs and all

other similarly situated to sexual discrimination in violation of Title VII.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
National Origin Discrimination in Violation of Title VII
(On behalf of Cristina Cortez)
73.

Plaintiffs incorporate the proceeding paragraphs as if alleged herein.

74.

Cortez was terminated and suffered other forms of discrimination as described

in this complaint because of her national origin.

75.

By the conduct alleged herein, Defendant discriminated against the Cortez due

to her race and national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000
(On behalf of Both Plaintiffs)
76.

Plaintiffs incorporate the proceeding paragraphs as if alleged herein.

77.

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee

who has opposed an unlawful employment practice or has assisted or participated in another
employers claim of discrimination.

VII.

78.

Plaintiffs complained of sex and national origin/race discrimination.

79.

Defendant retaliated against Plaintiffs for their complaints in violation of Title

By its conduct, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiffs and other similarly situated

employees in violation of Title VII.

12

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION
(On Behalf of Both Plaintiffs)
80.

Plaintiffs re-asserts and re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through fifty-seven

(79) as if fully set forth herein.

81.

The Illinois Human Rights Act, as amended makes it unlawful to

discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment

on the basis of sex.
82.

The above acts taken by Defendant amount to discrimination based on sex

in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.

83.

Despite Defendants knowledge of the harassing treatment toward

Plaintiffs and other female employees, they failed to take any appropriate action to
prevent or correct the discriminatory work conditions imposed on Plaintiffs.
84.

Defendant has allowed the discrimination alleged herein to exist and to go

unremedied toward Plaintiffs for so long that it amounts to a policy or practice and
constitutes Defendants standard operating procedure.
85.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs, allege differential treatment, hostile work

environment and disparate impact theories of liability under the Illinois Human Rights
Act.
86.

By its conduct described herein, Defendant subjected Plaintiffs and all

other similarly situated to sexual discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights
Act.

13

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

National Origin Discrimination in Violation of The
Illinois Human Rights Act
(On behalf of Cristina Cortez)
87.

Plaintiffs incorporate the proceeding paragraphs as if alleged herein.

88.

Cortez was terminated and suffered other forms of discrimination as described

in this complaint because of her national origin and race.

89.

By the conduct alleged herein, Defendant discriminated against Cortez due to

her national origin in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in Violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act)
(On behalf of Both Plaintiffs)
90.

Plaintiffs incorporate the proceeding paragraphs as if alleged herein.

91.

The Illinois Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer to

discriminate against an employee who has opposed an unlawful employment practice or has
assisted or participated in another employers claim of discrimination.
92.

Plaintiffs complained of sex and national origin/race discrimination.

93.

Defendant retaliated against Plaintiffs for their complaints in violation of the

Illinois Human Rights Act. By its conduct, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in
their favor and against Defendants, and enter an Order awarding the following relief:
a.

All wages and benefits they would have received but for the
discrimination;

b.

Compensatory damages;

14

c.

Punitive damages;

d.

An award of costs, as provided by F.R.C.P. 54(d)(1);

e.

An award of reasonable attorneys fees, as provided by 42 U.S.C.

2000e-5(k); or 42 U.S.C. 1988(b); and

f.

Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: August 10, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,
Pava & Lzaro, LLC

/s/ Rafael E. Lzaro

321 S. Plymouth Court, Suite 1250
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 461-9900;
(773) 305-4068 (fax)
rlazaro@pavialazaro.com

15