Park District Reply

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:81
03122109
RWS:nws
7/14/16
BLUE
21689-6-79
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JEANETTA MATICHAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOLIET PARK DISTRICT and
DOMINIC EGIZIO,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
16-CV-05877
ANSWER
NOW COMES defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, by its attorneys, STELLATO &
SCHWARTZ, LTD., and, answering plaintiff's Complaint at Law, states the following:
Nature of the Action
1.
Plaintiff Jeanetta Matichak brings this action against her employer Joliet Park District
and its former Executive Director Dominic Egizio for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and
retaliation, in violation of her right of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983
and 1988, and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et
seq. She brings claims under the Illinois Gender Violence Act, 740 ILCS 82/1, et seq., and state
common law for battery of a sexual nature. Plaintiff also seeks relief under the Equal Pay Act, 29
U.S.C. 206(d), for paying her wages lower than paid to a male coworker. Pursuant to Rule 38 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury.
Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 1 are admitted to the extent of the conclusion
USDC N. Dist. Eastern Division
Page 1 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
alleged. Defendant denies any of the conduct alleged. Further, defendant denies that Plaintiff has
any right of recovery under any of these Acts as against it.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(4). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 2 are admitted to the extent of the conclusions
alleged. Defendant denies that Plaintiff has any right of recovery as against Defendant under any of
these alleged statutes.
3.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because
Defendants reside in this district and the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this
district.
Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 2 are admitted although defendant denies events
occurred giving rise to Plaintiffs claims.

The Parties
4.
Plaintiff Jeanetta Matichak, a female, resides in Illinois and has been an employee of
the Joliet Park District since 2011. She has been on unpaid medical leave since May 2015.
Answer:
5.
The allegations in paragraph 4 are admitted.
Defendant Joliet Park District ("Park District") is a municipal corporation, organized
under the laws of the State of Illinois. The Park District's principal place of business is 3000 W.
Jefferson Street, Joliet, Illinois.
Answer:
Page 2 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
6.
Defendant Dominic Egizio, male, was employed by Defendant Park District form
1989 through October 2015, including as its Executive Director from 2004 through October 2015.
At all times relevant to this complaint, Egizio was acting within the scope of his employment and
was aided in accomplishing his conduct by the existence of his agency relation with the Park District.
He is sued in his individual capacity.
Answer:
Defendant admits Dominic Egizio was employed by Defendant Park District
from 1989 through October 2015, including as Executive Director from 2004 through October 2015.
Further answering, defendant denies Dominic Egizio was acting within the scope of his employment
at all times complained of. Defendant admits Dominic Egizio is sued in his individual capacity
Further, Defendant states that any acts of misconduct alleged against Dominic Egizio were
committed outside the scope of any agency and/or employment relationship with the Park District,
in furtherance of Park District business, and ratified by the Park District. Further it is denied that the
Park District in any way held out Dominic Egizio as its agent in connection with the allegations of
misconduct against him and that his alleged employment as an Executive Director, and the scope of
that employment, in anyway aided in his conduct with plaintiff or her conduct with him. The
remaining allegations in paragraph 6 are denied.
Administrative Procedure
7.
Ms. Matichak timely filed a charge against Joliet Park District with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on December 18, 2015. She received a Notice of
Right to Sue from the EEOC on or after March 18, 2016. (Exhibit A). Plaintiff satisfied all
conditions precedent to the pursuing her Title VII claims.
Page 3 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 7 are admitted. Further answering, the Notice
attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself.

Facts Upon Which Claims are Based
8.
Defendant Park District is a public park district, which among other things, owns and
operates sports and recreation facilities, offers fitness programs, and conducts programs and events
in and around Joliet. The Park District employs approximately 1,000 employees.
Answer:
9.
The Park District is governed by a Board of Commissioners (Board) which delegated
authority to Egizio over subordinate employees.

Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 9 are admitted. Further answering, the Board
delegated no authority to Dominic Egizio in any capacities of his employment for the allegations of
misconduct alleged against him and in no way ratified or held Dominic Egizio out as its agent in his
conduct complained of with Plaintiff.
10.
The Park District hired Ms. Matichak as a part-time "boot camp" fitness instructor
in July 2011.
Answer:
11.
During the course of her employment, Ms. Matichak was given additional
responsibilities, including teaching fitness classes, personal training, scheduling, and developing new
fitness programs. Her hours increased until she was working full-time hours while still classified as
part-time. Her current title is Group Exercise Supervisor. Throughout, Ms. Matichak performed her
job at levels that met or exceeded legitimate expectations.
Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 11 are denied.
Page 4 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
12.
Ms. Matichak is a married mother of three children.
Answer:
13.
Dominic Egizio was employed at the Park District for more than 25 years, from 1989
until October 2015. The Park District promoted him up through the ranks of management and
appointed him Executive Director in 2004, the position he held through the end of his employment.
Answer:
14.
As Executive Director, Defendant Egizio was the highest ranking employee of the
Park District. Defendant Egizio managed and exercised managerial authority over Ms. Matichak and
other Park District employees and workers, including authority to hire, fire, discipline, promote, and
affect the terms and conditions of the employees' employment.
Answer:
Defendant admits Defendant Egizio was the highest ranking employee of the
Park District. The remaining allegations in paragraph 14 are denied.

15.
Defendant Egizio began to make unwelcome offensive sexual comments to and in
the presence of Ms. Matichak shortly after she was hired. He made comments to her such as, "Come
over here so I can check out your ass." On a near daily basis, Egizio openly ogled and made sexual
comments about the bodies of female employees and members of the Park District, such as "look
at her ass" and "nice tits" and "check her out," and about how, under the guise of assisting with situps, he held the legs of females so he could look down their shirts and "watch their tits."
Answer:
16.
Defendant Egizio made the above comments openly and in the presence of
supervisors and at least one Board member. No Board member or management official of Defendant
Page 5 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Park District took any steps to stop Egizio's inappropriate conduct and instead permitted an
environment where such comments and conduct were tolerated and encouraged.
Answer:
17.
Within a few months after her hire, Defendant Egizio began making sexual advances
toward Ms. Matichak. Submitting to his sexual advances for his sexual benefit became a term and
condition of Ms. Matichak's employment, explicitly and implicitly, after December 2011 and
continuing through May 2015, when she was forced out and constructively discharged to an unpaid
medical leave.
Answer:
18.
Throughout, Ms. Matichak repeatedly rebuffed Defendant Egizio's advances, telling
him "not," "I can't do this," and "I don't want to do this," and physically pushing him away and
pulling away from him. Egizio at first told her that she "just wasn't ready" and then repeatedly
refused to take "no" for an answer.
Answer:
19.
Defendant Egizio used his Park District position of power and authority to manipulate
and coerce Ms. Matichak for sexual favors. He continued to make unwelcome sexual advances,
while making quid pro quo promises and threats.
Answer:
20.
Defendant Egizio ordered Ms. Matichak to come into his office many times every day
for no legitimate reason. If she said no or did not go to his office, he became enraged and would not
accept no for an answer.
Answer:
Page 6 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
21.
On a near daily basis, Defendant Egizio brought coffee for Ms. Matichak and ordered
her to come into his office to get it. When she entered his office, he demanded that she remain and/or
to engage in unwelcome sexual acts.
Answer:
22.
Defendant Egizio frequently brought lunch for Ms. Matichak, and if she said no or
that she wanted to eat alone, he became angry and threatening, and would not accept no for an
answer.
Answer:
23.
Defendant Egizio gave Ms. Matichak gifts, including lingerie, clothing, perfume, a
sex toy, and other gifts through in or about March 2015. He became enraged when she said she did
not want a gift and threw it in the trash.
Answer:
24.
Continuing until May 2015, Defendant Egizio repeatedly made offensive, lewd, and
vulgar sexual comments to Ms. Matichak, including but not limited to the following:
a.
He frequently asked her what color panties she was wearing and became
angry if she refused to tell him;
b.
He told her that he fantasized about her and masturbated thinking about her
every day; and
c.
He talked about his penis size and badgered her to discuss his penis size.
Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 24, including sub-paragraphs a. through c.
inclusive, are denied. Further answering, any such alleged conduct as against Egizio, if any is proven,
was outside of any authority as agent and/or employee of the Park District and never ratified by the
Park District.
Page 7 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
25.
Ms. Matichak's regular responsibilities, plus the additional demands on her time by
Defendant Egizio, required her to work more than 40-hour per week full-time job, while still
classified as a part-time employee without the pay or benefits of a full-time position. Egizio was
aware that she wanted a full-time position and health benefits. Defendants required, approved, and
permitted her to work more than 40 hours per week.
Answer:
26.
In or about 2014, Ms. Matichak began to attend planning meetings attended by Park
District supervisors and Defendant Egizio. During those meetings, Egizio frequently made sexual
comments about the bodies of women at the Park District. No supervisor ever said anything to Egizio
or took any steps to prevent his inappropriate comments.
Answer:
Defendant admits that on or about the time alleged Ms. Matichak began
attending Park District planning meetings. The remaining allegations in paragraph 26 are denied.
27.
In or about August 2014, Ms. Matichak had a miscarriage, which caused her to suffer
depression for which she began to take medication. She informed Defendant Egizio about the
miscarriage and that she was taking medication prescribed for depression. She also informed him
that the mediation was causing her to feel like she was not in her right mind.
Answer:
Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 27, and therefore, said allegations are neither admitted nor denied, but strict
proof thereof is demanded.
28.
Thereafter, Defendant Egizio took advantage of Ms. Matichak's vulnerability to
coerce and force her to engage in unwelcome sexual relations. For months, he pressured her,
Page 8 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
manipulated her, and subjected her to increasingly controlling, aggressive, and stalking behavior,
while continuing to threaten her job if she did not submit to his demands.
Answer:
29.
Defendant Egizio misused the authority of his position to coerce and obtain
unwelcome quid pro quo sexual favors, including the following:

a.
He promised her more pay and a full-time position with benefits.
b.
He promised her a promotion to be in charge of a new Park District facility

and a substantial increase in her wages.
c.
He told her "I take care of you" and that she should be thankful for what he
did for her.
d.
He became angry when she rebuffed him and made threats to her job and
livelihood, such as "Your job must not be important," "You don't value your
job," "I guess you don't care about your job," and that she must not want the
promotion he had promised her.
e.
He cried and said he was going to commit suicide if she did not submit to his
advances.
Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 29 including sub-paragraphs a. through e.
inclusive, are denied. Further answering, any such alleged conduct as against Egizio, if any is
proven, was outside of any authority as agent and/or employee of the Park District and never ratified
by the Park District.
30.
Defendant Egizio engaged in unwelcome stalking-like behavior toward Ms. Matichak.
He called her dozens of times a day, both during and after work, from 4 o'clock in the morning until
late at night; he showed up at locations around town where she was; and told her that he had "studied
her for a long time" and that he "always knew where she was."
Answer:
Page 9 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
31.
Defendant Egizio repeatedly demanded that Ms. Matichak report to his Park District
office between 4:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. for the purpose of sexual contact before she taught early
morning fitness classes. The sexual contact was unwelcome by Ms. Matichak.
Answer:
32.
In or about December 2014, while in a Park District conference room, Defendant
Egizio exposed his genitals and tried to force himself sexually on Ms. Matichak. She refused his
sexual demand and told him, "No, I can't do this."
Answer:
33.
During early 2015, Defendant Egizio tried to grab and kiss Ms. Matichak at locations
in Park District facilities, including while she was setting up for class she was about to teach. Ms.
Matichak pushed him away.
Answer:
34.
During 2015, Defendant Egizio demanded that Ms. Matichak send him suggestive
photos of herself. He became enraged when she refused and threatened her job to coerce her to
comply with his demands.
Answer:
35.
Defendant Egizio required Ms. Matichak to accompany him on work-related matters
and attend work-related events with him, often with no legitimate business reason for her to be
present. During those times, he made unwelcome advances.
Answer:
36.
In or about February 2015, after a meeting in which sexual harassment was discussed,
a female supervisor stated that she, the supervisor, should report how Egizio was treating Ms.
Page 10 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Matichak. However, upon information and belief, the supervisor did not make any such report, as
no one followed up with Ms. Matichak regarding Egizio's conduct.
Answer:
37.
Previously, Ms. Matichak had been told that a director, who was a member of senior
management and close to Defendant Egizio and the Board, had been engaged in a sexual relationship
with a subordinate. She was told that the director had threatened an employee with the loss of the
employee's job if the employee reported the relationship to the Board.
Answer:
38.
In or about February 2015, a female supervisor advised Ms. Matichak to always agree
with Egizio, to "just do whatever he says," and "don't say no to him" because otherwise he would get
mad and scream.
Answer:
39.
On or about March 27, 2015, Ms. Matichak delivered a letter to Defendant Egizio
written by her husband. She told Egizio that it was a letter form her husband asking Egizio to leave
her alone.
Answer:
40.
Defendant Egizio read the letter in Ms. Matichak's presence. He slammed the letter
down on his desk, clenched his fists, and in a loud, angry, menacing tone, threatened her husband's
position as a police officer with the City of Joliet. He stated, "If he's going to mess with me, I'm
going to mess with his job. I can get anything done to him." Egizio said "I have a lot of connections"
and specifically named a former Joliet Chief of Police and a prominent Park District sponsor.
Answer:
Page 11 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
41.
Ms. Matichak now feared for both her job and her husband's job.
Answer:
Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 41, and therefore, said allegations are neither admitted nor denied, but strict
proof thereof is demanded.
42.
Ms. Matichak began to suffer panic attacks that became increasingly frequent in 2015
because of stress and anxiety caused by Defendant Egizio's relentless intimidating and manipulative
pressure to engage in sexual relations and threats to her and her husband's livelihoods.
Answer:
43.
On four occasions during April 2015, when Ms. Matichak experienced panic attacks
during work-related events, Defendant Egizio took her to a hotel, telling her that she could calm
down there and that they would talk about planning for new position he had promised her.
Answer:
44.
At the hotels, Defendant Egizio plied her with alcoholic drinks and when she became
impaired by the alcohol, he demanded that she engage in sexual relations. She tried to reject his
advances, telling him "no," "I can't do this," and "that's not why we are here." Egizio refused to take
no for an answer and told her that she had to be thankful for what he did for her and made threats
to her job if she did not submit, such as "you must not care for your position, then."
Answer:
45.
On the final occasion that Defendant Egizio took Ms. Matichak to a hotel, Egizio kept
urging her to drink so much alcohol that she experience a partial black-out. After he finished his
sexual assault and as they left the hotel, she broke down sobbing.
Answer:
Page 12 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
46.
In May 2015, as a result of the injuries and extreme stress caused by Defendant
Egizio, Ms. Matichak suffered extreme trauma and a breakdown requiring hospitalization, and has
been on medical leave ever since.
Answer:
47.
After Ms. Matichak went on leave, Defendant Egizio continued to barrage her with
phone calls. One day, he followed her in his car after she had left a medical appointment, pulled up
next to her car, and started screaming at her because she refused to accept his calls or call him back.
His behavior was threatening and intimidating.
Answer:
48.
In or about July 2015, Defendant Egizio removed Ms. Matichak from the Park
District employee roster and changed the password to her work email account. When she went to the
Park District to pick up some paperwork and check on her email access, he paced back and forth of
the office of the employee who was assisting her, glared at her, sent the other employee angry text
messages about Ms. Matichak, and incessantly rang the employee's phone. His behavior was so
threatening that the other employee offered to escort Ms. Matichak to her car.
Answer:
49.
Afer Ms. Matichak made claims of sexual harassment through her attorneys, and
before she filed this lawsuit, the wife of a Park District sponsor called her and told her to drop her
claims.
Answer:
Park District knew of, tolerated, and acquiesced in Egizio's wrongful conduct
Page 13 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
50.
Defendant Park District was aware of, tolerated, encouraged, and approved of
Defendant Egizio's sexual misconduct.

Answer:
51.
Prior to Ms. Matichak's employment, Defendant Egizio, along with Park District
director, frequently and openly made sexual comments about women working out at the Park
District, their bodies, who was "hot," and whose breasts were real.
Answer:
52.
Prior to Ms. Matichak's employment, Defendant Egizio had a reputation for pursing
sexual relationships with subordinate female employees.

Answer:
53.
Defendant Egizio made sexual advances and pursued sexual relationships with at least
three other subordinate female employees over a period of at least ten years prior to Ms. Matichak's
employment.
Answer:
54.
Defendant Egizio demanded that a female subordinate spend time with him and
pressured her for sexual favors, and when she resisted, he stated, "I'm the boss" or became enraged
to the point of terrifying her; called her incessantly; repeatedly asked her what color panties she was
wearing; gave her gifts and made angry scenes at the workplace when she refused the gifts; and
threatened to kill a member of her family if she did not do what he wanted, among other things.
Answer:
55.
Upon information and belief, Board members had reason to believe that Defendant
Egizio was having an inappropriate relationship with that female employee and frequently discussed
Page 14 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
the matter during Board meetings. On one occasion, Board members directed Egizio to distance
himself from the female employee, but Egizio flatly refused to comply with that directive, and the
Board acquiesced in his refusal. Thereafter, the Board made an adverse employment decision against
the female employee and allowed Egizio to remain in his position without taking any disciplinary
action against him. This allegation is made on information and belief, to wit: statements made by
former Board members to the female employee.
Answer:
56.
In or about March or April 2015, Park District Board President Glen Marcum told
Defendant Egizio that there were rumors that he was having sex with Ms. Matichak. He told Egizio
to quiet his people and put a stop to the rumors. The Board President did not tell Egizio to stop
compelling sex with a subordinate, nor did the Board conduct any investigation.
Answer:
57.
Defendant Egizio told Ms. Matichak that Park District Board Commissioner Art
Schultz told Egizio that there were rumors that Egizio was having sex with Ms. Matichak and he
stated, "good for you" and "you must have a big cock."
Answer:
58.
Defendant Egizio abused his power and position of authority with Defendant Park
District to obtain sexual benefits for himself.

Answer:
Page 15 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
COUNT I
(42 U.S.C. 1983 - Equal Protection/Sexual Harassment - All Defendants)
59.
Plaintiff restates and realleges by referenced paragraphs 1 through 58 above as though
fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendants Park District and Egizio.
Answer:
Defendant restates and realleges its answers and denials to paragraphs 1
through 58 above as its answers and denials to this paragraph 59, as though fully set forth herein.
60.
Defendant Park District employed Defendant Egizio at all times material hereto. Park
District is responsible for the acts of Defendant Egizio who was acting within the scope of his
employment and pursuant to a policy, custom, or pattern of sexual harassment and violating
Plaintiff's right of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
Untied States.
Answer:
61.
Defendants have acted under color of state law at all material times hereto.
Answer:
62.
Plaintiff was subject to unequal and discriminatory treatment because of her sex.
Answer:
63.
Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory treatment
by creating a hostile and abusive work environment, subjecting her to unwelcome sexual advances,
and subjecting her to an unwelcome and nonconsensual sexual relationship coerced by quid pro quo
promises and threats, and by knowingly failing and refusing to protect her from those hostile and
abusive conditions of her employment.
Answer:
Page 16 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
64.
The sexually and sex-based offensive conduct was severe and pervasive and altered
the conditions of Plaintiff's employment and created an abusive working environment.

Answer:
65.
Defendants had knowledge of the conduct complained of and refused or failed to take
action to terminate or correct such conduct, although having the power and authority to do so.
Answer:
66.
As Executive Director, Defendant Egizio was the highest ranking employee of Park
District and had final policymaking authority with respect to at least employment matters.
Answer:
Defendant admits Defendant Egizio was the highest ranking employee of the
Park District. The remaining allegations in paragraph 66 are denied.

67.
Defendants' actions reflect a policy, custom, or pattern of official conduct of engaging
in sexual harassment and acquiescence and deliberate indifference to sexual harassment of women
by Defendant Egizio:
a.
Defendant Egizio has engaged in a patter of sexual harassment against female

employees for more than a decade.
b.
Defendant Egizio intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and

discriminatory treatment by engaging in repeated and persistent acts of
unwelcome and offensive sex-based and sexual harassment of Plaintiff.
c.
Defendant Egizio made offensive sexual comments about other female

employees and Park District members in Plaintiff's presence.
d.
Defendant Egizio engaged in sexual harassment of Plaintiff and at least one

other female employee pervasively, openly, publicly, and in the presence of
Park District's Board members and other Park District employees.
e.
Defendants Park District failed to take corrective measures to eliminate the

ongoing sexual harassment, allowing the sexual harassment to continue.
Page 17 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Answer:
The allegations in paragraph 67, including sub-paragraphs a. through e.
inclusive, are denied.

68.
The actions of the Defendants against Plaintiff violate her equal protection right to
be free from sexual harassment under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Answer:
69.
Defendants' actions in intentionally engaging in and permitting sexual harassment
against Plaintiff has caused her severe emotional distress, trauma, humiliation, anxiety, physical and
emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wags and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and
other compensatory and consequential damages.
Answer:
70.
Defendants' actions were intentional, willful, and malicious and/or in reckless
disregard for Plaintiff's rights as secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Answer:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to enter judgment on her behalf and against
Defendants Joliet Park District and Dominic Egizio for:
A.
An Order requiring Defendant Park District to appoint a monitor to conduct zero

tolerance sexual harassment training and integrate said training into the workplace
going forward and discipline all management and employees who do or have engaged
in and/or tolerated sexual harassment or a hostile work environment;
B.
An Order requiring Defendant Park District to post notices concerning its duty to
refrain from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, engaging in sexual
harassment, and retaliating against employees for engaging in protected activity;
C.
All wages and benefits Plaintiff would have received but for the unlawful
employment practices, including pre-judgment interest as permitted by law;
Page 18 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
D.
Reinstatement to her former position, or in lieu of reinstatement, an order of front pay

and benefits for a reasonable period of time;
E.
Compensatory damages;
F.
Punitive damages against Defendant Egizio as permitted by law;
G.
Attorneys' fees and costs;
H.
Post-judgment interest; and
I.
Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

All claims, demands, and relief sought in this Prayer for Relief against
Answer:
Defendant Park District, including any relief sought specifically in sub-paragraphs A. through I.
WHEREFORE defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, denies that plaintiff, JEANETTA
MATICHAK, is entitled to judgment against it in any sum whatsoever and asks that judgment be
entered in its favor and against plaintiff. Defendant demands a trial by jury.
COUNT II
(Title VII Sexual Harassment - Defendant Park District)
71.
Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 above as though
fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendant Park District.
Answer:
72.
At all relevant times herein, defendant employed more than 15 people and is therefore
an employer as defined by 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b).

Answer:
Page 19 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
73.
Defendant is engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 2000e(h).
Answer:
74.
Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory treatment
by creating a hostile and abusive work environment, subjecting her to unwelcome sexual advances,
and subjecting her to an unwelcome and nonconsensual sexual relationship coerced by quid pro
quo promises and threats, and by knowingly failing and refusing to protect her from those hostile and
abusive conditions of her employment, all in violation 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.
Answer:
75.
The sexually and sex-based offensive conduct was severe and/or pervasive.
Answer:
76.
Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff with malice and/or reckless indifference to
her federally protected rights.

Answer:
77.
Defendant's actions in intentionally engaging in and permitting sexual harassment
against plaintiff has caused her severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, physical and
emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and
other compensatory and consequential damages.
Answer:
Defendant Joliet Park District.
Page 20 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
A.

tolerance sexual harassment training and integrate said training into the workplace
going forward and discipline all management and employees who do or have engaged
in and/or tolerated sexual harassment or a hostile work environment.
B.
C.
D.

E.
Compensatory and punitive damages;
F.
G.
H.
Answer:
Defendant Park District, including any relief sought specifically in sub-paragraphs A. through H.
COUNT III
(Title VII Retaliation - Defendant Park District)
78.
Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 and 72 through
73 of above as though fully set forth in this Count. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendant Park
District.
Page 21 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Answer:
through 58 and 72 through 73 above as its answers and denials to this paragraph 78, as though fully
set forth herein.
79.
Defendant Egizio retaliated against Plaintiff for having engaged in protected activity,
i.e., opposing unlawful discrimination by rebuffing his advances, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3.
Answer:
80.
Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff with malice and/or reckless indifference to her
federally protected rights.

Answer:
81.
Defendant's actions in intentionally retaliating against Plaintiff caused her severe
emotional distress, humiliation, depression, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages
and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other compensatory and consequential damages.
Answer:
Defendant Joliet Park District.
A.

tolerance sexual harassment training and integrate said training into workplace going
forward and discipline all management and employees who do or have engaged in
and/or tolerated sexual harassment or a hostile work environment.
B.
C.
Page 22 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
D.

E.
Compensatory and punitive damages;
F.
G.
H.
Answer:
Defendant Park District, including any relief sought specifically in sub-paragraphs A. through H,
COUNT IV
(Illinois Gender Violence Act - All Defendants)
82.
Plaintiff restates and realleges by referenced paragraphs 1 through 58 above as though
fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this count against Defendant Park District and Egizio.
Answer:
83.
Defendant Egizio perpetrated acts of physical intrusion and invasion of a sexual
nature under coercive conditions on Plaintiff.

Answer:
84.
The coercive sexual acts perpetrated by Defendant Egizio against Plaintiff were
intrusive and invasive and constitute battery.

Page 23 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Answer:
85.
The actions of the Defendant Egizio against Plaintiff violate her right to be free from
sexual battery under the Illinois Gender Violence Act, 740 ILCS 82/1, et seq.
Answer:
86.
Defendant Egizio engaged in conduct in violation of the Illinois Gender Violence Act
during his agency relationship with Defendant Park District while actually or apparently providing
supervision and mentoring to Plaintiff. Defendant Park District is liable for Defendant Egizio's
violations of the Illinois Gender Violence Act under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Answer:
87.
As a direct result of Defendant Egizio's conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional
distress, trauma, humiliation, anxiety, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost
wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other compensatory and consequential damages.
Answer:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court to enter judgment on her behalf and against
Defendants Joliet Park District and Dominic Egizio for:
A.
All damages, including actual damages, damages for emotional distress, and punitive
damages, as permitted by law, under 740 ILCS 82/15;
B.
C.
D.
Page 24 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Answer:
Defendant Park District, including any relief sought specifically in sub-paragraphs A. through I.
COUNT V
(Battery - Defendant Egizio)
88.
Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 6, 8 through 14, 21,
28, 31 through 33, 38 through 48, and 58 above as through fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this
Count against Defendant Ezigio.
Answer:
Inasmuch as the allegations in paragraph 88 are not directed against this
defendant, defendant makes no response thereto. Inasmuch as the allegations refer to any
misconduct on the part of this defendant, said allegations are specifically denied. Further it is denied
that any actions or claims of misconduct as against Defendant Egizio were committed by Defendant
Egizio in the course and scope of his employment or agency with Defendant Park District, were in
furtherance of Park District business, were promoted and/or ratified by the Park District. Further, it
is denied that Plaintiff was injured and/or damaged to the degree or extent alleged.
89.
Without authorization or legal justification, Defendant Egizio subjected Plaintiff to
offensive conduct by physically touching intimate part of her body and to the apprehension of
imminent offensive contact to Ms. Matichak while in close proximity to her.
Page 25 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Answer:
90.
Defendant's actions caused plaintiff her severe emotional distress, humiliation,
anxiety, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and other compensatory and
consequential damages.
Answer:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court to enter judgment on this Count on her behalf and
against Dominic Egizio for:
A.
All damages, including actual damages, damages for emotional distress, and punitive
damages, as permitted by law;
B.
Page 26 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
C.
D.
Answer:
Inasmuch as this Prayer for Relief and the damages and losses claimed are not
directed against this defendant, defendant makes no response thereto. Defendant denies that Plaintiff
can recover for the alleged battery in Count V against it.
COUNT VI
(Equal Pay Act - Defendant Park District)
91.
Plaintiff restates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 6, 8 through 11, 13,
14, and 25 above as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendant Park
District.
Answer:
through 6, 8 through 11, 13, 14, 25 above as its answers and denials to this paragraph 91, as though
fully set forth herein.
92.
At all times relevant, Defendant Park District was subject to the provisions of the
Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d).

Answer:
93.
Defendant Park District is and was at all relevant times an "employer" within the
meaning of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(d).

Answer:
94.
During the period August 2013 through May 2015, Plaintiff was paid less than half
the wage of a male trainer who was paid at the rate of or about $60 per hour and who did the similar
Page 27 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
work but had less education, credentials, and experience, and did not have the extra scheduling and
administrative duties assigned to Ms. Matichak.
Answer:
95.
Defendant Park District discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of sex, female,
by paying her at a lower hourly rate than a male coworker, for performing substantially equal work,
requiring substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions, in
violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29. U.S.C. 206(d).
Answer:
96.
As a result of this violation, Plaintiff has lost pay and benefits of her employment.
Answer:
97.
Defendant knew that it was violating the Equal Pay Act or was indifferent or show
reckless disregard as to whether its actions violated the Equal Pay Act.
Answer:
against Defendant Joliet Park District for:
A.
The difference between Plaintiff's pay rate and the pay rate of the male coworker for
hours worked ruing the relevant time period;
B.
Liquidated damages;
C.
Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
D.
Attorneys' fees and costs; and
E.
Page 28 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
Answer:
Defendant Park District, including any relief sought specifically in sub-paragraphs A. through E,
COUNT VII
(Indemnification - Defendant Park District)
98.
Plaintiff restates and reallges by reference paragraphs 1through 58 and Counts I, IV,
and V above as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff brings this Count against Defendant Park
District.
Answer:
through 58 and Counts I, IV and V above as its answers and denials to this paragraph 98, as though
fully set forth herein.
99.
Defendant Egizio was an employee of Defendant Park District acting within the scope
of his employment when he committed negligent and/or wrongful acts giving rise to Plaintiff's claim.
Answer:
100.
Defendant Park District has a duty and obligation to indemnify Defendant Egizio
against damages recovered by Plaintiff by judgment or settlement pursuant to Illinois law, 70 ILCS
1205/8-20, requiring indemnification of negligent or wrongful arising from civil rights, constitutional
rights, and bodily injury claims and suit.
Answer:
Page 29 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
against Defendant Dominic Egizio for:
A.
A declaratory judgment that Defendant Park District is obligated to indemnify

Defendant Egizio against any damages recovered by Plaintiff;
B.
Answer:
Defendant Park District, including any relief sought specifically in sub-paragraphs A. through B,
DEFENDANT JOLIET PARK DISTRICTS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES Defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, by and
through its attorneys, STELLATO & SCHWARTZ, LTD., and for its Affirmative Defenses to
plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant states the following:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1.
For its First Affirmative Defense, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, without prejudice to
its prior denials, states that Defendant, DOMINIC EGIZIO's, alleged actions or omissions in
connection with the alleged relationship and/or alleged interactions with plaintiff did not represent
or result in a tangible employment action against plaintiff.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Page 30 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
2.
For its Second Affirmative Defense, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, without prejudice
to its prior denials, states that Plaintiff's allegations that defendant DOMINIC EGIZIO coerced any
conduct of plaintiff or that any interaction between her and plaintiff was non-consensual are false,
fabricated and fraudulent and subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3.
For its Third Affirmative Defense, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, without prejudice to
its prior denials, states that Plaintiff's undue delay in asserting claims of sexual harassment against
Defendant Egizio evidence that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or
corrective opportunities, and that such claims are false, fabricated and fraudulent and subject to
sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4.
For its Fourth Affirmative Defense, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, without prejudice
to its prior denials, states that Plaintiff's failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the
Defendant Joliet Park District evidences that Plaintiff failed to use reasonable care in avoiding any
alleged harm, and that plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment are false, fabricated and fraudulent and
subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5.
For its Fifth Affirmative Defense, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, without prejudice to
its prior denials, states that to the extent that plaintiff failed to mitigate any claimed injuries or
damages, any verdict or judgment obtained by Plaintiff must be reduced by application of the
principle that a person has a duty to mitigate damages.
Page 31 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6.
For its Sixth Affirmative Defense, Defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, states that
no punitive damages can be sought, assessed and awarded in favor of Plaintiff, JEANETTA
MATICHAK, against this defendant, a municipal corporation, under the facts and the law in Counts
I, II and III based on constitutional and other claims. Defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, cannot
be liable for the individual acts of Egizio, which are denied, unless (1) the acts are ratified or (2) the
acts are imputed by respondeat superior. No where is it alleged nor could it be alleged that
Defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, was responsible for the acts of Egizio. Alternatively, and if
proven, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, cannot be liable for same as they were clearly committed outside
the scope of any agency, official employment or elected capacity. Any claim for punitive damages
should be dismissed with prejudice and with finality.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Illinois Gender Violence Act)
7.
For its Seventh Affirmative Defense, Defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, states
that the Illinois Gender Violence Act cannot be alleged against this defendant, a municipal
corporation. The Illinois Gender Violence Act can only be alleged against the perpetrator and not
the entity.
8.
By reason thereof, this defendant, as a matter of law, is not liable to plaintiff under
the Illinois Gender Violence Act for the alleged injuries of the plaintiff nor for any other alleged
expenses and losses claimed as a result thereof. Accordingly, any claim under the Illinois Gender
Violence Act should be dismissed as against this Defendant entity with prejudice and with a finding
of finality under Supreme Court Rule 304(a).
Page 32 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Pre-Judgment Interest)

9.
For its Eighth Affirmative Defense, to the extent Count VI is based on alleged
violations of the Equal Pay Act, there is no basis in fact or in law to impose prejudgment interest.
Such interest is not collectible in any damage claim for alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act. Any
claim for prejudgment interest as sought under Count VI is not legally sustainable. The claim should
be dismissed with prejudice and with finality.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Retaliation)
10.
For its Eleventh Affirmative Defense, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, without prejudice
to its prior denials, states that the actions or omissions alleged of and complained of against JOLIET
PARK DISTRICT s in connection with the alleged relationship and/or alleged interactions with
plaintiff did not represent or result in an adverse employment action.
11.
Plaintiff's claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically
regarding retaliation, requires plaintiff to plead that plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action
by plaintiff's employer.
12.
Nowhere in Count III does plaintiff allege that she suffered an adverse employment
action by her employer.

13.
By reason thereof, this defendant, as a matter of law, is not liable to plaintiff under
a theory of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, plaintiff's
Complaint at Law should be dismissed with prejudice and with a finding of finality under Supreme
Court Rule 304(a).
Page 33 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14.
For its Tenth Affirmative Defense, defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, states that
to the extent that any claim in this matter was not filed within the statute of limitations, that claim
shall be time-barred.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15.
For its Eleventh Affirmative Defense, defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, states
that to the extent that any claims in this matter that were not brought in front of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and were required to be brought in front of the
EEOC and, therefore, were not subject to plaintiffs Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC shall be
time-barred.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Indemnification under 70 ILCS 1205/8-20)
16.
For its Twelfth Affirmative Defense, defendant JOLIET PARK DISTRICT
specifically states that Plaintiff has no basis in fact of in law to seek indemnification as against
JOLIET PARK DISTRICT as to any damages or judgments, if any, entered in favor of Plaintiff
against the defendant, DOMINIC EGIZIO, under 70 ILCS 1205/8-20. This indemnification claim
seeks recovery under 70 ILCS 1205/8-20 against JOLIET PARK DISTRICT with respect to the
individual claims against co-defendant now pending under Count I (Equal Employment/Sexual
Harassment) Count IV (Gender Violence Act) and Count V (Battery). Plaintiff seeks indemnification
from JOLIET PARK DISTRICT for any monetary judgment(s) entered in her favor against
Defendant DOMINIC EGIZIO as to these claims.
Page 34 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
17.
Section 70 ILCS 1205/8-20 allows indemnification as to certain causes only, and only
as to damages awarded in favor of a Plaintiff against an employee acting within the course and scope
of that employees employment.
18.
JOLIET PARK DISTRICT stands on all of its denials in its Answer as well as set
forth in the above Affirmative Defenses, that no actions at the times and places alleged against codefendant, DOMINIC EGIZIO, were committed by DOMINIC EGIZIO in furtherance of his
employment for JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, in any official capacity in furtherance of JOLIET PARK
DISTRICT business. None of the actions were ratified by JOLIET PARK DISTRICT. None of these
alleged actions were done at the direction of JOLIET PARK DISTRICT.
19.
As such there is no indemnification recovery under 70 ILCS 1205/8-20 and this Count
VI should be dismissed with prejudice and with finality.

RESERVATIONS
20.
Defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, reserves the right to raise any further
affirmative or additional affirmative defenses as the facts, circumstances, and evidence dictate and
warrant.
STELLATO & SCHWARTZ, LTD.
By: /s/ Richard W. Schumacher

Richard W. Schumacher
Page 35 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
INSUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE CLAUSE

Richard W. Schumacher being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the
attorney for defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, in the above entitled cause; that he has read the
foregoing Answer and knows the contents thereof and that the statements contained therein as to lack
of knowledge sufficient to form a belief of truth and correctness are true. Under penalty of perjury,
I certify that the statements set forth in this paragraph are true and correct.
/s/ Richard W. Schumacher
Richard W. Schumacher, #03122109
James C. Elder, #06274869
Attorneys for Defendant - Joliet Park District
120 North LaSalle Street, 34th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 419-1011
Page 36 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JEANETTA MATICHAK,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
JOLIET PARK DISTRICT and
DOMINIC EGIZIO,
Defendants.
No.:
16-CV-05877
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
To:
Ms. Robin Potter

Ms. M. Nieves Bolanos
Ms. Alenna K. Bolin
Robin Potter & Associates, P.C.
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Mr. Thomas G. DiCianni

Ancel Glink
140 S. Dearborn Street, 6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
The undersigned certifies that on the 9th Day of August, 2016, he filed an Answer to
Plaintiff's Complaint with Affirmative Defenses for Defendant, JOLIET PARK DISTRICT, Pursuant
to the Northern District of Illinois General Order on Electronic Case Filing, he served this pleading
on the above.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/Richard W. Schumacher
Richard W. Schumacher, #03122109

James C. Elder, #06274869
Attorneys for Defendant - JOLIET PARK DISTRICT
425 N. Martingale Road, Suite 1150
Schaumburg, IL 60173
(847) 330-3700
Page 37 of 37
Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Park District Reply

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Park District Reply

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:81

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

The allegations in paragraph 1 are admitted to the extent of the conclusion

USDC N. Dist. Eastern Division

Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:82

The allegations in paragraph 2 are admitted to the extent of the conclusions

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because

The allegations in paragraph 2 are admitted although defendant denies events

occurred giving rise to Plaintiffs claims.

The allegations in paragraph 4 are admitted.

Defendant Joliet Park District ("Park District") is a municipal corporation, organized

The allegations in paragraph 5 are admitted.

USDC N. Dist. Eastern Division

Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:83

Defendant admits Dominic Egizio was employed by Defendant Park District

USDC N. Dist. Eastern Division

Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:84

The allegations in paragraph 7 are admitted. Further answering, the Notice

attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself.

The allegations in paragraph 8 are admitted.

The Park District is governed by a Board of Commissioners (Board) which delegated

authority to Egizio over subordinate employees.

The allegations in paragraph 9 are admitted. Further answering, the Board

The allegations in paragraph 10 are admitted.

The allegations in paragraph 11 are denied.

USDC N. Dist. Eastern Division

Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:85

Ms. Matichak is a married mother of three children.

The allegations in paragraph 12 are admitted.

The allegations in paragraph 13 are admitted.

Park District. The remaining allegations in paragraph 14 are denied.

Defendant Egizio began to make unwelcome offensive sexual comments to and in

The allegations in paragraph 15 are denied.

USDC N. Dist. Eastern Division

Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:86

The allegations in paragraph 16 are denied.

The allegations in paragraph 17 are denied.

Throughout, Ms. Matichak repeatedly rebuffed Defendant Egizio's advances, telling

The allegations in paragraph 18 are denied.

The allegations in paragraph 19 are denied.

The allegations in paragraph 20 are denied.

USDC N. Dist. Eastern Division

Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:87

The allegations in paragraph 21 are denied.

The allegations in paragraph 22 are denied.

The allegations in paragraph 23 are denied.

The allegations in paragraph 24, including sub-paragraphs a. through c.

Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:88

The allegations in paragraph 25 are denied.

Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the

Thereafter, Defendant Egizio took advantage of Ms. Matichak's vulnerability to

USDC N. Dist. Eastern Division

Case No.: 16-CV-05877

Case: 1:16-cv-05877 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/09/16 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:89

The allegations in paragraph 28 are denied.

unwelcome quid pro quo sexual favors, including the following:

He promised her more pay and a full-time position with benefits.