STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE LAW DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS JAMES ULRICH F, . . 5.33 a? V. r7172 5C f? 132?: a SHIMER SUSAN ,gr-i} 32:12:12}; and NORTH CENTRAL NO. 2017 009325 (1, :3 . IANE M. SHELLEY Defendants. 23 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF NOW COME Plaintiff, JAMES ULRICH (?PlaintifF? or ?Mr. Ulrich?), by and his attorneys, RA. REGNER LTD., and for his Complaint for Damages and Other Relief against Defendants SHIMER COLLEGE and SUSAN HENKING and NORTH CENTRAL COLLEGE (collectively, ?Defendants?), state as follows: NATURE OF CLAIM 1. This is an action seeking money damages for breach of contract, misrepresentation, promissory estoppel and violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act 820 ILCS 1 15/] et. seq. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 2. This case concerns James Ulrich, Who has taken on various administrative and faculty employment roles for Shimer College (?Shimer?), including Chief Operating Of?cer, Assistant Dean, Registrar, and Professor, during the period from January 1, 2003 through May 31, 2017. Page 1 of 14 3. In addition to monetary compensation, in exchange for Mr. Ulrich?s services, Mr. Ulrich accrued and is entitled to receive employee bene?ts and privileges from Shimer, including paid tuition for Mr. Ulrich and each of his family members. Mr. Ulrich has three children. 4. The tuition bene?ts accrued and due to Mr. Ulrich are owed to him per agreement with Shimer and is/was af?rmed in the written Shimer documents that are supplied to Shimer Administrators to orientate them to their accrued bene?ts and privileges. (Exhibit 1, See the ?Shimer College Administrative Handbook? at Page 4 Para. 3, attached). 5. The tuition bene?ts are provided by Shimer because Shimer does not have the ability to pay employees, such as Mr. Ulrich, monetary compensation at prevailing rates. 6. Mr. Ulrich detrimentally relied on Shimer?s promise of accrued tuition bene?ts and remained in service to Shimer for ?fteen (15) years because of the agreement that tuition bene?ts would be provided for his children. 7. In early 2016 Shimer?s Chairman of the Board Mr. Chris Vaughn announced that Shimer was contracting with North Central College in Naperville, Illinois to consolidate Shimer with North Central College. 8. At that time Susan Henking, President of Shimer College, represented to Mr. Ulrich that all Shimer academic operations, administrators, faculty and students would transfer to North Central College. 9. At that time Susan Henking encouraged Mr. Ulrich to remain working with Shimer through the transfer and represented to Mr. Ulrich that he would be Page 2 of14 going with Shimer over to North Central College as a Shimer faculty member. Upon information and belief the Shimer to North Central College succession agreement is outlined in one or more written agreements between Shimer and North Central College. Plaintiff has requested a copy of the Shimer to North Central College Agreement through counsel for examination and that request has been denied. 10. The Shimer tuition bene?ts due former Shimer employees have been assumed by North Central College. North Central College also has its own, similar, existing employee tuition bene?t program. 1 1. Mr. Ulrich detrimentally relied on Susan Henking?s representations and so remained at Shimer because of them, with the expectation of future employment and tuition bene?ts for his children with Shimer through North Central College. 12. Shimer consolidated with North Central College on June 2, 2017 and now is referred to as ?Shimer School of Great Books at North Central College? (?Shimer at North Central?). 13. Despite the representations and promises made by Shimer and Susan Henking, Mr. Ulrich was not granted a faculty position with Shimer at North Central, nor an equivalent administrative position. 14. As a result of Shimer?s and Susan Henking?s actions and inactions, Mr. Ulrich is unemployed. 15. Mr. Ulrich has made a demand for his Shimer accrued tuition bene?ts and salaried position with Shimer at North Central College, and they have both been denied by Shimer. Page 3 of 14 16. Mr. Ulrich has been damaged by Shimer?s denial of tuition bene?ts for his three children in an amount exceeding Fifty Thousand Dollarsl. 17. Mr. Ulrich has been damaged by Shimer?s and Susan Henking?s promise of continued employment as a faculty member at Shimer/ North Central in an amount exceeding Fifty Thousand Dollars per year. PARTIES 18. Plaintiff, James Ulrich is a citizen of Illinois, residing at 1540 Greenleaf Ave., Lake Forest, Illinois 60045. 19. Shimer College is an Illinois Corporation with a registered address of 3424 S. State Street, Chicago, Illinois 60616, and with a new principal place of business at 30 N. Brainard Street, Naperville, Illinois 60540. North Central College, successor in interest to Shimer, is located at 30 N. Brainard Street, Naperville, Illinois 60540. And, Susan I-Ienking resides off campus at 910 S. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60605, and at 481 S. Main Street, Geneva, New York 14456 from time to time. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. Jurisdiction is proper as Defendants Shimer and Susan Henking are located in Cook County and Defendant North Central teaches, recruits, counsels and otherwise does business in Cook County. Current damage calculations project money damages in the amount of Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars 540,000.00) for Mr. Ulrich?s accrued tuition bene?t for his children. Calculations are made, based on 4 year tuition for Mr. Ulrich?s 3 children as follows: $45,000 per annum 4 years 3 children $540,000.00. 2 The salary portion of Mr. Ulrich?s compensation at Shimer is $75,000.00 per annum. Page 4 0f14 21. Venue is proper as the campus property, Defendants and facts and circumstances derive from Cook County. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter herein, and venue is proper in this judicial district. 22. The amount in controversy exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars Count 1 Breach of Contract (All Defendants) 23. Mr. Ulrich repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1?22, as though fully set out herein. 24. Mr. Ulrich and Defendant Shimer entered into a contract for employment providing for compensation including tuition bene?ts for Mr. Ulrich?s family. Exhibit 1. 25. Mr. Ulrich has performed and satis?ed each of his obligations under the contract. 26. Despite receipt by Defendant of the services from Mr. Ulrich and demand for performance of Defendants by Mr. Ulrich, Defendants have not performed and breached the contract by denying Mr. Ulrich his earned tuition bene?ts owed by Defendants to Mr. Ulrich. 27. Mr. Ulrich has been damaged in an amount exceeding Fifty Thousand Dollars WVherefore, Mr. Ulrich respectfully requests this court to enter a judgment for Mr. Ulrich against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with costs, losses, incidental and consequential damages plus such further relief as the Court deems just and Page 5 of 14 appropriate. Count 2 Unjust Enrichment (All Defendants) 28. Mr. Ulrich incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-27 above as though fully set forth herein. 29. Mr. Ulrich was promised future employment, including his accrued family tuition bene?ts, as a faculty member with Shimer at North Central. 30. Defendants enriched themselves to the detriment of Mr. Ulrich by utilizing Mr. Ulrich?s services to accomplish a consolidation with North Central College. 31. The future employment and accrued family tuition bene?ts promised Mr. Ulrich have not been provided to Mr. Ulrich by Defendants. 32. Defendants have reaped the bene?ts, to the detriment of Mr. Ulrich, by not providing future employment and earned family tuition bene?ts and Mr. Ulrich has accordingly been damaged by the denial of income and tuition bene?ts for his children. DVherefore, Mr. Ulrich respectfully requests this court to enter a judgment for Mr. Ulrich against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with costs, losses, incidental and consequential damages, plus such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Count 3 Intentional Misrepresentation (Defendants Shimer College and North Central College) 33. Mr. Ulrich incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1?32 above as though fully set forth herein. Page 6 of 14 34. Shimer tendered to Mr. Ulrich a written policy document stating, inter alia, to Mr. Ulrich that Mr. Ulrich accrued and would be provided family tuition free of charge in exchange for his services at Shimer. 35. Defendant Shimer knew that these representations were false. 36. Defendant Shimer made these false representations to make Mr. Ulrich believe he would be provided tuition for his children in consideration for Shimer paying Mr. Ulrich a lesser salary. 37. Mr. Ulrich relied upon the truthfulness and accuracy of Shimer?s representations and stayed with Shimer, despite lower pay, for ?fteen (15) years (including an initial 6 months of course development work at no pay). 38. But for reliance on Shimer?s representations Mr. Ulrich would not have served Shimer for ?fteen (15) years. 39. Mr. Ulrich?s reliance upon the truthfulness and accuracy of Shimer?s representations was reasonable considering the family tuition bene?t is a standard benefit provided to administrators and faculty in consideration of low pay. 40. Mr. Ulrich has been damaged in the amount of $540,000.00 for the denial of earned tuition for his three children. 4 l. Shimer made misrepresentations to Mr. Ulrich with knowledge of their falsity and with the intent to obtain services from Mr. Ulrich at low pay. 42. In the alternative, Shimer made misrepresentations to Mr. Ulrich with reckless disregard for the truth of matters asserted, and with reckless disregard for the ?nancial and other consequences borne by Mr. Ulrich. Page 7 of 14 Wherefore, Mr. Ulrich respectfully requests this court to enter a judgment for Mr. Ulrich against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with costs, losses, incidental and consequential damages plus such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Count 4 Intentional Misrepresentation (All Defendants) 43. Mr. Ulrich incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1?42 above as though fully set forth herein. 44. In early 2016 Defendant Susan Henking represented to Mr. Ulrich that Mr. Ulrich would be provided a faculty position at Shimer at North Central in conjunction with Shimer?s consolidation with North Central. 45. Defendant Susan Henking knew that these representations were false. 46. Defendant Susan Henking made these false representations to make Mr. Ulrich believe he would have continued employment with comparable compensation (including family tuition bene?ts) and to induce Mr. Ulrich to remain at Shimer and service Shimer?s consolidation with North Central. 47. Mr. Ulrich relied upon the truthfulness and accuracy of Susan Henking?s representations and serviced Shimer?s consolidation with North Central. 48. But for reliance on Susan Henking?s statements Mr. Ulrich would not have serviced the Shimer consolidation. 49. Mr. Ulrich?s reliance upon the truthfulness and accuracy of Susan Henking?s representations was reasonable considering Mr. Ulrich was acting Page 8 of 14 Chief Operating Of?cer, Registrar, Assistant Dean and Adjunct Professor, and had been actively teaching at Shimer over the 15 year period with Shimer. 50. Mr. Ulrich has been damaged in the amount of $75,000.00 in denied salary per year and $540,000.00 for the denial of earned tuition for his three children. 51. Susan Henking made misrepresentations to Mr. Ulrich with knowledge of their falsity and with the intent to string Mr. Ulrich along to service the Shimer consolidation with North Central. 52. In the alternative, Defendant Susan Henking made misrepresentations to Mr. Ulrich with reckless disregard for the truth of matters asserted, and with reckless disregard for the financial and other consequences borne by Mr. Ulrich. Wherefore, Mr. Ulrich respectfully requests this court to enter a judgment for Mr. Ulrich against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with costs, losses, incidental and consequential damages plus such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Count 5 Promissory Estoppel (Defendants Shimer College and North Central College) 53. Mr. Ulrich incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-52 above as though fully set forth herein. 54. Shimer promised Mr. Ulrich that he would be provided tuition for his children. Page 9 of 14 55. Mr. Ulrich relied on Shimer?s promise and worked for Shimer for Fifteen (15) years at reduced pay in reliance of Shimer?s promise of the family tuition bene?t. 56. Mr. Ulrich expected that Shimer?s promise was genuine and would provide tuition for his three (3) children. 57. Mr. Ulrich has been damaged by the denial by Shimer of the earned family tuition bene?ts for his children in an amount exceeding Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars Wherefore, Mr. Ulrich respectfully requests this court to enter a judgment for Mr. Ulrich against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with costs, losses, incidental and consequential damages plus such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate- Count 6 Promissory Estoppel (All Defendants) 58. Mr. Ulrich incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1?57 above as though fully set forth herein. 59. Defendant Susan Henking promised Mr. Ulrich that he would be provided a faculty position (including tuition for his children) following Shimer?s consolidation with North Central College. 60. Mr. Ulrich relied on Susan Henkings promise and worked for Susan Henking at Shimer through the consolidation in reliance of Shimer?s promise of a new comparable position and the family tuition bene?t. Page 10 of 14 61. Mr. Ulrich eXpected that Susan Henking?s promise was genuine and would provide employment at increased pay and earned tuition for his three (3) children with Shimer at North Central College. 62. Mr. Ulrich has been damaged by the denial by Susan Henking and Shimer of the earned family tuition bene?ts for his children in an amount exceeding Seventy Five Thousand Dollars per year in pay and in and amount exceeding Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars for the cost of tuition. Wherefore, Mr. Ulrich respectfully requests this court to enter a judgment for Mr. Ulrich against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with costs, losses, incidental and consequential damages plus such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Count 7 Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act 820 ILCS 115/ 1 et seq. (All Defendants) 63. Mr. Ulrich incorporates herein by reference each of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1?62, above as though fully set forth herein. 64. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendant violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by failing to pay Plaintiff all ?nal compensation owed to him inter alia the monetary equivalent of tuition owed to Mr. Ulrich for Mr. Ulrich?s children, per agreement with Shimer, in an amount exceeding $540,000.00. 65. As a result of Defendant?s unlawful acts, Plaintiff James Ulrich has suffered damages. Page ll ofu 66. Defendant?s Violations were wanton and willful, warranting the imposition of punitive damages. Wherefore, Plaintiff, James Ulrich, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants Shimer, Susan Henking and North Central College, for all ?nal compensation owed and earned by Plaintiff James Ulrich, damages in the amount provided for by ?14(a) of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/ 14(a), and for attomeys? fees and costs, and for such other and further relief this Court deems just and equitable. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2?1105 demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, JAMES ULRICH By? giv? Date: 6, 7&[7 One of his attorneys Raymond A. Regner Jr., Esq. R.A. REGNER LTD. 161 North Clark, Suite 2550 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 202?3340 FX (312) 202?3201 Page 12 of14 CERTIFICATION Under penalties provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certi?es that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certi?es as aforesaid that he or she verily believes the same to be true. JAMES ULRICH Dated ?7 Page 13 of 14