12-Person Jury
FILED
10/14/2020 10:30 PM

FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
DOROTHY BROWN
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
CYNTHIA DONALD,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
a Municipal Corporation; and
EDDIE JOHNSON, individually
and as an agent of
THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendants.

CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2020L010986

Case No.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT AT LAW

Plaintiff, Cynthia Donald, by and through her attorneys, Hart McLaughlin &
Eldridge, LLC, complaining of Defendants The City of Chicago, a municipal
corporation and former Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie Johnson,
states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

For more than three years, Plaintiff, a police officer in the Chicago Police

Department (“CPD”), was subjected to unwanted and uninvited sexual advances,
abuse, harassment, and a hostile work environment by her superior and supervisor,
former CPD Superintendent Eddie Johnson (“Superintendent Johnson”).
2.

At all times relevant to this complaint, Superintendent Johnson was the

highest-ranking member of the CPD.

1

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

3.

Superintendent Johnson, while serving as Plaintiff’s superior and direct

supervisor, engaged in shockingly violent, abusive, and harassing conduct towards
Plaintiff.
4.

Superintendent Johnson forcibly kissed Plaintiff.

5.

Superintendent Johnson forcibly touched Plaintiff.

6.

Superintendent Johnson forced oral sex on Plaintiff.

7.

Superintendent Johnson forced vaginal sex on Plaintiff.

8.

Superintendent Johnson carried out many unwanted and unwelcomed

sexual acts on Plaintiff in his personal office at CPD Headquarters where Plaintiff
was also assigned.
9.

Superintendent Johnson texted nude photos of himself, including of his

penis, to Plaintiff.
10.

Superintendent Johnson referred to Plaintiff by sexually derogatory

names and in sexually demeaning contexts, including in the presence of other City of
Chicago employees.
11.

Superintendent Johnson used his position of power and authority over

Plaintiff to pressure her into engaging in these sexual acts by conditioning her
employment and advancements within CPD upon her submission to unwanted and
unwelcomed sexual activity, promising her promotions, and berating her whenever
she summoned the courage to resist his advances.
12.

Not only is Superintendent Johnson individually liable to Plaintiff for

his violent, abusive, and harassing conduct, but because Superintendent Johnson was

2

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

Plaintiff’s supervisor and the highest-ranking member of the CPD with final
policymaking authority, the City of Chicago is liable as well.
13.

What’s more, when the City of Chicago learned of various details

relating to Plaintiff and Superintendent Johnson through a highly publicized incident
occurring on October 16, 2019, Defendant (directly through Mayor Lori Lightfoot)
worked to deflect blame from the City of Chicago instead of protecting Plaintiff – the
victim of Superintendent Johnson’s wrongful conduct.
14.

Following the October 16, 2019 incident, Mayor Lightfoot publicly

acknowledged that Superintendent Johnson lied to her and lied to the public in an
effort to cover up his misconduct.1
15.

It was reported that Mayor Lightfoot said, “It has become clear that Mr.

Johnson engaged in a series of actions that are intolerable for any leader in a position
of trust.”2
16.

However, in the days following the Eddie Johnson incident, neither

Mayor Lightfoot, the City of Chicago, nor the CPD ever formally interviewed or even
informally spoke with Plaintiff about the incident or the pattern of abuse she suffered
from Superintendent Johnson.
17.

Instead, Mayor Lightfoot exacerbated the hostile work environment by

ordering Superintendent Johnson to “dump” Plaintiff by having her relocated away
from CPD Headquarters.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/7/3/21312030/lori-lightfoot-eddie-johnson-joe-fergusonfiring-release-report-must.
2 Id.
1

3

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

18.

Thereafter, Karen Konow, Chief of CPD’s Bureau of Internal Affairs,

requested that the Office for the Inspector General for the City of Chicago “conduct
an investigation of an incident in which CPD Superintendent Eddie Johnson is
alleged to have parked illegally and slept behind the wheel of a CPD vehicle.”
19.

On or around November 14, 2019 the Office of the Inspector General

then notified Plaintiff that eight “allegations” were being made against her related to
the incident during which Superintendent Johnson parked illegally and was found
asleep behind the wheel of a CPD vehicle.
20.

Several attorneys with the Office of the Inspector General conducted

multiple lengthy interrogations and cross-examinations of Plaintiff, including on
November 25, 2019 and on April 15, 2020.
21.

Also in or around April 15, 2020, an attorney from an outside private

law firm hand-picked and retained by the City of Chicago threatened Plaintiff that
she could be subject to additional adverse employment action if she refused to sit for
a third interrogation and cross-examination.
22.

Plaintiff confirmed for the Inspector General that she was “ordered” by

Superintendent Johnson to accompany him on the evening of October 16, 2019 as he
had done many times before as Plaintiff’s superior and boss.
23.

On December 2, 2019, Mayor Lightfoot terminated Superintendent

Johnson for lying about what happened on the night of October 16, 2019.

4

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

24.

On or around June 29, 2020, CPD released bodycam footage showing

Superintendent Johnson asleep behind the wheel of his parked car.3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25.

This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Section 2-209 of

the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2-209.
26.

Venue is proper under 735 ILCS 5/2-101. All parties reside in this county

and the events pertaining to the claims made in this complaint occurred in this
county.
27.

All conditions precedent to filing suit have been met.

28.

On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the United States

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Illinois Department
of Human Rights.
29.

A “right to sue letter” was issued to Plaintiff by the United States

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, on July 20, 2020. (Exhibit A, Right to
Sue Letter).
PARTIES
30.

Plaintiff is a female employee of the Defendant City of Chicago, holding

the position of police officer.
31.

The City of Chicago is an employer as defined by Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and was at all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff’s
employer.

https://abc7chicago.com/eddie-johnson-chicago-police-department-bodycam-videocpd/6282481/.

3

5

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

32.

At all times relevant to the complaint, Superintendent Johnson was the

Superintendent of the CPD and was serving in a supervisory capacity over Plaintiff.
33.

At all times relevant to the complaint, Superintendent Johnson was a

person with final policymaking authority within the City of Chicago and the CPD.
34.

The City of Chicago and the CPD conducted its police functions under

color of state law through its officers and employees.
35.

The City of Chicago employed and conferred authority upon

Superintendent Johnson to act with final policymaking authority, to act in a
supervisory capacity to CPD police officers, including Plaintiff, and at all times
relevant to the complaint, the Defendants were acting under color of state law.
BACKGROUND
I.

The City of Chicago’s Recognition of Sexual Misconduct in Police
Department Settings
36.

The City of Chicago is well aware of the prevalence and reality of law

enforcement sexual misconduct.
37.

Indeed, the City of Chicago’s own training materials regarding sexual

misconduct in law enforcement explicitly acknowledge the seriousness of the issue:

6

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

38.

The City of Chicago’s own training materials further acknowledge that

law enforcement sexual misconduct has been a problem “for DECADES.”

39.

The City of Chicago’s own training materials cite to the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (“IACP”) statement that, “[t]he problem of sexual
misconduct by officers warrants the full attention of law enforcement leadership. It
represents a grave abuse of authority and violation of the civil rights of those
victimized.”

7

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

40.

The City of Chicago’s own training materials cite the IACP’s definitions

of law enforcement sexual misconduct as:

41.

The City of Chicago’s Policy on Sexual Harassment states that, “each

employee has the right to work in an environment free of discrimination, including
sexual harassment. No person should be required to endure sexual harassment by
supervisors or coworkers or work in a hostile environment as a condition of
employment.” (emphasis added):

8

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

42.

The City of Chicago’s Policy on Sexual Harassment prohibits:
“any unwelcome sexual advance or request for sexual favors or
conduct of a sexual nature when submission to such conduct is
made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an
individual’s employment . . . or when submission to or rejection of
such conduct by an individual is used as the basis of any
employment or service decision affecting the individual; or when
such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering
with the work performance of an employee or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”

43.

The City of Chicago’s Policy on Sexual Harassment prohibits:
“sexual harassment” as “a broad range of conduct which can, in
certain circumstances, be considered sexual harassment under
this Policy. This includes, but is not limited to, sexually
suggestive or offensive remarks or rumors, sexually suggestive
pictures or graffiti, sexual suggestive gesturing, verbal
harassment or abuse of a sexual nature, the displaying of sexual
objects, subtle or direct propositions for sexual favors, stalking,
sexual assault, touching, patting, or pinching, and sending
sexually suggestive e-mail messages.”
9

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

44.

The City of Chicago acknowledges how sexually harassing behavior is

likely to develop, including in the law enforcement setting:

45.

As detailed below, the timeline and narrative of Superintendent

Johnson’s sexual misconduct against Plaintiff is the classic scenario, one which the
City of Chicago’s own policies and training documents acknowledge is an existing
problem in the law enforcement setting.
46.

Indeed, it is widely known and reported that there is a pattern of sexual

abuse, harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment within the CPD
perpetrated by male superiors against female subordinates.4
47.

One recent example is the case of CPD Officer Kelly Hespe who alleged

that her superior and supervisor, CPD Sergeant Gerald Breimon, forced Officer
Hespe to engage in sexual acts while on duty over the course of a three year period,
approximately the same duration of Superintendent Johnson’s abuse of Plaintiff.5

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-chicago-police-sexual-harassment-settlements20200109-mz4bafmflzaurpcz2zj63cjkm4-story.html.
5 Id.
4

10

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

48.

The City of Chicago reportedly settled Officer Hespe’s lawsuit for

$300,000 of taxpayers’ money.6
49.

Another example is the case of CPD Officer Laura Kubiak who alleged

she was fired for reporting a fellow superior CPD officer who called her a “stupid
b*itch” and threatened her while on duty.7
50.

It was alleged that after Officer Kubiak reported the incident she was

ousted from her job while the accused high ranking CPD officer, who had a lengthy
history of misconduct complaints, kept his same job.8
51.

The City of Chicago reportedly settled Officer Kubiak’s lawsuit for

nearly $4,000,000 of Chicago taxpayers’ money.9
52.

CPD Officer Shannon Spalding reportedly stated that “there is nowhere

in the department where [anyone] can go and say ‘this is what happened’ without
losing their job, possibly even their life.”10
53.

When Officer Spalding reported the misconduct of CPD Sergeant Ronald

Watts and others, she was labeled a “rat” by her superiors within the CPD and she
was demoted to less desirable jobs.11
54.

The City of Chicago settled Officer Spalding’s lawsuit for $2,000,000 of

taxpayers’ money, allowing then Mayor Rahm Emanuel to escape from having to

Id.
https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/09/10/what-happens-when-chicago-cops-speak-up-aboutpolice-misconduct-their-lives-are-ruined-whistleblowers-say/.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10Id.
11Id.
6
7

11

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

testify in a public courtroom under oath regarding the code of silence within the CPD
which Mayor Emanuel admitted exists.12
55.

In a comprehensive data analysis conducted by the Chicago Alliance

Against Sexual Exploitation (“CAASE”) which was published in October 2020, over
the last decade a staggering 80% to 90% of survivors of sexual violence in Chicago
never saw an initial arrest in their case.13
56.

Notably, Superintendent Johnson was CPD’s highest ranking police

officer for nearly 5 years of the 10-year period analyzed by CAASE.
57.

CAASE determined that only 3% to 6% of all sexual assaults that occur

in Chicago lead to any intervention by Chicago law enforcement.14
58.

As such, CAASE has concluded “if the purported purpose of law

enforcement is to investigate and arrest people who have caused [sexual] harm,
Chicago police are failing.”15
59.

CAASE noted that criminal sexual assault in which the victim and

perpetrator know one another (commonly referred to as acquaintance or date rape) is
frequently depicted in our society as a misunderstanding between friends, or a hazy
evening clouded by intoxication or other factors, rather than what it is: rape.16

Id.
Too Little, Too Late? The CPD’s Response to Sex Crimes 2010-2019, Chicago Alliance
Against Sexual Exploitation.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 8.
12
13

12

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

60.

CAASE concluded that the Chicago police are failing and changes need

to be made.17
61.

Accordingly, CAASE has set out a multi-point strategic plan for Chicago

leaders, and specifically Mayor Lori Lightfoot, to address the crisis of CPD’s failure
to adequately handle sexual assaults.18
62.

Mayor Lightfoot has confessed that the City of Chicago needs to do

better to ensure that officers who report misconduct have the support they need.19
63.

In fact, so much improvement is needed that as of September 2020

Mayor Lightfoot admitted that the issue needs to be addressed in contract talks with
the Fraternal Order of Police.20
II.

Factual Background
64.

In or around November 2006, Plaintiff began her career as a police

officer with the CPD.
65.

During the summer of 2015, based on information and belief,

Superintendent Johnson first noticed Plaintiff working as a CPD officer while she
was assigned to the First District.
66.

Around that time, and on information and belief, Superintendent

Johnson called a friend of his, described Plaintiff’s physical appearance, and stated
in a sexually suggestive and demeaning manner, “How did we miss this one?”

Id. at 16.
Id. at 12-13.
19 https://www.radio.com/wbbm780/articles/city-to-fork-over-38m-to-former-cop-in-abusesettlement.
20 Id.
17
18

13

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

67.

Superintendent Johnson then masterminded a plan to have Plaintiff

assigned to his unit so that he could be close to her, keep her under his control, dictate
her work hours and schedule, ply her with alcohol, and perpetrate his sexual
harassment and abuse of her.
68.

In or around May 2016, Superintendent Johnson arranged for Plaintiff

to be assigned to his detail.
69.

Approximately six months later, Superintendent Johnson arranged for

Plaintiff to be his personal driver.
70.

Shortly thereafter, Superintendent Johnson began using his authority

as Plaintiff’s supervisor to engage in years of sexually harassing and abusive conduct
directed at Plaintiff creating an ongoing pattern of emotional, physical and sexual
abuse of Plaintiff.
A.

Superintendent Johnson Sexually Assaults and Harasses
Plaintiff

71.

The first incident occurred around the end of June or early July of 2016

before Plaintiff drove Superintendent Johnson to an event that he was scheduled to
attend in his capacity as the Superintendent of the CPD.
72.

Before leaving CPD Headquarters for the event, Superintendent

Johnson requested that Plaintiff come to his personal office, located in the CPD
Headquarters building.
73.

Upon entering Superintendent Johnson’s office, Plaintiff excused herself

to a side room to make sure she looked appropriate for the event.

14

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

74.

While Plaintiff was readying herself for the event, Superintendent

Johnson entered the room, forced Plaintiff onto a nearby couch, pulled Plaintiff’s
pants down without her consent, and forcibly performed unwanted oral sex on her.
75.

Superintendent Johnson then ejaculated onto Plaintiff’s body and told

her, “now you know you belong to me.”
76.

Thereafter, Superintendent Johnson engaged in regular and frequent

sexually harassing, abusive, and humiliating conduct towards Plaintiff, conduct
which was persistent and unwanted and continued through the end of 2019.
77.

On multiple occasions from 2016 through 2019, and while on City of

Chicago property, Superintendent Johnson forcibly pried Plaintiff’s legs open and
performed unwanted oral sex on her.
78.

On multiple occasions from 2016 through 2019, Superintendent Johnson

locked Plaintiff in his personal office and conditioned her release from his office on
Plaintiff performing sexual acts on him.
79.

On multiple occasions from 2016 through 2019, Superintendent Johnson

required Plaintiff to travel with him on work related trips that were sanctioned and
paid for by the City of Chicago.
80.

On multiple occasions from 2016 through 2019, while on work-related

trips, Superintendent Johnson’s conduct demonstrated that he expected Plaintiff to
perform sexual acts on him.

15

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

81.

On multiple occasions from 2016 through 2019, while on work-related

trips, Superintendent Johnson ordered Plaintiff to come into his hotel room and
engage in sexual activity.
82.

On occasions during these work-related trips that Plaintiff was able to

avoid Superintendent Johnson’s sexual advances, Superintendent Johnson would tell
Plaintiff that she “got away this time.”
83.

On multiple occasions, after Superintendent Johnson forced Plaintiff to

perform a sexual act on him, Superintendent Johnson made sexually suggestive and
harassing remarks to Plaintiff such as, “The City owes you another check for making
my workday easier” and “you get me through this job.”
84.

Superintendent Johnson regularly sent Plaintiff unwanted and

harassing text messages.
85.

Superintendent Johnson sent Plaintiff nude pictures of himself,

including of his naked penis.
86.

Superintendent Johnson regularly and frequently forcefully touched

and kissed Plaintiff, including while on City of Chicago property.
87.

Superintendent Johnson regularly referred to Plaintiff by sexually

derogatory names and in sexually demeaning contexts. For instance:
a. When Plaintiff did not have to wear her police uniform for various City
of Chicago work events, Superintendent Johnson would tell Plaintiff to
“wear something cute” and that her wearing such “cute” outfits for him
was, “the nature of the job.”

16

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

b. Superintendent Johnson told Plaintiff that other police officers wanted
to “give him p*ssy” but that his focus was on Plaintiff;
c. Superintendent Johnson told other City of Chicago employees that
Plaintiff was “his girl;” and
d. Superintendent Johnson told Plaintiff, “you gonna give me some and
like it.”
88.

On an occasion when Superintendent Johnson had a verbal altercation

with his secretary, the secretary said to him, “I see you’re having a bad day, let me
go get Cynthia [Plaintiff] – your eye candy.”
89.

Superintendent Johnson regularly and frequently asked Plaintiff what

color underwear she was wearing, including while on City of Chicago property and
during work hours.
90.

Superintendent Johnson kept alcoholic beverages in his office at CPD

Headquarters and on several occasions plied Plaintiff with alcohol into performing
unwanted sexual acts.
B.

Superintendent Johnson’s Actions Towards Plaintiff were
Unwanted

91.

On multiple occasions between 2016 and 2019, Plaintiff asked

Superintendent Johnson to stop sexually harassing and assaulting her.
92.

On multiple occasions between 2016 and 2019, Plaintiff asked

Superintendent Johnson to stop kissing her.
93.

On multiple occasions between 2016 and 2019, Plaintiff asked

Superintendent Johnson to stop asking her about her underwear.

17

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

C.

Superintendent Johnson Used his Position of Power and
Authority over Plaintiff to Pressure Plaintiff into Engaging in
Sexual Acts

94.

In or around the fall of 2019, Superintendent Johnson learned that

Plaintiff was interested in taking the CPD Sergeant’s exam.
95.

Plaintiff expressed reservations about taking the exam because she did

not think she had time to study. Superintendent Johnson, however, pressured
Plaintiff into studying for the exam anyway.
96.

While

Plaintiff

was

studying

for

the

CPD

Sergeant’s

exam,

Superintendent Johnson told Plaintiff that she needed to “stay on his good side” if
she wanted to make merit Sergeant, and that he could make that happen for Plaintiff.
97.

Superintendent Johnson repeatedly told Plaintiff that “the list of favors”

that Plaintiff owed him was growing longer with each person he moved to a different
unit to clear the way for Plaintiff to be promoted to Sergeant.
98.

In exchange, Superintendent Johnson demanded that Plaintiff “pay up

soon,” which communicated to Plaintiff that she would have to perform sexual acts
on him.
99.

Superintendent Johnson regularly talked to Plaintiff about female CPD

officers who wanted to “give him some” in exchange for promotions or “comfortable
assignments.”
100.

When Superintendent Johnson believed another male CPD officer was

showing an interest in Plaintiff, Superintendent Johnson would tell Plaintiff, “don’t
have me put him somewhere on midnights [shifts].” Plaintiff took such comments to

18

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

be an outward expression and threat of the power Superintendent had over Plaintiff
and the entire CPD to retaliate against and demote anyone he chose for any reason
he chose, including Plaintiff.
101.

On occasions that Plaintiff would resist Superintendent Johnson’s

sexual overtures, Superintendent Johnson would throw tantrums and berate
Plaintiff until she acquiesced and participated in unwanted sexual acts.
D.

October 16, 2019 Incident and Resulting Fallout

102.

On October 16, 2019, Plaintiff was sitting at her office desk when

Superintendent Johnson ordered her to leave her desk and get in his car.
Superintendent Johnson then drove Plaintiff to a restaurant.
103.

After the restaurant, Superintendent Johnson drove Plaintiff back to

her car and Plaintiff drove herself home.
104.

Superintendent Johnson, however, did not go home. He was found hours

later by CPD police officers asleep in his car and allegedly intoxicated.
105.

Superintendent Johnson’s behavior on October 16, 2019 caused the City

of Chicago great embarrassment and led to an investigation by the City of Chicago
through which Mayor Lightfoot learned of Superintendent Johnson’s highly
inappropriate behavior towards Plaintiff.
106.

While the City’s own training materials reference empowering victims

and survivors to report instances of sexual misconduct by “help[ing] victims feel

19

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

physically, psychologically, and emotionally safe in the reporting process” and to
avoid “victim blaming,” here, the City did the opposite.21
107.

Mayor Lightfoot directed Superintendent Johnson to “dump” Plaintiff

by removing Plaintiff from Superintendent Johnson’s detail and sending Plaintiff
back to the First District, a demotion, away from CPD Headquarters.
108.

Approximately one month later, around November 14, 2019, Plaintiff

was notified of various allegations of misconduct being brought against her.
109.

These allegations of misconduct were brought in retaliation for

Plaintiff’s connection to the October 16, 2019 incident and to deflect blame from
Superintendent Johnson, Mayor Lightfoot, and the City of Chicago, and represent an
ongoing practice of discrimination and constitute a continuing violation.
110.

After Mayor Lightfoot ordered Superintendent Johnson to remove

Plaintiff from his detail and demote Plaintiff to the First District, Superintendent
Johnson made the following derogatory remarks to Plaintiff, referring to Plaintiff as
his “music”:
“that bitch [Mayor Lori Lightfoot] is trying to steal ‘my music’”
and
“this tiny negro [Mayor Lori Lightfoot] is still clowning”
111.

Superintendent Johnson, however, was not ready to let Plaintiff go.

Instead of transferring Plaintiff out of CPD Headquarters (where Superintendent
Johnson’s personal office was located), Superintendent Johnson placed Plaintiff in

Tremblay, T. (2020) “Public Trust: Investigating Law Enforcement Sexual Misconduct”
(PowerPoint Presentation).
21

20

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

the records department on the second floor of Headquarters where he could continue
to sexually harass her.
112.

Superintendent Johnson continued to demand that Plaintiff come to his

fifth-floor office so he could continue to sexually harass and assault her.
113.

On one such occasion, Plaintiff’s young son was visiting Plaintiff at work

when Superintendent Johnson called on Plaintiff to come to his fifth-floor office with
her son.
114.

Superintendent Johnson then attempted to touch Plaintiff’s buttocks

while her son was facing another direction but with the possibility of Plaintiff’s son
witnessing this nonconsensual and unwanted sexual assault.
115.

As more details relating to the October 16, 2019 incident came to light

in the media, Superintendent Johnson confessed to Plaintiff that he damaged or
destroyed evidence contained in his cell phone.
116.

As part of its investigation into the October 16, 2019 incident, the City

of Chicago Inspector General requested possession of Plaintiff’s cell phone.
117.

Plaintiff left her cell phone on her desk at CPD Headquarters.

118.

The Inspector General has since claimed that the SIM card in Plaintiff’s

cell phone was damaged or destroyed.
119.

In order for Superintendent Johnson to destroy all evidence of his text

message and/or email exchanges with Plaintiff he would have to destroy the evidence
of his sexual assaults and sexual harassment contained in both his cell phone and
Plaintiff’s cell phone.

21

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

E.

Plaintiff’s Injuries

120.

Plaintiff’s constitutional right to her bodily integrity was taken from her

by Superintendent Johnson.
121.

Plaintiff’s dignity as a human being was taken away from her by

Superintendent Johnson.
122.

Following his termination from CPD, Superintendent Johnson stalked

Plaintiff by constantly calling, texting and showing up to locations where he knew
Plaintiff would be, resulting in Plaintiff fearing for her personal safety.
123.

As a result of the conduct described above, Plaintiff has been treated by

multiple mental health professionals.
124.

Defendants’ actions have damaged Plaintiff and caused Plaintiff to

suffer physical and psychiatric injuries.
125.

Plaintiff has been diagnosed as having Chronic “Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder” as a direct result of Defendants’ actions and course of conduct.
126.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) is a mental illness that can

develop after a person is exposed to one or more traumatic events, such as sexual
assault.
127.

PTSD symptoms include disturbing flashbacks, avoidance, or numbing

of memories of the event, and hyperarousal which continue for more than a month
after the occurrence of a traumatic event.22

22

https://icd.codes/icd10cm/F4312.

22

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

128.

Plaintiff has also been diagnosed as having Confirmed “Adult

Psychological Abuse” as a direct result of Defendants’ actions and course of conduct.
129.

Adult Psychological Abuse, also referred to as psychological violence

emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person
subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma,
including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder.
130.

Adult Psychological Abuse is often associated with situations of power

imbalance, such as abusive relationships, bullying, and abuse in the workplace.23
131.

Plaintiff lives in a constant state of fear for her personal safety and her

son’s safety.
132.

Plaintiff suffers from severe depression, anxiety, and stress.

133.

Plaintiff’s symptoms include regular nightmares about Superintendent

Johnson, hair loss, weight gain, and embarrassment.
COUNT I
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. – Sexual Discrimination, Harassment,
and Hostile Work Environment Claim
Against Defendant City of Chicago
134.

Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully

restated.
135.

At all relevant times, Superintendent Johnson was Plaintiff’s supervisor

and employed by the City of Chicago.
136.

As described above, Superintendent Johnson’s conduct toward Plaintiff

was unwelcome and occurred because of and based upon Plaintiff’s gender.
23

https://icd.codes/icd10cm/T7431XA.

23

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

137.

Superintendent Johnson’s conduct occurred over several years,

constituting a continuing course of discrimination towards Plaintiff.
138.

Superintendent Johnson committed an unlawful employment practice

by treating Plaintiff differently because of her sex, causing a change in the condition
of her employment and subjecting her to a hostile work environment.
139.

Plaintiff was subjected to a sexually objectionable environment that was

both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find
hostile or abusive, and one that Plaintiff in fact did perceive to be so.
140.

The conduct of Plaintiff’s employer had the purpose or effect of

unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff’s work performance.
141.

The conduct of Plaintiff’s employer had the purpose or effect of creating

an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment.
142.

The actions of Plaintiff’s employer permeated the workplace with

discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult that was sufficiently severe or
pervasive and regular to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and create an
abusive working environment.
143.

Defendant has therefore denied Plaintiff her rights under the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and she has suffered damages as a direct result of her rights being
violated, including those set forth in paragraphs 120-133, which are likely to continue
into the future.

24

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

COUNT II
42 U.S.C. §1983 – Equal Protection Claim
Against Defendant Superintendent Johnson
144.

Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully

restated.
145.

Plaintiff is a female and is a member of a protected class.

146.

Plaintiff was similarly situated to individuals not of the protected class

such as male coworkers.
147.

Superintendent Johnson treated Plaintiff differently than other

similarly situated male employees without a legitimate governmental purpose of
doing so.
148.

Superintendent Johnson was personally involved in the constitutional

violations of Plaintiff.
149.

Superintendent Johnson’s actions with respect to Plaintiff were

motivated by a discriminatory purpose, in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights
to equal protection under the law and her right to bodily integrity.
150.

Superintendent Johnson acted with discriminatory intent.

151.

As a direct and proximate result of this equal protection violation,

Plaintiff suffered damages, including those set forth in paragraphs 120-133.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. §1983 – Monell Claim
Against Defendant City of Chicago
152.

Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully

restated.

25

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

153.

At all times relevant to the complaint Superintendent Johnson was a

person with final policymaking authority within the City of Chicago and CPD.
154.

At all times relevant to the complaint Superintendent Johnson was a

policymaker for the City of Chicago.
155.

By compelling and demanding that Plaintiff engage in sexual activity,

Superintendent Johnson, an agent of the City of Chicago, violated Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process, liberty interests, and
bodily integrity.
156.

By treating Plaintiff differently because of her sex, Superintendent

Johnson, an agent of the City of Chicago, violated Plaintiff’s rights to equal protection
under the Fourteenth Amendment.
157.

As a direct and proximate result of the decisions and actions of

Superintendent Johnson, an agent of the City of Chicago with final policymaking
authority, Plaintiff suffered damages, including those set forth in paragraphs 120133.
COUNT IV
Illinois Gender Violence Act 749 ILCS 82/5
Against Defendant Superintendent Johnson
158.

Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully

restated.
159.

Superintendent Johnson’s conduct, as described in the foregoing

paragraphs, was insulting, offensive, done intentionally and knowingly, and without
Plaintiff’s consent.

26

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

160.

Superintendent Johnson’s conduct, as described in the foregoing

paragraphs, satisfies the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois.
161.

Superintendent Johnson’s conduct, as described in the foregoing

paragraphs, was committed on the basis of Plaintiff’s sex.
162.

Superintendent Johnson’s conduct, as described in the foregoing

paragraphs, was of a sexual nature.
163.

Superintendent Johnson’s conduct was committed under coercive

conditions in that Superintendent Johnson was Plaintiff’s supervisor and took
advantage of his authority over Plaintiff.
164.

Superintendent Johnson’s conduct, as described in the foregoing

paragraphs, included threats which caused Plaintiff a realistic apprehension that
Superintendent Johnson would commit the acts threatened.
165.

As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered damages, including

those set forth in paragraphs 120-133.
COUNT V
Spoliation of Evidence
Against Defendant Superintendent Johnson
166.

Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully

restated.
167.

Plaintiff and Superintendent Johnson were in possession of text

messages on their respective cell phones relating to Superintendent Johnson’s
sexually abusive, harassing, and discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiff that
created a hostile work environment.

27

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

168.

Said

text

messages

were

critical

evidence

in

establishing

Superintendent Johnson’s sexually abusive, harassing, and discriminatory conduct
towards Plaintiff and the resulting hostile work environment.
169.

Superintendent Johnson had a pre-suit duty to preserve said text

messages given their relevance and probity to Plaintiff’s case.
170.

Superintendent Johnson breached the duty by engaging in an active

cover up when he erased, damaged, and/or destroyed his own cell phone which
electronically stored said text messages.
171.

As a direct and proximate result of Superintendent Johnson’s breach of

duty, Plaintiff has been severely injured because if Superintendent Johnson had not
destroyed his own cell phone, Plaintiff would have been able to introduce additional
evidence of her sexual discrimination and harassment case against Defendants.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Cynthia Donald, by and through her attorneys, Hart
McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order
granting the following relief against the Defendants, Superintendent Johnson and
the City of Chicago:
A.

Awarding Plaintiff actual damages;

B.

Awarding Plaintiff damages for her psychological injuries and emotional
distress;

C.

Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages;

28

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

D.

Awarding Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs;
and

E.

Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems reasonable
and just.
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action on each and every one of her
claims.

Dated: October 14, 2020
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq.
Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq.
Steven A. Hart, Esq.
Brian H. Eldridge, Esq.
Carter D. Grant, Esq.
Jack B. Prior, Esq.
Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC
22 West Washington, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel: (312) 955-0545
Fax: (312) 971-9243
FIRM ID: 59648
rmclaughlin@hmelegal.com
shart@hmelegal.com
beldridge@hmelegal.com
cgrant@hmelegal.com
jprior@hmelegal.com

29

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
CYNTHIA DONALD,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
a Municipal Corporation; and
EDDIE JOHNSON, individually
and as an agent of
THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 222(b)
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 222(b), counsel for the above-named plaintiff
certifies that she is seeking money damages in excess of fifty thousand dollars
($50,000.00).
Dated: October 14, 2020
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq.
Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq.
Steven A. Hart, Esq.
Brian H. Eldridge, Esq.
Carter D. Grant, Esq.
Jack B. Prior, Esq.
Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC
22 West Washington, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel: (312) 955-0545
Fax: (312) 971-9243
FIRM ID: 59648
30

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

rmclaughlin@hmelegal.com
shart@hmelegal.com
beldridge@hmelegal.com
cgrant@hmelegal.com
jprior@hmelegal.com

31

 FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

FILED
10/14/2020 10:30 PM
DOROTHY BROWN
CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
2020L010986

EXHIBIT A

 U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE WITHIN 90 DAYS

FILED DATE: 10/14/2020 10:30 PM 2020L010986

VIA EMAIL

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Karen Ferguson , EMP, PHB, Room 4701
Washington, DC 20530

July 20, 2020
Ms. Cynthia Donald
c/o Carter Grant, Esquire
Law Offices of Hart, McLaughlin & Eldridge
22 W. Washington Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Re: EEOC Charge Against City of Chicago, Chicago Police Dept.
No. 440202003172
Dear Ms. Donald:
Because you filed the above charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the
Commission has determined that it will not be able to investigate and conciliate that charge within
180 days of the date the Commission assumed jurisdiction over the charge and the Department has
determined that it will not file any lawsuit(s) based thereon within that time, and because you through
your attorney have specifically requested this Notice, you are hereby notified that you have the right
to institute a civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
2000e, et seq., against the above-named respondent.
If you choose to commence a civil action, such suit must be filed in the appropriate Court within
90 days of your receipt of this Notice.
The investigative file pertaining to your case is located in the EEOC Chicago District Office,
Chicago, IL.
This Notice should not be taken to mean that the Department of Justice has made a judgment as to
whether or not your case is meritorious.
Sincerely,
Eric S. Dreiband
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
by

/s/ Karen L. Ferguson
Karen L. Ferguson
Supervisory Civil Rights Analyst
Employment Litigation Section
cc: Chicago District Office, EEOC
City of Chicago, Chicago Police Dept.