Fairmont D-89 Lawsuit

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DEBRA ACANFORA, an individual,

Plaintiff, Case No.

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR FAIRMONT TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89; and
SONYA WHITAKER, an individual,

Defendants.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF

The Plaintiff, Debra Acanfora (PLAINTIFF), by and through her attorneys, PFEIFFER LAW
OFFICES, P.C., complains of the Defendants, Board of Education for Fairmont School District No.
89 (the BOARD) and Sonya Whitaker (WHITAKER) (collectively referred to as DEFENDANTS
whenever possible), as follows:

Introduction
1. The actions set forth in this Complaint arise under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Section
1983), and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2201, and Illinois common law.

Jurisdiction and Venue
2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by the aforesaid statutes, as well as by 28
U.S.C. 1331 and 1367.
Case: 1:14-cv-03344 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/07/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
2

3. Venue of this action properly lies in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b).

The Parties
4. During all times relevant to this Complaint, PLAINTIFF was and is a United States
citizen residing in Tinley Park, Cook County, Illinois.
5. PLAINTIFF is the Curriculum Coordinator at Fairmont School District 89
(FAIRMONT).
6. The BOARD is the School Board for Fairmont School District 89 and is located in
Lockport, Will County, Illinois.
7. During all times relevant to this Complaint, WHITAKER was and is a United States
citizen residing in West Chicago, DuPage County, Illinois. WHITAKER was and is the
superintendent of FAIRMONT.

PLAINTIFFs Employment with FAIRMONT
8. During all times relevant to this Complaint, PLAINTIFF was employed by the BOARD
at its main location in Lockport, Illinois.
9. PLAINTIFF began her employment with FAIRMONT in approximately September of
2012, and continued such employment until she was placed on involuntary administrative leave in
March of 2014.
10. PLAINTIFF was hired by WHITAKER and the BOARD to be the Curriculum
Coordinator and signed a contract regarding the terms of her employment with her contract term
ending in June of 2013.
3

11. PLAINTIFFs original contract was renewed after June of 2013 and was to remain in
effect until June 30, 2014. A true and accurate copy of the contract is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1.
12. Beginning in November 2012, WHITAKER began to target PLAINTIFF during regular
working hours for numerous issues unrelated to her employment.
13. WHITAKERs initial treatment of PLAINTIFF involved commentary regarding
PLAINTIFFs physical appearance and choice of clothing, despite the professional appearance
PLAINTIFF maintained at FAIRMONT.
14. WHITAKERS treatment of PLAINTIFF included several instances of physical objects
(including, among other things, a stapler) at PLAINTIFF when WHITAKER was dissatisfied with
PLAINTIFF.
15. PLAINTIFF was subject to fits of rage by WHITAKER including screaming that took
place in front of other staff at FAIRMONT and community members.
16. PLAINTIFF performed her job duties in a skilled and satisfactory manner throughout
her employment with FAIRMONT despite such alarming behavior.
17. On October 3, 2013, after PLAINTIFF returned to her desk from working with a
group of teachers in the professional development room, WHITAKER called out to PLAINTIFF and
shouted obscenities and various incomprehensible statements through the phone in the main office
due to PLAINTIFFs absence from her desk while WHITAKER was trying to reach her and because
WHITAKER was angry over the fact that PLAINTIFF provided her with a list of her daily activities.
18. WHITAKERs phone call was heard throughout the entire front office and by the
front office staff and included a threat to PLAINTIFF that WHITAKER would take her job from her.

4

PLAINTIFFS Efforts to Resolve the Issues with WHITAKER

19. Immediately after the alarming phone call from WHITAKER, PLAINTIFF wrote a
letter to every member of the BOARD detailing the events of the phone call with WHITAKER and
requesting a meeting for immediate assistance. True and accurate copies of the letters to the
BOARD are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 2.
20. Only one member of the BOARD responded to PLAINTIFF and, instead of assisting,
only stated verbally to PLAINTIFF that they supported her and sympathized with her.
21. On the day WHITAKER learned that PLAINTIFF reported WHITAKERs behavior to
the BOARD, PLAINTIFF received her first write-up for insubordination, a true and accurate copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 3.
22. PLAINTIFF responded to the insubordination letter with a rebuttal and, in response,
subsequently received three more letters of insubordination from WHITAKER.
23. After the October 3, 2013 incident, PLAINTIFF requested that all communication
between herself and WHITAKER take place through written means until the BOARD could assist
PLAINTIFF.
24. On October 31, 2013, PLAINTIFFs second write-up, PLAINTIFF was accused of
insubordination regarding her request for communication through writings, a true and accurate
copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 4.
25. PLAINTIFF responded to said insubordination with a letter explaining why she
wished to only communicate by writing, a true and accurate copy of which letter is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 5.
26. WHITAKER continued to criticize PLAINTIFFs work thereafter and refused to meet
with her to resolve the incident from October 3, 2013.
5

27. At this point, WHITAKER also began falsely accusing PLAINTIFF of yelling during
meetings and engaged in a series of false accusations through insubordination letters.
28. Regarding her most recent allegation of insubordination, PLAINTIFF was scheduled
to participate in a self-evaluation with WHITAKER. During the evaluation, PLAINTIFF asked to
return to her office to retrieve a goal sheet. Upon returning to WHITAKERs office, WHITAKER told
PLAINTIFF to leave and reprimanded her for not participating in her evaluation.

Events Leading Up to PLAINTIFFs Recent Suspension of Employment
29. On March 19, 2014, WHITAKER recommended to the BOARD that PLAINTIFFs
employment contract not be renewed for the following school year. PLAINTIFF received
notification from WHITAKER of the non-renewal via certified mail accompanied by a return receipt
that was signed by PLAINTIFFs mother.
30. On March 25, 2014, during her regular work hours at FAIRMONT, PLAINTIFF noticed
the return receipt signed by her mother accompanied by sensitive documents regarding her
employment displayed on the front desk and clearly viewable by any staff member or member of
the community who walked into the office at FAIRMONT.
31. PLAINTIFF, in the interest of her personal privacy, moved the documents from the
public area to a private area within the office without any intention whatsoever of permanently
keeping the documents.
32. Later that morning, PLAINTIFF gave the documents to Tamela Daniels, the principal
of FAIRMONT, explaining how she was concerned about members of the public reviewing her
personal information. The principal immediately accused PLAINTIFF of stealing the documents,
6

despite PLAINTIFFs voluntary return of said documents and expression of why she moved the
documents from the public area.
33. Immediately after this conversation with the principal, Whitaker called
PLAINTIFF into WHITAKERs office and handed PLAINTIFF a piece of paper informing her that she
was being placed on administrative leave effective immediately until further notice. A true and
accurate copy of the notice is attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 6.
34. PLAINTIFF attempted to contact WHITAKER in the following days requesting
information on when she could return to work. WHITAKER did not respond to any of these
communications from PLAINTIFF.
35. On April 8, 2014, PLAINTIFF received a notice from WHITAKER that she was being
recommended for immediate dismissal at a hearing to be conducted on April 10, 2014, solely for
moving the return receipt. The notice was dated April 5, 2014, but was not received until April 8,
2014, and was not received by e-mail as falsely stated in the document. A true and accurate copy
of said notice is attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 7.
36. PLAINTIFF was able to retain the undersigned counsel on the day of the hearing, a
challenge in itself.
37. PLAINTIFF and her counsel attended the hearing on April 10, 2014, to object to the
lack of notice and the BOARDS and WHITAKERS basic violations of PLAINTIFFS due process
rights. At the hearing, WHITAKER and the BOARD informed PLAINTIFF and her counsel that they
would have to leave the hearing due to PLAINTIFFs failure to give notice to WHITAKER by April
9, 2014, of her intention to have counsel present at the hearing, something she could not do as she
had not secured (and could not secure) legal counsel within the short time frame she faced based
on the lack of adequate notice of the hearing.
7

38. During the attempted hearing on April 10, 2014, WHITAKER acted in an extremely
unbecoming manner and repeatedly spoke over the President of the BOARD, ultimately forcing
PLAINTIFF and her counsel to leave the meeting following their statement of objections to the
hearing.

PLAINTIFFs Efforts to Avoid Litigation
39. On April 16, 2014, counsel for PLAINTIFF sent correspondence to counsel for the
BOARD via e-mail and U.S. Mail requesting FAIRMONTS, the BOARDS, and WHITAKERS
cooperation to resolve all pending issues related to PLAINTIFFS current employment contract and
status of employment as well as issues related to her employment during the entire past terms. A
copy of said correspondence is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 8.
40. On April 18, 2014, the BOARD unilaterally rescheduled the hearing date to vote on
the termination of PLAINTIFFs employment and refused to cooperate with PLAINTIFFs efforts
toward conciliation.
41. Counsel for PLAINTIFF informed counsel for the BOARD that the date unilaterally
chosen was unacceptable and suggested alternative dates.
42. On April 25, 2014, PLAINTIFF requested from the BOARD information relating to
who the BOARD planned on calling as witnesses for the hearing, the nature of their testimony, the
documentary evidence it planned on introducing against PLAINTIFF, documentary evidence related
to the reasons PLAINTIFF was being dismissed, any notes belonging to WHITAKER regarding the
alleged incident forming the basis for her recommendation of dismissal, the nature of the recording
of the meeting, and minor related issues. A true and accurate copy of said request is attached and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 9.
8

43. On April 28, 2014, counsel for the BOARD refused to accommodate PLAINTIFFs
requested date for the hearing, a difference of one day, and refused to provide PLAINTIFF with any
information that would allow her to adequately prepare for the hearing regarding the immediate
termination of her employment contract.

Count I Declaratory Judgment
(28 U.S.C. 2201)
44. PLAINTIFF restates and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 43
above as and for Paragraph 44 of Count I of this Complaint as if such allegations were fully set
forth herein.
45. There exists an actual controversy between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS insofar as
PLAINTIFFs procedural due process rights have been deprived at the hands of DEFENDANTS.
46. DEFENDANTS have refused to provide PLAINTIFF with proper notice of a hearing, an
opportunity to be heard and to have her counsel present to defend her by refusing to continue the
hearing to an acceptable date and time for all parties, the names of the people expected to testify
against PLAINTIFF and the nature of their testimony, and any documents or other evidence the
BOARD plans on introducing at the hearing.
47. PLAINTIFF has a present entitlement to her occupation by virtue of her contract and
is being terminated before her contract expires simply as a result of moving sensitive documents
out of public view and for no violations of her contract with the BOARD.
48. PLAINTIFF is entitled to confront and cross-examine the individuals who will
deprive her of her livelihood and sully her reputation but cannot properly prepare without due
process safeguards, which to date she has been denied.
9

49. DEFENDANTS actions in refusing to furnish information and documents in advance
of the hearing to decide whether PLAINTIFFS contract should be terminated on such a nonsensical
and baseless reason, no less violates her fundamental rights of due process.
50. DEFENDANTS violations of PLAINTIFFS due process rights has damaged PLAINTIFF
inasmuch as she cannot possibly prepare for the hearing without knowing what DEFENDANTS
evidence will be and what witnesses or documents she may need to present to rebut such evidence.
51. The BOARD also has violated its contract with PLAINTIFF and caused her damage to
her professional reputation in the industry based on its placement of her on administrative leave
pending the aforesaid termination hearing.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
A. Find and declare the parties rights under PLAINTIFFS employment contract;

B. Find and declare that DEFENDANTS have violated the express terms of the
employment contract;

C. Find and declare that PLAINTIFFS due process rights have been violated as
a result of DEFENDANTS conduct as alleged herein;

D. Enter a declaratory judgment in favor of PLAINTIFF and against
DEFENDANTS on terms that are reasonable and just with respect to her rights
under her employment contract;

E. Award PLAINTIFF her costs and expenses of this suit, including reasonable
attorneys fees, to the extent permitted by law; and

F. Provide PLAINTIFF with such other and further relief as this Court deems
appropriate and just.

10

Count II Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983

above as and for Paragraph 52 of Count II of this Complaint as if such allegations were fully set
forth herein.
53. 1983 provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress . . .

54. WHITAKER was acting under color of state law when, as the superintendent of
FAIRMONT, she gave PLAINTIFF improper notice of her hearing, deprived her of a hearing on April
10, 2014, and refused to provide PLAINTIFF with any information regarding her rescheduled
hearing.
55. Based on the foregoing facts, the BOARD was acting under color of state law when
it refused to give PLAINTIFF the opportunity to be heard at the April 10, 2014, hearing and refused
to provide PLAINTIFF with any information regarding her rescheduled hearing.
56. PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in her continued
employment up to and until June 30, 2014, as defined by her contract.
57. WHITAKER and the BOARD violated PLAINTIFFs procedural due process rights by
giving improper notice of the hearing regarding her dismissal, and later by refusing to provide
PLAINTIFF a meaningful opportunity to prepare for her hearing and confront her accusers.
58. WHITAKER knew or should have known that her actions were violating PLAINTIFFs
constitutional rights and were being carried out in a malicious way.
11

59. As a direct and proximate result of WHITAKERs and the BOARDs acts, PLAINTIFF
have suffered significant damage to her reputation, loss of employment, loss of income and other
employee benefits, great financial expenses, and future lost income and benefits.
A. Enter a finding that WHITAKER, in her individual capacity, violated
PLAINTIFFs procedural due process rights;

B. Enter a finding that the BOARD violated PLAINTIFFs procedural due process
rights;

C. Enter an Order upholding the validity and enforcement of PLAINTIFFS
current employment contract;

D. Award PLAINTIFF her lost wages and lost benefits resulting from
WHITAKERs and the BOARDs unlawful conduct in an amount to be
determined at trial;

E. Award PLAINTIFF her costs of suit, other litigation costs, and attorneys fees
incurred in this matter to the extent permitted by law;

F. Provide PLAINTIFF with such other and further relief as this Honorable Court
deems appropriate and just.

Count III Breach of Contract
above as and for Paragraph 60 of Count III of this Complaint as if such allegations were fully set
forth herein.
61. PLAINTIFF had an employment contract with DEFENDANTS that became effective on
September 18, 2013, and was to expire on June 30, 2014. A true and accurate copy of this contract
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 10.
12

62. PLAINTIFF performed her obligations under her contract by fulfilling her duties as
the Curriculum Coordinator for FAIRMONT in a professional and effective manner.
63. DEFENDANTS breached the contract with PLAINTIFF when they recommended her
immediate dismissal from FAIRMONT within the duration of her contract and for reasons not
constituting proper cause under her contract.
64. PLAINTIFF has been injured by DEFENDANTS insofar as she has been deprived of her
work, had to defend and fight for her continued employment and professional reputation, and has
been forced to search for new employment at a difficult time.
A. Enter judgment in favor of PLAINTIFF and against DEFENDANTS in an
amount to be determined at trial;

B. Award PLAINTIFF lost wages and lost benefits resulting from WHITAKERs
and the BOARDs unlawful conduct in an amount to be determined at trial;

C. Award PLAINTIFF her costs of suit, other litigation costs, and attorneys fees

D. Provide PLAINTIFF with such other and further relief as this Honorable Court

Count IV Assault
(PLAINTIFF V. WHITAKER)

above as and for Paragraph 65 of Count IV of this Complaint as if such allegations were fully set
forth herein.
66. From September 2012 to March 2014, PLAINTIFF was the victim of several
incidences of intentional assault at the hands of her supervisor, WHITAKER, primarily involving
stacks of paper being thrown in PLAINTIFFs direction.
13

67. On September 18, 2013, WHITAKER intentionally caused to be thrown in the
direction of PLAINTIFF a stapler after PLAINTIFF asked for assistance with a work matter.
68. Again on January 31, 2014, WHITAKER intentionally caused an envelope filled with
paper to be thrown in the direction of PLAINTIFF like a Frisbee.
69. PLAINTIFF believed that WHITAKER was capable of reaching her with the items that
were thrown in her direction as indeed there were times when the items actually hit PLAINTIFF.
70. PLAINTIFF was reasonably in fear of her safety and well-being when alone with
WHITAKER and during every incident of assault.
71. WHITAKER intended on throwing the items at PLAINTIFF as each time they were
purposefully aimed at PLAINTIFF and caused an imminent fear of danger in PLAINTIFF.
72. PLAINTIFF was aware that the items were being thrown directly at her causing her
to each time attempt to dodge the hurled item.
A. Enter a judgment in favor of PLAINTIFF and against WHITAKER under this
Count IV in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. Award PLAINTIFF punitive damages based on WHITAKERs conduct in an



14

Count V Battery
(PLAINTIFF V. WHITAKER)

above as and for Paragraph 73 of Count V of this Complaint as if such allegations were fully set
forth herein.
74. On September 18, 2013, WHITAKER intentionally caused a stapler to come into
contact with PLAINTIFF as a means of intimidation and abuse.
75. The stapler thrown at PLAINTIFF struck the side of PLAINTIFFs body as she turned
away from it.
76. On January 31, 2014, WHITAKER threw a full envelope full of papers like a Frisbee
towards PLAINTIFFs head while standing one foot away from PLAINTIFF.
77. The envelope full of papers struck PLAINTIFF in the head.
78. WHITAKER intended on the items touching PLAINTIFF as they were directly aimed
in PLAINTIFFs direction.
79. PLAINTIFF at no time consented to the acts of WHITAKER or believed they were
engaged in any type of game.
80. PLAINTIFF suffered damage as a result of WHITAKERS aforesaid striking of
PLAINTIFF.
A. Enter a judgment in favor of PLAINTIFF and against WHITAKER under this
Count V in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. Award PLAINTIFF punitive damages based on WHITAKERs conduct in an


15


DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFF hereby makes a demand for trial by jury on all issues herein that are triable to a
jury.
Respectfully submitted,

DEBRA ACANFORA, Plaintiff

By: /s/ Nicole M. Anderson
One of Her Attorneys

J. Matthew Pfeiffer, Esq.
IL Atty. No. 6272868
Nicole M. Anderson, Esq.
IL Atty. No. 6312258
PFEIFFER LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1725 S. Naperville Road
Suite 205
Wheaton, Illinois 60189
Tel: (630) 517-0808
Fax: (630) 517-0809

Fairmont D-89 Lawsuit

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Fairmont D-89 Lawsuit

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Вам также может понравиться