Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

NORA FOX,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-CV-2961

Trial by jury demanded.

ELMHURST COMMUNITY UNIT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 205,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, NORA FOX, by and through her attorneys, Case + Sedey,

LLC, and for her Complaint at Law against Defendant ELMHURST COMMUNITY UNIT

SCHOOL DISTRICT 205 states as follows:

Introduction

1. This action arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.

12101 et seq., as amended (“ADA”), and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS § 5/1-101 et

seq. (“IHRA”).

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by the above-named statutes, as well as by

28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1367. Venue of this action properly lies in the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and (c).

The Parties

3. Plaintiff Nora Fox (“Plaintiff”), is a citizen of the United States and a resident of

Oak Park, Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff is and was at all relevant times employed by Elmhurst
 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

Community Unit School District 205 and was an “employee” as defined by the aforementioned

statutes.

4. Defendant Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205 (“Defendant”) is a public

school district operating in Elmhurst, DuPage County, Illinois. At all relevant times, Defendant

had more than fifteen employees and was an “employer” as defined by the aforementioned statutes.

Factual Allegations

5. Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Teacher at Lincoln Elementary School

in or around August of 2005.

6. In her fifteen years of employment, Plaintiff has consistently met and/or exceeded

Defendant’s performance expectations.

7. The Lincoln Elementary building regularly floods which leads to mold growth and

poor air quality. The water damage is so prevalent in the building that visible mold spores regularly

form on rolls of paper and, on at least one occasion, a mushroom grew out of the floor of a

classroom.

8. In or around 2014, Plaintiff’s health began to deteriorate. After years of medical

visits and testing, she was diagnosed with a severe mold allergy. This allergy, when active, causes

Plaintiff to suffer serious pain, fatigue, rashes, and gastro-intestinal issues and it substantially

limits her in one or more major life activities and/or bodily functions, including but not limited to

her digestive system, respiratory system, and inflammatory response.

9. On November 8, 2016, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she had been diagnosed

with a mold allergy and asked that Defendant accommodate her disability by replacing her

classroom’s window air conditioning unit, which had been in use for at least twelve years without

ever being cleaned.

 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

10. Plaintiff had to follow up with Defendant repeatedly over the course of

approximately six weeks before the dirty air conditioning unit was removed from her classroom.

11. Plaintiff also notified Defendant that there was visible mold growing throughout

the Lincoln Elementary ventilation system and asked that the building-wide mold issues be

addressed.

12. Then, in or around July of 2017, Plaintiff asked Defendant to move her into a

classroom in a newer construction section of the Lincoln Elementary building which does not have

water damage or mold growth. Plaintiff provided Defendant with a doctor’s note supporting this

request.

13. On July 25, 2017, Defendant’s Human Resources Director Jim Woell informed her

that Defendant would not grant her that accommodation because he asserted that she had “no actual

data” to support her requested accommodation. Mr. Woell also told Plaintiff’s Union

Representative that he did not have to honor Plaintiff’s doctor’s note because "the doctor [had]

never been in the building so how [could] she know how it impact[ed] [Plaintiff]

medically." Neither Mr. Woell nor anyone else from Defendant requested additional information

or documentation from Plaintiff’s doctor regarding the requested accommodation. Nor did anyone

engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff to determine whether any other accommodation

might be appropriate.

14. In or around the fall of 2018, Plaintiff moved into a new position as a Reading

Specialist. In that role, Plaintiff traveled throughout the school building working with individual

students as needed, but her assigned workspace was in the Reading Resource Room in Lincoln

Elementary’s basement.
 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4

15. The basement is in the old section of the building and it is the area of the building

that is most heavily impacted by the frequent flooding. As a result, it suffers from the worst water

damage and mold growth.

16. Plaintiff was unable to work in the Reading Resource Room because of her allergy,

so she asked a colleague who had a classroom in the newer section of the building if she could use

the back corner of her classroom as a workplace. Her colleague agreed and Plaintiff worked

successfully out of that location for the first half of the 2018/2019 school year.

17. Despite that, in or around January of 2019, the Principal of Lincoln Elementary,

Jennifer Barnabee, instructed Plaintiff that she needed to begin working out of the Reading

Resource Room for the second half of the year.

18. On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff reminded Ms. Barnabee that she could not work out

of that room due to her documented mold allergy. Ms. Barnabee responded that the room had been

remodeled and that, as a result there was “no longer a mold issue.” Defendant had not had any

environmental testing done to confirm that assertion and the remodeling consisted of replacing

carpeting and some drywall but did not address the more systemic flooding and mold issues.

19. Plaintiff met with Ms. Barnabee on January 18, 2019 to discuss her allergy and to

request that she be allowed to continue working out of the classroom in the new section of the

building as an accommodation. During this meeting, Plaintiff informed Ms. Barnabee that despite

the remodeling there was still flooding along the bottom of the shared wall between the copy room

and the Reading Resource Room. Ms. Barnabee failed to respond to that assertion altogether and,

instead, referred again to the fact that the room had been remodeled and mentioned repeatedly how

nice it looked. Ms. Barnabee continued to assert that Plaintiff needed to move her workspace into

the Reading Resource Room.

 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

20. Approximately one week later, Ms. Barnabee told Plaintiff’s Union Representative

that she would write Plaintiff up for insubordination if she continued to refuse to move into the

Reading Resource Room.

21. On or around January 29, 2019, the Reading Resource Room flooded again, making

it uninhabitable. As a result, Ms. Barnabee acknowledged that Plaintiff could not work there but

began, instead, to insist that Plaintiff work in another room in the older section of the building

instead of allowing her to continue working out of the classroom she had been successfully using

all year.

22. Plaintiff objected, reminding Ms. Barnabee that her doctor’s note stated that she

should be allowed to work out of the newer section of the building to accommodate her mold

allergy.

23. Thereafter, Ms. Barnabee began to retaliate against Plaintiff.

24. For instance, in early February, Ms. Barnabee required Plaintiff to attend a training

on how to teach reading despite that Plaintiff is a certified Reading Specialist who has the same

degree, certification, and expertise as the two individuals teaching the training. There was no

justification for assigning Plaintiff to attend this training and Ms. Barnabee did not require Lincoln

Elementary’s other Reading Specialist (who had not requested any disability related

accommodations) to attend. In fact, the other Reading Specialist, who holds the same

qualifications and certifications as Plaintiff, was one of two individuals leading the training.

25. Around that same time, Ms. Barnabee began chastising Plaintiff for incredibly

minor infractions.

26. Additionally, Ms. Barnabee began subjecting Plaintiff to increased scrutiny,

insisting that Plaintiff meet with her weekly to discuss Plaintiff’s goals for her work with each
 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

student she served. Ms. Barnabee did not require Lincoln’s other Reading Specialist to meet with

her weekly to discuss her work with students and Plaintiff had not had any performance problems

which would justify this new level of supervision.

27. On or around February 14, 2019, Plaintiff learned that during an interview with a

teacher for a graduate school project, Ms. Barnabee was asked how she handles conflict in the

building, and she responded as follows: “Well, you know the whole Nora situation, right? Well

next year is an evaluation year for her.”

28. Plaintiff did not have any “situation” with Ms. Barnabee other than her disability-

related accommodation requests, thus Ms. Barnabee’s comment indicated that she viewed those

accommodation requests as a source of conflict. Ms. Barnabee also appeared to be forecasting her

intent to evaluate Plaintiff negatively as a result of her accommodation requests. Regardless of

Ms. Barnabee’s intent with this comment, Plaintiff’s confidential accommodation requests and her

performance evaluations should not have been discussed with her colleague.

29. On February 15, 2019, Plaintiff engaged in further protected conduct, submitting a

letter to Defendant (through legal counsel) asserting that she had been subjected to a failure to

accommodate and retaliation in violation of the ADA and the IHRA.

30. Less than two weeks later, Ms. Barnabee began holding all of the school’s regular

meetings (monthly staff meetings, biweekly late start meetings, special education meetings, etc.)

in Lincoln’s Reading Resource Room – which she renamed the Conference Room – the same room

which regularly flooded and which exacerbated Plaintiff’s mold allergy. These meetings were

originally held in a room on the second floor of the building and there was no need to move them

to the basement. Additionally, there was at least one vacant classroom on the second floor in

which the meetings could have been held if they had to be moved.
 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

31. Many of these meetings were mandatory and Plaintiff’s attendance was required.

Plaintiff regularly attended for two months despite that spending so much time in Lincoln’s water

damaged basement was adversely impacting her health.

32. Ultimately, Plaintiff’s allergic reaction to the meetings in the basement became so

severe that she was forced to take a medical leave of absence for the last approximately four weeks

of the school year and, as a result, had to use significant accrued paid sick time which she would

have otherwise banked to be paid out upon her retirement.

Administrative Prerequisites

33. On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation.

34. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to Sue from the

Department of Justice in relation to that charge.

35. Plaintiff has sent the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) a copy of the

Notice she received from the Department of Justice and asked that the state agency similarly issue

her Notice of Right to Sue on her cross-filed charge. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint once the

IDHR notifies her of the dismissal of her cross-filed charge.

COUNT I
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA

36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35 as though fully set forth in this

Count I.

37. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she requested reasonable

accommodations and when she complained that she reasonably believed Defendant was denying

her reasonable accommodations and retaliating against her in violation of the ADA.
 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

38. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity by, amongst

other things, chastising her for minor infractions, subjecting her to increased scrutiny as compared

to her counterpart, threatening to give her an adverse performance evaluation, and moving

mandatory meetings from the second floor to the basement and forcing her to attend.

39. As a direct and proximate result of said acts, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income

and other employment benefits, reputational harm, medical expenses, emotional distress,

humiliation, and embarrassment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Enter a finding that Defendant has retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the

ADA;

B. Enter a finding that Defendant retaliated against her with malice and reckless

indifference for Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA;

C. Award her lost wages and benefits;

D. Award her compensatory damages;

E. Award her punitive damages;

F. Award her prejudgment interest;

G. Award her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

H. Award her any further relief that the Court may deem just and appropriate.

COUNT II
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE IHRA

40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35 as though fully set forth in this

Count II.
 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9

41. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she requested reasonable

accommodations and when she complained that she reasonably believed Defendant was denying

her reasonable accommodations and retaliating against her in violation of the IHRA.

42. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity by, amongst

other things, chastising her for minor infractions, subjecting her to increased scrutiny as compared

to her counterpart, threatening to give her an adverse performance evaluation, and moving

mandatory meetings from the second floor to the basement and forcing her to attend.

43. As a direct and proximate result of said acts, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income

and other employment benefits, reputational harm, medical expenses, emotional distress,

humiliation, and embarrassment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Enter a finding that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the IHRA;

B. Enter a finding that Defendant retaliated against her with malice and reckless

indifference for Plaintiff’s rights under the IHRA;

C. Award her lost wages and lost benefits;

D. Award her compensatory damages;

E. Award her prejudgment interest;

F. Award her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

G. Award her any further relief that the Court may deem just and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues herein.

Respectfully Submitted,

NORA FOX
 Case: 1:20-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10

By: /s/ Kate Sedey

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Kate Sedey
Kristin M. Case
Case + Sedey, LLC
250 South Wacker Dr., Ste. 230
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel. (312) 920-0400
Fax (312) 920-0800
ksedey@caseandsedey.com