Niec v. Segerdahl Graphics, Inc., An Illinois Corporation et al

Northern District of Illinois, ilnd-1:2016-cv-05347

COMPLAINT filed by Andy Niec; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-11948077.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case: 1:16-cv-05347 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/18/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ANDY NIEC,)) Plaintiff,)) v.) No.) SEGERDAHL GRAPHICS, INC.,) an Illinois corporation, and) THE SEGERDAHL CORP., d/b/a SG360,) an Illinois corporation)) Defendants.) COMPLAINT AT LAW NOW COMES Plaintiff, ANDY NIEC, ("NIEC" or "Plaintiff"), by and through his attorneys, The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander, and for his Complaint at Law against Defendants, SEGERDAHL GRAPHICS, INC., an Illinois corporation, and THE SEGERDAHL CORP., an Illinois corporation (collectively, "Defendants"), states as follows: JURISDICTION 1. This is a suit in equity authorized and instituted pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked to secure protection of and to address deprivation of rights secured by 29 U.S.C. § 621, providing for declaratory, injunctive, compensatory, and other relief against employment discrimination based upon age. Jurisdiction of this court is based upon federal questions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Case: 1:16-cv-05347 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/18/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2 2. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (B). The Defendants reside or resided in this district and the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred here. 3. All conditions precedent to jurisdiction have occurred or been complied with, to-wit: a. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination, #440-2015-02177, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on January 12, 2015, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. b. The EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to Plaintiff for charge #440- 2015-02177 on February 19, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. PARTIES 4. NIEC is a citizen of the United States and the State of Illinois and resides in Northbrook, Cook County, Illinois. 5. NIEC is a member of protected classes in that he was 64 years of age at the time of his termination. 6. SEGERDAHAL GRAPHICS, INC. is an Illinois corporation. 7. SEGERDAHAL GRAPHICS, INC. is qualified to do business in the State of Illinois and is doing business in the State of Illinois. 8. SEGERDAHAL GRAPHICS, INC.is an employer as that term is defined under the under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 630 (B). 9. THE SEGERDAHAL CORP. is an Illinois corporation. 10. THE SEGERDAHAL CORP. is qualified to do business in the State of Illinois and is doing business in the State of Illinois. 2 Case: 1:16-cv-05347 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/18/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3 11. THE SEGERDAHAL CORP. is an employer as that term is defined under the under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 630 (B). BACKGROUND FACTS 12. NIEC began his employment in 1979 with Columbia Graphics, which was bought by Defendants in 2002. 13. NIEC's most recent position with Defendants was Estimator. 14. Throughout his employment with Defendants, NIEC performed to their legitimate expectations. 15. On March 19, 2014, Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment. 16. One or more similarly situated employees outside of NIEC's protected class were treated more favorably than NIEC. COUNT I – AGE DISCRIMINATION SEGERDAHL GRAPHICS, INC. and THE SEGERDAHL CORP. 17. NIEC reincorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 16 as though more fully set forth herein. 18. Defendants, in violation of the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 621, §623 et seq., have denied and continue to deny Plaintiff an equal opportunity for employment because of his age. 19. When Plaintiff was terminated, he was subjected to age discrimination in that there was a double standard set up between older employees and younger employees not included within the protected class. Plaintiff's younger counterparts were not subjected to discriminatory treatment. 20. Defendants knew that terminating Plaintiff because of his age violated the ADEA. 3 Case: 1:16-cv-05347 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/18/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4 21. This is a proceeding for declaratory judgment as to Plaintiff's right of a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from maintaining a policy, practice, usage or custom of discriminating against Plaintiff because of his age with respect to the following: compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment and ways that deprive Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of age. This complaint also seeks restitution to Plaintiff for the denial of all of his rights, privileges, benefits and income that would have been received by him, but for Defendants' unlawful and illegal discriminatory practices. 22. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs alleged, and this suit for injunctive relief is his only means of securing adequate relief. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendants' policy, practice, custom and usage as set forth herein, until and unless enjoined by the Court. 23. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANDY NIEC respectfully prays this Honorable Court: 1. Enter a declaratory judgment finding the practices complained of herein unlawful and in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended; 2. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, successors, officers, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with it or them from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs and usages set forth herein, and from continuing any and all practices shown to be in violation of applicable law; 4 Case: 1:16-cv-05347 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/18/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5 3. Order modification or elimination of the practices, policies, customs and usages set forth herein and all other such practices shown to be in violation of applicable law, ensuring Defendants will not continue to discriminate on the basis of age; 4. Immediately assign Plaintiff to the position he would now be occupying but for the discriminatory practices of Defendants, and adjust the wage rates, salaries, bonuses, and benefits for Plaintiff to those which he would have received but for the discriminatory practices of Defendants, or, if this is impossible, award Plaintiff front-end and future pay; 5. Compensate and make Plaintiff whole for all earnings, wages, including prejudgment interest and other benefits that he would have received but for the discriminatory practices of Defendants; 6. Award Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorney's fees; 7. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages for Defendants' willful conduct, and grant such other relief as may be just and proper. Respectfully submitted, ANDY NIEC, Plaintiff By: s/ Paul W. Ryan______ One of his attorneys Eugene K. Hollander Paul W. Ryan Jonathan L. Hoeven The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander 230 W. Monroe, Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 425-9100 5