Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

v.
TK CHICAGO LOOP, LLC, d/b/a
TILTED KILT PUB & EATERY; and
TILTED KILT FRANCHISE
OPERATING LLC,
Defendants.

Case No.

JURY DEMANDED

COMPLAINT
Now come the Plaintiffs, Jessica Johnson, Jacqueline Litman, Naomi Gates, Cress
Wrenn, Claudia Lyko, Kristy Hack, Carolyn Bartley, Melissa Ganser, Lindsay Midura, Mia
Blagsvedt, Heather Bartz, Katherine Franklin, Sandra Estevane, Caroline Fiermuga, Kayleigh
Zarndt, Dayleen Marrero, Rachel Osting, Joanna Parys and Tracy Zelazquez, through their
attorneys in this matter, Orum & Roth, LLC, and complaining of the Defendants, TK Chicago

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

Loop, LLC d/b/a Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery and Tilted Kilt Franchise Operating LLC, state as
follows:
JURISDICTION
1.

The present action alleges claims premised on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq. Subject matter jurisdiction for those claims is
premised 28 U.S.C. 1331. Supplemental jurisdiction for the state law claim alleged herein is
premised on 28 U.S.C. 1367.
2.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because a substantial

part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.
3.

On June 01, 2011, the following Plaintiffs filed Charges of harassment and

retaliation with the EEOC against TK Chicago Loop, LLC, d/b/a/ Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery
( Tilted Kilt Chicago ) and Tilted Kilt Franchise Operating LLC ( Tilted Kilt Corporate ):
Jessica Johnson
Kristy Hack
Jacqueline Litman
Naomi Gates
Cress Wrenn
Claudia Lyko
Carolyn Bartley
Melissa Ganser
Lindsay Midura
Mia Blagsvedt
4.

No. 440-2011-04132
No. 440-2011-04134
No. 440-2011-04135
No. 440-2011-04136
No. 440-2011-04137
No. 440-2011-04138
No. 440-2011-04139
No. 440-2011-04140
No. 440-2011-04141
No. 440-2011-04142

On June 15, 2011, the following Plaintiffs filed Charges of harassment and

retaliation with the EEOC against Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt Corporate:
Kayleigh Zarndt
Caroline Fiermuga
Rachel Osting
Joanna Parys
Tracy Velazquez
Dayleen Marrero

No. 440-2011-04124
No. 440-2011-04123
No. 440-2011-04126
No. 440-2011-04128
No. 440-2011-04127
No. 440-2011-04125
2

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

Katherine Franklin
Sandra Estevane
Heather Bartz
5.

No. 440-2011-04121
No. 440-2011-04122
No. 440-2011-04120

Each charge of harassment and retaliation as alleged above was filed with the

EEOC against Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt Corporate within 300 days from the date of the
last act of harassment and retaliation.
6.

Plaintiffs received right to sue letters from the EEOC on all of the Plaintiffs

charges on February 2, 2012 and February 3, 2012, as is shown in the right to sue letters attached
hereto as Group Exhibit A. Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit within 90 days from receipt of
the right to sue letters, and have otherwise met all prerequisites required under the law to
maintain this lawsuit.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
7.

Plaintiffs were at all relevant times employees of Tilted Kilt Chicago, located at

17 North Wabash Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiffs are all female, and therefore part of
a protected class.
8.

Defendant, Tilted Kilt Chicago, is an Illinois limited liability company. Tilted Kilt

Chicago is owned by Athan Thomas Sotos, Chris Tomaras and TI Management Group, LLC.
Tilted Kilt Chicago at all times employed Dennis Sotos as the manager of Tilted Kilt Chicago,
and as the Plaintiffs supervisor.
9.

Tilted Kilt Corporate is a Wyoming limited liability company, with its principal

place of business in Tempe, Arizona.

Tilted Kilt Corporate entered into a franchise agreement with Tilted Kilt Chicago,

pursuant to which Tilted Kilt Corporate maintains control over the operations of Tilted Kilt
Chicago and mandates that Tilted Kilt Chicago follow certain policies and procedures. Tilted
3

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4

Kilt Corporate, for example, maintains a human resources department that oversees and manages
relations with all Tilted Kilt franchisees, including Tilted Kilt Chicago, and all Tilted Kilt
employees. Tilted Kilt Corporate maintains Application for Employment forms pursuant to
which employees apply for employment with Tilted Kilt Corporate.

Further, Tilted Kilt

Corporate also issued each employee a Tilted Kilt Employee Handbook that references Tilted
Kilt Corporate as an employer of all Tilted Kilt employees. Tilted Kilt Corporate was at all
times a joint employer of the Plaintiffs.
COUNT I
(Sexual Harassment)
11.

Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

10 as and for the allegations contained in paragraph 11, as if fully set forth herein.
12.

At all relevant times, Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt Corporate were

industries affecting commerce, employed 15 or more employees, and were an employer within
the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
13.

Beginning around the time of the opening of Tilted Kilt Chicago in 2009, and

continuing until after Plaintiffs filed their EEOC Charges, the actions of one of the Tilted Kilt s
managers, Dennis Sotos, and as alleged in paragraph 13.J.) one of Tilted Kilt Chicago s owners,
created a sexually hostile, offensive, humiliating and degrading work environment, by engaging
in conduct that includes, but is not limited to, the following unwanted conduct against women
employees, because of their gender, on a regular, systematic and on-going basis:
A.) Taking a straw full of water, placing it down at least one of the Plainitffs dresses,
releasing the water and making comments such as I m trying to get your panties wet and
That s how Daddy likes it with your panties wet.
B.) Stating to one or more of the Plaintiffs: meow, meow- you re a dirty kitty.

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

C.) Making comments to one or more Plaintiffs such as You don t know what I d like
to do to you .
D.) Telling one or more of the Plaintiffs: I want to f@%k you and I want to f@%k
you so bad .
E.) Telling one or more of the Plaintiffs: You look f@%king hot .
F.) Loudly discussing pornography with customers.
G. Engaging in talk about pornography with one or more Plaintiffs, including reference to
the 80 s bush , and explicit content about Dennis Sotos and his wife s sexual life.
H.) Asking one or more Plaintiffs to smell my finger.
I.) Saying things about riding his handlebars when referring to his mustache and women
sitting on his face.
J.) Dennis Sotos and owner Thomas Sotos calling one or more Plaintiffs by sexually
derogatory nicknames, including a name that a Plaintiff was told translates from Greek to
English as: You give me a hard on.
K.) Propositioning one or more of the Plaintiffs.
L.) Asking a Plaintiff to have her and a female friend participate in a mnage a trois.
M.) Commenting to a Plaintiff about the breasts and buttocks of other female employees.
N.) Making out with customers in plain view of the Tilted Kilt staff in the restaurant, and
taking women in his office.
O.) Telling a Plaintiff about his sexual exploits with women in his office.
P.) Telling a Plaintiff that the way to get to a promotion was to have sex with him.
Q.) Forcing himself in an aggressive sexual manner on a 19 year old employee.
R.) Grabbing one or more of Plaintiffs breasts.
S.) Grabbing one or more of Plaintiffs buttocks.
T.) Attempting to kiss one or more of the Plaintiffs on the mouth.
U.) Attempting to hug one or more of the Plaintiffs.
V.) Licking one or more of the Plaintiffs ears.
W.) Poking one or more of the Plaintiffs in the side and/or buttocks.
5

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

X.) Commenting about the look of one or more of the Plaintiffs buttocks.
Y.) Continuously engaging sexual innuendos with the Plaintiffs and other employees.
Z.) Continuously touching, hugging and kissing other young female employees of Tilted
Kilt Chicago.
AA.) Grabbing waitress s breasts.
BB.) Putting ice down employees skirts.
14.

The conduct, as alleged above, has been frequent, severe, on-going, and lasted for the

duration of the Plaintiffs employment. Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt Corporate are liable
for the actions as alleged above.
15.

The sexual harassment as alleged herein negatively affected the terms, conditions and

privileges of Plaintiffs working environment, and the working environment of the female
employees who work at the Tilted Kilt Chicago. The harassment, as alleged herein, would
detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the Plaintiffs same sex, and is objectively degrading
and humiliating. The sexual harassment was uninvited and unwelcome.
16.

Tilted Kilt Chicago knew of the sexual harassment, yet did nothing to stop it. Employees

complained to managers and at least one of the owners of Tilted Kilt Chicago. Despite these
complaints to Tilted Kilt Chicago, the sexual harassment continued. Moreover, when complaints
were made about harassment, the complaining female workers were retaliated against in their
work assignments.
17.

Tilted Kilt Corporate was also aware of the continued sexual harassment, but yet

did nothing to stop it. Tilted Kilt Chicago employees complained to Tilted Kilt Corporate s
human resources and risk management departments about the on-going, pervasive and severe

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

sexual harassment. Despite those complaints, Tilted Kilt Corporate took no action against Tilted
Kilt Chicago, its owners or Dennis Sotos.
18.

As a franchisor, Tilted Kilt Corporate exercised significant control over the

operations of Tilted Kilt Chicago.

On information and belief, Tilted Kilt Corporate maintains

the right to terminate Tilted Kilt Chicago s franchise for failure to comply with applicable
federal, state and local laws, including laws prohibiting harassment in the workplace. Tilted Kilt
Corporate also maintains a human resources department that oversees employee relations
between Tilted Kilt Chicago and Tilted Kilt employees. Tilted Kilt Corporate exercises, or
maintained the right to exercise, the requisite level of control in an agency relationship to be
vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, Tilted Kilt Chicago. Further, Tilted Kilt is, or at a
minimum held itself out as, Plaintiffs employer or joint employer.
19.

Further, after the charges were filed with the EEOC a Tilted Kilt Chicago

manager told Plaintiffs that they would never work in Chicago again because of the EEOC
charges; that Plaintiffs would be required to move from Chicago because they filed the EEOC
charges; that Mr. Tomaras (an owner of Titled Kilt Chicago), never loses; that Plaintiffs would
never win their lawsuit; and that Mr. Tomaras uses $400 per hour lawyers who never lose.
20.

The actions as alleged above constitute sexual harassment under Title VII. The

actions have caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiffs to sustain damages, some of whom
were forced to leave the Defendants employ due to the unendurable working conditions.

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

Wherefore, the Plaintiffs, Jessica Johnson, Jacqueline Litman, Naomi Gates, Cress
Wrenn, Claudia Lyko, Kristy Hack, Carolyn Bartley, Melissa Ganser, Lindsay Midura, Mia
Blagsvedt, Heather Bartz, Katherine Franklin, Sandra Estevane, Caroline Fiermuga, Kayleigh
Zarndt, Dayleen Marrero, Rachel Osting, Joanna Parys and Tracy Velazquez, request that this
Court enter judgment against the Defendants and that Plaintiffs be awarded relief including back
pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney s fees, costs and such other relief as
may be deemed just.
COUNT II
(Retaliation)
21.

Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

20, as and for the allegations contained in paragraph 21, as if fully set forth herein.
22.

Employees who complained about sexual harassment, including the Plaintiffs,

were subjected to adverse working conditions, such as limited or poor shifts to work in the
restaurant, being assigned to certain tables in the restaurant that were less desirable financially,
and refusing promotions when other workers who did not complain were promoted. In addition,
disciplinary actions were taken against Plaintiffs who complained of harassment, when those
same measures were not taken against other employees who did not so complain.
23.

Further, after the charges were filed with the EEOC a Tilted Kilt Chicago

manager told Plaintiffs that they would never work in Chicago again because of the EEOC
charges; that Plaintiffs would be required to move from Chicago because they filed the EEOC
charges; that Mr. Tomaras (an owner of Titled Kilt Chicago), never loses; that Plaintiffs would
never win their lawsuit; and that Mr. Tomaras uses $400 per hour lawyers who never lose.
24.

Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of the Defendants retaliatory conduct.

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9

Wherefore, the Plaintiffs, Jessica Johnson, Jacqueline Litman, Naomi Gates, Cress
Wrenn, Claudia Lyko, Kristy Hack, Carolyn Bartley, Melissa Ganser, Lindsay Midura, Mia
Blagsvedt, Heather Bartz, Katherine Franklin, Sandra Estevane, Caroline Fiermuga, Kayleigh
Zarndt, Dayleen Marrero, Rachel Osting, Joanna Parys and Tracy Velazquez, request that this
Court enter judgment against Defendants, and that Plaintiffs be awarded relief including back
pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney s fees, costs and such other relief as
may be deemed just.
COUNT III
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
25.

Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

24, as and for the allegations contained in paragraph 25, as if fully set forth herein.
26.

Defendants actions were extreme and outrageous.

27.

Defendants actions were done to intentionally cause the Plaintiffs severe

emotional distress.
28.

Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their actions had a high

probability of causing Plaintiffs severe emotional distress.

Defendants actions demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard for the Plaintiffs

30.

Plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress as a result of the Defendants actions.

rights.

Case: 1:12-cv-00897 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10

Wherefore, the Plaintiffs, Jessica Johnson, Jacqueline Litman, Naomi Gates, Cress
Wrenn, Claudia Lyko, Kristy Hack, Carolyn Bartley, Melissa Ganser, Lindsay Midura, Mia
Blagsvedt, Heather Bartz, Katherine Franklin, Sandra Estevane, Caroline Fiermuga, Kayleigh
Zarndt, Dayleen Marrero, Rachel Osting, Joanna Parys and Tracy Velazquez, request that this
Court enter judgment against Defendants, and that Plaintiffs be awarded compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorney s fees, costs and such other relief as may be deemed just.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark D. Roth

Mark D. Roth
Orum & Roth LLC
53 West Jackson Blvd.
Suite 620
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312.922.6262 Ext. 240
Email: markdroth@gmail.com

10