12-Person Jury

Hearing Date: 1/3/2020 10:00 AM - 10:00 AM

Courtroom Number: 2302
Location: District 1 Court FILED
Cook County, IL 9/4/2019 5:24 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN
CIRCUIT CLERK
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

2019CH10253
CHRISTEN PERRY, BIANA FUKES, )
ANNA WILLMING and ROMAINE ) 6445444
RUSNAK, individually and on behalf of all
) 2019CH10253
others similarly situated ) Case No. 2019 CH ____________
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
DAVITA, INC. d/b/a DAVITA DIALYSIS )
CENTER, SATELLITE DIALYSIS OF )
GLENVIEW and MICHAEL KLUSMEYER)
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Christen Perry, Biana Fukes, Anna Willming and Romaine Rusnak (Plaintiffs),

individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Class”), through their attorneys,

KULWIN, MASCIOPINTO & KULWIN, LLP and STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP, submit this

Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/2-

801 and 2-802 to recover equitable relief and monetary damages against defendants DaVita Inc.

d/b/a DaVita Dialysis (DaVita), Satellite Dialysis of Glenview L.L.C. (Satellite) and Michael

Klusmeyer (Klusmeyer).

Nature of the Claim

1. This is a class action complaint brought by Plaintiffs individually, and on behalf

of all others similarly situated, seeking relief for the chronic, prolific, widespread, and pervasive

invasion of privacy of women who worked for Satellite and/or DaVita at the dialysis center

located at 2601 Compass Road in Glenview, Illinois and the grossly negligent conduct that

enabled the invasion to occur.

1
 2. Before November 2018, Satellite owned and operated the dialysis center located

at 2601 Compass Road in Glenview, Illinois. Since November 2018, DaVita owned and
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

operated the dialysis center located at 2601 Compass Road in Glenview, Illinois.

3. During the relevant time period, Satellite or DaVita employed Plaintiffs and other

female medical professionals who specialize in treating dialysis patients, including nurses,

dietitians, social workers, patient care technicians and administrative assistants, subject to written

employment policies. In addition, women who worked for Satellite or DaVita directly or

indirectly in capacities other than working at the dialysis center regularly visited the dialysis

center for work purposes.

4. Before November 2018, Satellite employed Klusmeyer as the Clinic Manager of

the dialysis center subject to written employment policies. Since November 2018, DaVita

continued to employ Klusmeyer in the same role as the Facility Administrator subject to written

employment policies. As Clinic Manager and Facility Administrator, Klusmeyer was the

highest-ranking manager at the dialysis center and in this capacity, had supervisory, executive

and managerial authority over Satellite and/or DaVita employees and others who worked at the

dialysis center, including Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent.

5. During the relevant time period, the written policies implemented by Satellite and

DaVita, among other things, assured employees and women who worked at the dialysis center

that Satellite and DaVita would provide a reasonably safe and sexual harassment-free work

environment for them.

2
 6. During the relevant time period, in performing their jobs, Plaintiffs and members

of the proposed Class were subjected to sexually inappropriate and offensive harassing conduct
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

by Klusmeyer that violated written policies of Satellite and DaVita, including his conduct in

targeting women who worked at the dialysis center and invading their privacy by repeatedly

placing a motion-activated camera in the women’s bathroom focused on the toilet.

7. Upon information and belief, Klusmeyer used his camera to record, capture, view

and distribute video of women undressing and using the bathroom.

8. During the relevant time period, on a daily basis in performing their job duties,

the women who worked at the dialysis center, including Plaintiffs, used the women’s bathroom

in the sole area provided to them to engage in such activities.

9. During the relevant time period, DaVita and Satellite knew and should have

known of Klusmeyer’s inappropriate conduct, including his sexually inappropriate and offensive

harassing conduct with women at work, through observing his conduct at work and through

written and verbal reports made by female employees, among other ways.

10. DaVita and/or Satellite facilitated, permitted and tolerated Klusmeyer’s sexually

inappropriate and offensive harassing conduct by, among other ways, failing to act as a

reasonably careful corporation. For example, in response to observing and/or receiving reports

of Klusmeyer’s misconduct at the dialysis center and inappropriate conduct with women at work,

Satellite and DaVita failed to take corrective measures against Klusmeyer before Plaintiffs and

others were seriously injured by his conduct. At best, DaVita and Satellite acted recklessly and

with utter indifference for the rights and safety of the women who worked with and around

Klusmeyer, including Plaintiffs.

3
 11. Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent seek equitable relief and monetary

damages against all defendants arising out of Klusmeyer’s conduct, including in invading their
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

privacy while they used the women’s bathroom working for Satellite and/or DaVita.

12. Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent also seek equitable relief and

monetary damages against DaVita and Satellite for breaching the legal duty to ensure a

reasonably safe working environment free from, among other things, Klusmeyer’s conduct.

Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

13. Plaintiff Christen Perry (Perry) is a Medical Social Worker. Between May 2014

and October 2018, Perry worked for Satellite within Cook County, Illinois. Between November

2018 through the present, Perry worked for DaVita within Cook County, Illinois. During the

relevant time period, Perry worked for Satellite and DaVita pursuant to their written policies.

14. Plaintiff Biana Fukes (Fukes) has worked as a CCHT / Dialysis Technician and

Administration Assistant and then as a Administration Coordinator. Before November 2018,

Fukes worked for Satellite within Cook County, Illinois. Between November 2018 through the

present, Fukes worked for DaVita within Cook County, Illinois. Fukes worked for Satellite and

DaVita pursuant to their written policies.

15. Plaintiff Anna Willming (Willming) worked as a CCHT / Dialysis Technician for

Satellite within Cook County, Illinois. Willming worked for Satellite pursuant to its written

policies.

16. Plaintiff Romaine Rusnak (Rusnak) is a Renal Dietician. Rusnak worked for

Satellite within Cook County, Illinois. Rusnak worked for Satellite pursuant to its written

policies.

4
 17. Defendant Satellite provides kidney dialysis services through outpatient dialysis

centers throughout the United States and within Cook County, Illinois. Before November 2018,
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

Satellite owned and operated the dialysis center located at 2601 Compass Road in Glenview,

Illinois and within Cook County, Illinois.

18. Defendant DaVita provides kidney dialysis services through outpatient dialysis

centers throughout the United States and within Cook County, Illinois. Upon information and

belief, DaVita acquired the Glenview dialysis center from Satellite.

19. Since November 2018, DaVita owned and operated the dialysis center located at

2601 Compass Road in Glenview, Illinois and within Cook County, Illinois.

20. Defendant Klusmeyer is a registered nurse. During the relevant time period,

Klusmeyer was employed by Satellite and/or DaVita within Cook County, Illinois subject to

their written policies. Klusmeyer resides within Lake County, Illinois.

21. Jurisdiction is proper over defendants under 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(1)-(3) and (10).

22. Venue is proper in Cook County under 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because defendants

reside and/or conduct business within Cook County Illinois and most, if not all, of the acts

complained of took place in Cook County, Illinois.

Facts Common to All Claims

A. The Written Policies for Working at the Dialysis Center

23. During the relevant time period, Satellite had written policies prohibiting

inappropriate conduct at work by which all of its employees were required to abide.

24. Under its written policies, Satellite prohibited misconduct, including sexually

inappropriate and offensive harassing conduct, and committed to providing a safe and secure

environment for, among others, its employees, including Plaintiffs.

5
 25. Under its written policies, Satellite committed to take corrective actions against

employees for violating its written employment policies and/or engaging in misconduct as
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

defined under its written policies.

26. During the relevant time period, DaVita had written policies prohibiting

inappropriate conduct at work by which all of its employees were required to abide.

27. Under its written policies, DaVita prohibited misconduct, including sexually

inappropriate and offensive harassing conduct, and committed to providing a safe and secure

environment for, among others, its employees, including some Plaintiffs and the Class they seek

to represent. DaVita had specific written policies prohibiting unauthorized videotaping at work.

28. Under its written policies, DaVita committed to take corrective actions against

employees for violating its written employment policies and/or engaging in misconduct as

defined under its written policies.

B. Defendants Promote Klusmeyer and Tolerate Klusmeyer’s Misconduct

29. Before the Fall of 2015, Klusmeyer worked in a non-management position as a

registered nurse at the dialysis center with Perry, Fukes and Rusnak.

30. In Fall 2015, Satellite promoted Klusmeyer to work as the Interim Clinic

Manager. In 2016, Satellite made Klusmeyer the permanent Clinic Manager.

31. Clinic Manager is the highest-ranking management position at the dialysis center.

In that capacity, Klusmeyer had and exercised the authority to, among other things, supervise

and control the conditions of employment for everyone who worked at the dialysis center.

32. After he was promoted to Clinic Manager, on several occasions, patients and staff

reported to Satellite complaints about Klusmeyer’s misconduct that violated Satellite’s policies.

6
 33. For example, patients reported that Klusmeyer treated them in an inappropriate

manner. Employees reported that Klusmeyer ignored their concerns.

FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

34. After he was named Clinic Manager, Klusmeyer began to engage in sexually

inappropriate and offensive harassing conduct toward women that violated Satellite’s policies.

35. For example, Klusmeyer shared videos and photographs with women he

supervised that were explicit, sexual or sexist in nature, and/or otherwise inappropriate.

Klusmeyer also told women he supervised jokes, stories, and/or innuendos that were explicit,

sexual or sexist in nature, and/or otherwise inappropriate.

36. For example, Klusmeyer would frequently make sexual comments about staff and

other women such as “I would like to bend her over that car,” or “check out her ass” or comment

on the size of a woman’s “boobs,” or comment on whether a woman shaves her pubic hair, such

as “I bet she has bare floors” or “I bet she has a full bush.”

37. In addition, Klusmeyer disregarded the privacy rights of female staff members.

For example, on one occasion, Klusmeyer stated “look what I have access to” now that he was a

manager and showed a female employee his personal electronic device that contained her

personal information including where she lived, bankruptcy information, court dates from past

overdue medical bills and information from bill collectors. Based on Klusmeyer’s tone and

demeanor in making these statements, it appeared that the reason he was showing her that he had

access to this information was to demonstrate his power as manager and to intimidate her.

38. In Spring 2018, in response to reports that Klusmeyer’s conduct as described

above violated Satellite’s policies, Satellite’s upper management acknowledged that Klusmeyer’s

misconduct and work performance was a problem. However, Satellite upper management liked

Klusmeyer and credited him with clinic’s good performance.

7
 39. For example, in response to reporting Klusmeyer to Satellite’s female Area

Manager, the Area Manager stated that Klusmeyer was “the best thing to happen to the clinic”
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

and she left without taking any action. Satellite ignored and disregarded this report and others.

40. As a result, Satellite took no corrective action against Klusmeyer, notwithstanding

its knowledge of his numerous violations of Satellite’s policies.

41. Satellite facilitated, permitted and tolerated a work environment that violated its

policies by tolerating and encouraging Klusmeyer’s misconduct, while discouraging complaints

about him by ignoring them, and failing to intervene in the face of repeated misbehavior.

42. In May 2018, Satellite announced that DaVita acquired the dialysis center. Prior

to the acquisition, female employees reported Klusmeyer to DaVita upper management but they

were told there was nothing DaVita could do about it.

43. In November 2018, DaVita took over operations at the dialysis center.

44. Despite the long and documented history of Klusmeyer’s misconduct, DaVita

chose to keep Klusmeyer in the same manager role that DaVita calls a “Facility Administrator.”

and, in fact, gave Klusmeyer a financial bonus to stay in the role.

45. Facility Administrator is the highest-ranking management position at the dialysis

center. In that capacity, Klusmeyer had the authority to, among other things, supervise and

control the conditions of employment for everyone who worked at the dialysis center

46. After DaVita took over operations, Klusmeyer continued and escalated his

inappropriate and offensive misconduct.

47. In Spring 2019, in response to reports that Klusmeyer’s conduct violated DaVita’s

policies, DaVita’s upper management acknowledged that Klusmeyer’s conduct was corroborated

by multiple sources and that prompt and effective corrective action would be taken.

8
 48. However, DaVita’s upper management liked Klusmeyer and expressed sympathy

for him because he was purportedly a “nice guy” close to retirement and did not want to see him
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

“lose his job.”

49. Upon information and belief, DaVita took no corrective action against Klusmeyer.

C. Klusmeyer Pervasively Invades the Privacy of Women Working at the Dialysis Center

50. The dialysis center had, among other spaces, a staff lunchroom and, across the

hall from the staff lunchroom, two single-use bathrooms, one designated for use only by men and

another designated for use only by women.

51. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent

used on a daily basis the women’s bathroom across the hall from the staff lunchroom.

52. Plaintiffs used the women’s bathroom at the direction of Satellite or DaVita,

which was represented as a secure female-only space for them to use.

53. Klusmeyer repeatedly chose to use the women’s bathroom instead of the men’s

bathroom. Klusmeyer had no legitimate reason for using the women’s bathroom at work.

54. Women who worked at the dialysis center repeatedly objected and reported that

they were uncomfortable with Klusmeyer frequent use of the women’s bathroom. However,

Klusmeyer ignored their concerns and continued to use the women’s bathroom.

55. During the relevant time period, Klusmeyer repeatedly placed a motion-activated

camera in the women’s bathroom focused on the toilet. Upon information and belief, Klusmeyer

used his camera to record, capture, view and distribute images of women undressing and using

the bathroom.

9
 56. Upon information and belief, Klusmeyer targeted and lured women into the

bathroom after he placed the camera in the room ostensibly for legitimate work purposes, such as
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

to try on new scrubs that they were required to wear for work, so he could record them.

57. At least one of Klusmeyer’s cameras was constructed to look like an ordinary key

FOB. On or about July 23, 2019, Klusmeyer’s key FOB camera was identified and discovered

by a female employee who recognized it as a recording device.

58. After Klusmeyer’s key FOB camera was discovered, women who worked at the

dialysis center recalled seeing the same or similar key FOB in the women’s bathroom for

approximately two years before it was discovered.

59. For these and other reasons, and upon information and belief, Klusmeyer had

been placing a motion-activated camera in the women’s bathroom for approximately two years.

60. Klusmeyer was arrested by the Glenview Police Department and, based on the

circumstances, was charged with felony criminal conduct under the Illinois Criminal Code.

61. Notwithstanding its knowledge of Klusmeyer’s arrest and the circumstances

surrounding it, DaVita delayed terminating him and failed to take other corrective action in a

timely manner in violation of its own written policies.

62. Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent sustained serious and permanent

injuries, emotional distress, and public embarrassment from Klusmeyer’s invasion of their

privacy and proximately caused by Satellite and DaVita facilitating, permitting and tolerating

Klusmeyer’s misconduct and policy violations.

10
 63. DaVita and/or Satellite knew and/or should have known that Klusmeyer had a

history of engaging in inappropriate conduct while working at the dialysis clinic in violation of
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

its written policies. However, Satellite and DaVita facilitated, permitted and tolerated dangerous

and inappropriate conduct from Klusmeyer.

D. Class Allegations

64. Under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/2-801, Plaintiffs bring

claims on their own behalf and as representatives of all other similarly situated individuals as a

class action to remedy the conduct alleged herein, on behalf of themselves and a class consisting

of all women who have worked at DaVita and/or Satellite at the dialysis center located at 2601

Compass Road in Glenview, Illinois from 2015 to the present.

65. This action is properly maintained as a class action under 735 ILCS 5/2-801

because:

A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

B. There are questions of law or fact that are common to the class;

C. The claims of the Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the
Class; and,

D. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class.

66. Upon information and belief, there are over seventy-five members of the proposed

class. The exact number of class members may easily be determined from Defendants’ records.

67. There are questions of fact and law common to the class, which are well-suited to

class-wide adjudication, and those common questions, which predominate over any questions

affecting only individual class members, including but not limited to the following: (a) the extent

to which Klusmeyer invaded the privacy of women who worked at the dialysis center; (b)

whether Satellite and/or DaVita breached the legal duty of care in supervising Klusmeyer; and

11
 (c) whether Satellite and/or DaVita acted with utter indifference and/or reckless disregard for the

safety of the women who worked at the dialysis center.

FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

68. Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants will raise defenses that are common to the

Class.

69. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all

members of the Class, and there are no known conflicts of interest Plaintiff and class members.

The Representative Plaintiffs, moreover, have retained experienced counsel that are competent in

the prosecution of complex litigation and who have extensive experience acting as class counsel.

70. The claims of the Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class,

and they predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The

Representative Plaintiffs have the same interests and suffered from the same unlawful conduct as

the Class.

71. Upon information and belief, there are no other class members who have an

interest individually in controlling the prosecution of her individual claims. However, if any such

class member become known, she can “opt out” of this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.

72. The common questions identified above predominate over any individual issues,

which will relate solely to the quantum of relief due to individual class members. A class action

is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy

because individual joinder of the parties is impracticable. Class action treatment will allow a

large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum

simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense if these

claims were brought individually.

12
 73. Additionally, important public interests will be served by addressing the matter as

a class action. The cost to the court system and the public for the adjudication of individual
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

litigation and claims would be substantially more than if claims are treated as a class action.

Prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent

and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and/or

substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests. The issues

can be decided by means of common, class-wide proof. In addition, if appropriate, the Court can

and is empowered to fashion methods to efficiently manage the case as a class action.

COUNT I
INVASION OF PRIVACY
(Plaintiffs Against Defendants Klusmeyer and Satellite)

74. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the Paragraphs set forth above.

75. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, including from 2015

when he became manager until November 2018, Klusmeyer willfully and intentionally, and

without Plaintiffs’ knowledge, consent and/or authorization, placed a motion-activated camera in

the women’s bathroom focused on the toilet.

76. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, including from 2015

when he became manager until November 2018, Klusmeyer willfully and intentionally, and

without Plaintiffs’ knowledge, consent and/or authorization, video-taped and recorded them

while they used the women’s bathroom in various stages of undress.

77. Klusmeyer’s conduct in placing a motion-activated camera in the women’s

bathroom focused on the toilet as alleged herein was an unauthorized intrusion and/or prying into

Plaintiffs’ seclusion.

13
 78. Klusmeyer’s conduct in placing a motion-activated camera in the women’s

bathroom focused on the toilet as alleged herein was offensive and/or objectionable to a
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

reasonable person.

79. Klusmeyer’s conduct in placing a motion-activated camera in the women’s

bathroom focused on the toilet as alleged herein was an unauthorized, offensive, objectionable

and unlawful intrusion into Plaintiffs’ private and intimate person, surroundings and matters.

80. Klusmeyer’s conduct was so outrageous as to shock the conscience of any

reasonable person.

81. Satellite is liable for Klusmeyer’s conduct as described herein under the doctrine

of respondeat superior because Klusmeyer engaged in such conduct within the scope of his

employment as Clinic Manager.

82. As a direct and proximate result of Klusmeyer’s invasion of Plaintiffs’ privacy

and intrusion into their seclusion, Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer harm and damages,

including but not limited to pain and suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, vexation and

costs of treatment.

COUNT II
INVASION OF PRIVACY
(Plaintiffs Against Klusmeyer and DaVita)

83. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the Paragraphs set forth above.

84. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, including from

November 2018 until July 23, 2019, Klusmeyer willfully and intentionally, and without

Plaintiffs’ knowledge, consent and/or authorization, placed a motion-activated camera in the

women’s bathroom focused on the toilet.

14
 85. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, including from

November 2018 until July 23, 2018, Klusmeyer willfully and intentionally, and without
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

Plaintiffs’ knowledge, consent and/or authorization, video-taped and recorded them while they

used the women’s bathroom in various stages of undress.

86. Klusmeyer’s conduct in placing a motion-activated camera in the women’s

bathroom focused on the toilet as alleged herein was an unauthorized intrusion and/or prying into

Plaintiffs’ seclusion.

87. Klusmeyer’s conduct in placing a motion-activated camera in the women’s

bathroom focused on the toilet as alleged herein was offensive and/or objectionable to a

reasonable person.

88. Klusmeyer’s conduct in placing a motion-activated camera in the women’s

bathroom focused on the toilet as alleged herein was an unauthorized, offensive, objectionable

and unlawful intrusion into Plaintiffs’ private and intimate person, surroundings and matters.

89. Klusmeyer’s conduct was so outrageous as to shock the conscience of any

reasonable person.

90. DaVita is liable for Klusmeyer’s conduct as described herein under the doctrine of

respondeat superior because Klusmeyer engaged in such conduct within the scope of his

employment as Facility Administrator.

91. As a direct and proximate result of Klusmeyer’s invasion of Plaintiffs’ privacy

and intrusion into their seclusion, Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer harm and damages,

including but not limited to pain and suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, vexation and

costs of treatment.

15
 COUNT III
NEGLIGENCE
(Defendant Satellite)
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

92. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the Paragraphs set forth above.

93. During the relevant time period, Satellite, by and through its duly authorized

agents, servants and/or employees had and undertook a duty to provide a reasonably safe and

harassment free work environment for people who worked at the dialysis center, including

Plaintiffs.

94. During the relevant time period, Satellite, by and through its duly authorized

agents, servants and/or employees had and undertook a duty to take action to monitor, supervise,

discipline, and if warranted, remove from employment any employee if they engaged in conduct

which violated Satellite’s written policies, including policies prohibiting, among other things,

misconduct and/or engaging in offensive sexually harassing conduct.

95. During the relevant time period, Satellite, by and through its duly authorized

agents, servants and/or employees possessed a separate, independent duty to exercise reasonable

care in the provision of a reasonably safe work environment, including the duty to suspend, bar

and/or terminate from working at and/or employment with Satellite, any employee who it knew

or should have known was engaging in conduct that, among other things, violated its own written

policies, including policies prohibiting offensive and sexually harassing conduct.

96. During the relevant time period, Satellite, by and through its duly authorized

agents, servants and/or employees breached the above stated duty of care by engaging in

multiple negligent, careless and reckless acts and/or omissions, including the following:

16
 A. Before the incidents alleged in this Complaint, Satellite knew or
should have known that Klusmeyer was a mentally unstable person who engaged
in inappropriate conduct at work that violated its written employment policies but
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

took no action to more closely supervise, monitor and/or discipline Klusmeyer

and/or take other corrective actions as described in its written policies, to prevent
such conduct from re-occurring and/or becoming more serious;

B. Before the incidents alleged in this Complaint, Satellite knew or

should have known that Klusmeyer subjected female employees to unwanted
offensive and inappropriate sexually harassing conduct but took no action to more
closely supervise, monitor and/or discipline Klusmeyer, and/or take other
corrective action, as set out in its written policies, to prevent such conduct from
re-occurring or becoming more serious; and

C. Failing to provide Plaintiffs and other female employees a separate

secure area, dedicated solely to female use, in which to use the bathroom to
protect from unwanted, unauthorized and unlawful intrusion by others, including
but not limited to, Klusmeyer.

97. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing breaches, acts or

omissions by Satellite, including its failure to properly supervise, monitor, discipline and/or take

corrective actions with respect to Klusmeyer, as well as its failure to provide a secure area in

which Plaintiffs and other female employees could use the bathroom as otherwise alleged herein,

Plaintiffs were seriously harmed and damaged in the manner further described in this count.

98. Satellite acted in a grossly negligent and recklessly dangerous manner in failing to

properly supervise, monitor, discipline and/or take other corrective actions with respect to

Klusmeyer’s conduct and by failing to provide a secure area in which Plaintiffs and other female

employees could use the bathroom as further alleged in this count.

17
 COUNT IV
NEGLIGENCE
(Defendant DaVita)
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

99. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the Paragraphs set forth above.

100. During the relevant time period, DaVita, by and through its duly authorized

agents, servants and/or employees had and undertook a duty to provide a reasonably safe and

harassment free work environment for people who worked at the dialysis center, including

Plaintiffs.

101. During the relevant time period, DaVita, by and through its duly authorized

agents, servants and/or employees had and undertook a duty to take action to monitor, supervise,

discipline, and if warranted, remove from employment any employee if they engaged in conduct

which violated DaVita’s written policies, including policies prohibiting, among other things,

misconduct and/or engaging in offensive sexually harassing conduct.

102. During the relevant time period, DaVita, by and through its duly authorized

agents, servants and/or employees possessed a separate, independent duty to exercise reasonable

care in the provision of a reasonably safe work environment, including the duty to suspend, bar

and/or terminate from working at and/or employment with DaVita, any employee who it knew or

should have known was engaging in conduct that, among other things, violated its own written

policies, including policies prohibiting offensive and sexually harassing conduct.

103. During the relevant time period, DaVita, by and through its duly authorized

agents, servants and/or employees breached the above stated duty of care by engaging in

multiple negligent, careless and reckless acts and/or omissions, including the following:

18
 A. Before the incidents alleged in this Complaint, DaVita knew or
should have known that Klusmeyer was a mentally unstable person who engaged
in inappropriate conduct at work that violated its written employment policies but
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

took no action to more closely supervise, monitor and/or discipline Klusmeyer

and/or take other corrective actions as described in its written policies, to prevent
such conduct from re-occurring and/or becoming more serious;

B. Before the incidents alleged in this Complaint, DaVita knew or

should have known that Klusmeyer subjected female employees to unwanted
offensive and inappropriate sexually harassing conduct but took no action to more
closely supervise, monitor and/or discipline Klusmeyer, and/or take other
corrective action, as set out in its written policies, to prevent such conduct from
re-occurring or becoming more serious; and

C. Failing to provide Plaintiffs and other female employees a separate

secure area, dedicated solely to female use, in which to use the bathroom to
protect from unwanted, unauthorized and unlawful intrusion by others, including
but not limited to, Klusmeyer.

104. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing breaches, acts or

omissions by DaVita, including its failure to properly supervise, monitor, discipline and/or take

corrective actions with respect to Klusmeyer, as well as its failure to provide a secure area in

which Plaintiffs and other female employees could use the bathroom as otherwise alleged herein,

Plaintiffs were seriously harmed and damaged in the manner further described in this count.

105. DaVita acted in a grossly negligent and recklessly dangerous manner in failing to

properly supervise, monitor, discipline and/or take other corrective actions with respect to

Klusmeyer’s conduct and by failing to provide a secure area in which Plaintiffs and other female

employees could use the bathroom as further alleged in this count.

19
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an Order:

A. Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above,
FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

appointing Plaintiffs Christen Perry, Biana Fukes, Anna Willming and Romaine
Rusnak as Class Representatives, and appointing Kulwin, Masciopinto & Kulwin,
LLP and Stephan Zouras, LLP as Class Counsel;

B. Awarding compensatory damages to adequately and fairly compensate Plaintiffs

and the Class for the injury, harm and loss sustained;

C. Awarding punitive damages;

D. Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the

interests of the Representative Plaintiffs and the Class, including requiring
Satellite to fulfill its legal obligations to maintain a safe working environment and
to demonstrate that those steps have and will be maintained in the future;

E. Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the

interests of the Representative Plaintiffs and the Class, including requiring DaVita
to fulfill its legal obligations to maintain a safe working environment and to
demonstrate that those steps have and will be maintained in the future.

F. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and other
litigation expenses; and,

G. Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice may require.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL CLAIMS

20
 Dated: September 4, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

KULWIN, MASCIOPINTO & KULWIN, L.L.P.

FILED DATE: 9/4/2019 5:24 PM 2019CH10253

By: /s/ Jeffrey R. Kulwin

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Jeffrey R. Kulwin
KULWIN, MASCIOPINTO & KULWIN, L.L.P.
161 North Clark Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
T: 312.641.0300
F: 312.855.0350
Firm ID: 43136

James B. Zouras
Ryan F. Stephan
Teresa M. Becvar
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
T: 312.233.1550
F: 312.233.1560
Firm ID: 43734

21