Attachment A

Background
1. Complainant Bernadine Guthrie is a citizen of the State of Illinois and is a resident of
Chicago, Illinois.
2. Complainants race is African-American.
3. In or about November 1997 Complainant was hired by Respondent OBrien and
Associates, 1035 W. Lake Street, Chicago, IL, as an Administrative Assistant.
Complainant was employed by Respondent through the date of her termination on
October 1, 2007.
4. At all times relevant to this Charge, Complainant had two co-workers in the office
area in which she worked, Nicole Lopez, a white, non-Hispanic employee of Respondent,
and Kim Martens, a white employee of Respondent.
5. At all times relevant to this Charge, Complainants immediate supervisor was Office
Manager Brenda Rees, a white employee of Respondent.
6 At all times relevant to this Charge, Complainants third-level supervisors were Mark
Larocca and Mark Sirotkin. Mr. Laroccas race is white. Mr. Sirotkins race is white.
7. At all times relevant to this Charge, James OBrien was the owner and founder of
OBrien & Associates. Mr. OBriens race is white.
8. During the course of Complainants employment by Respondent and specifically
during the years 2006 and 2007, Complainant was the only African-American employee
employed by Respondent at its offices at 1035 W. Lake Street, Chicago, IL.
9. Throughout the course of Complainants employment by Respondent, Complainant
was an exemplary employee.
10. At all times relevant to this Charge of Discrimination, Complainants work
proficiency was far superior to that of similarly situated employees, including
Administrative Assistant Nicole Lopez.

Count I
Terms and Conditions of Employment
Workplace Attire
11. Complainant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-10 of her charge as paragraph
11 of Count I of this complaint.
12. In or about late July 2007 on a date when the temperature inside the companys
offices was very warm, Complainant was advised by Brenda Rees that she could not wear
a sleeveless dress as this was not suitable business attire and Mr. LaRocca would not like
it.
13. The following day and also on subsequent days, Brenda Rees, herself, wore a
sleeveless dress during regular business hours. To the best of Complainants knowledge
and belief Vice President LaRocca neither directed Ms. Rees to not wear a sleeveless
dress nor admonished her for the repeated wearing of this type of dress.
14. During the period when Respondent refused Complainant the option of wearing a
sleeveless dress because it was not appropriate business attire, Respondent allowed
Nicole Lopez to wear her hair in multiple colors and to wear visible tattoos and face
piercings.
Leave and Attendance
15. At all times relevant to this Charge, Complainants regular tour of duty was from
9:00 a.m. through 4:45 p.m.
16. At all times relevant to this Charge, Administrative Assistant Kim Martens regular
tour of duty was from 9:00 a.m. through 4:45 p.m.
17. At all times relevant to this charge, Brenda Rees, and Nicole Lopezs regular tour of
duty was from 8:30 a.m. through 4:15 p.m.
18. Notwithstanding Nicole Lopezs regular tour of duty from 8:30 a.m. through 4:15
p.m., during the course of Ms. Lopezs employment with Respondent, Ms. Lopez was
granted extraordinary discretion as regards her leave and attendance with Respondent to
the extent that she was frequently either not at work or was allowed, effectively, to leave
work at a time of her choosing.
19. In October 2007, Complainant respectfully requested that she be allowed to leave
work at 4:35 p.m. (ten minutes prior to the end of her tour of duty). Complainant advised
Mr. Sirotkin that she took the bus from work to home and that after work she routinely
had to walk a few blocks to her bus stop. Complainant further explained to Mr. Sirotkin
that as a woman she was concerned for her safety and that during the fall and winter

months would feel safer making this walk while it was lighter out. Complainant further
stated that she would make any adjustment to her own work schedule to compensate for
the ten minutes in question such as taking a shorter lunch break. Mr. Sirotkin flatly
refused this request.
20. In October 2007, the same month that Respondent denied Complainant even minimal
modification of her work schedule, Respondent allowed Ms. Martens to routinely leave
work at 4:15 p.m. so that Complainant could provide Ms. Martens a ride to the Metra
train. On or about September 19, 2007, Mark Larocca explicitly approved this leave and
attendance accommodation.

Count II
Termination (Racial Discrimination)
21. Complainant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-20 of Counts I of her Charge of
Discrimination as paragraph 21 of Count II of this Charge.
22. On October 1, 2007, Brenda Rees, a white employee of Respondent, terminated
Complainants employment for allegedly emailing proprietary information to herself and
another individual.
23. Contrary to Ms. Rees allegation, Complainant did not email proprietary information
to herself and another individual, but rather emailed only information concerning
vacation schedules within her office, non-schedule information concerning days of
absence taken by Ms. Lopez, etc.
24. White employees of Respondent were not subject to false charges and were not
terminated on the basis of false charges.
25. To the best of Complainants knowledge and belief, during the period 2003 through
October 1, 2007, Respondent terminated none of its white employees.
26. To the best of Complainants knowledge and belief, during the period 2003 through
October 1, 2007, the only employees terminated by Respondent were African-American,
specifically,
a. Tiffany Sterling;
b. Sharon Patton; and
c. Complainant Bernadine Guthrie
27. Complainant was subject to false charges and terminated on the basis of false charges
by reason of her race (African-American).

Count III
Termination (Unlawful Retaliation)
28. Complainant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-27 of Charges I and II of her
Charge of Discrimination as paragraph 28 of Count III of this Charge.
29. On September 28, 2007, Administrative Assistant Nicole Lopez advised management
that she had received a phone call from her dentist late on the evening of September 27,
2007 granting her a dental appointment on September 28 th. Ms. Lopez was granted leave
at or about 12:00 p.m. on September 28th by reason of her dental appointment that day.
30. The afternoon of Friday, September 28 th, Complainant was filing documents in a
filing cabinet when she was approached by Mark Sirotkin. Mr. Sirotkin mentioned to
Complainant that she looked anxious. Complainant responded, words to the effect,
Mark, this (Nicoles repeated absence) is getting out of control. I have to work around
Nicole because she is often not here most of the time without notice. My work goes up.
This is discriminatory treatment against me. Mr. Sirotkin responded, Im going to
make sure it (i.e., the discriminatory treatment) doesnt get that far. I will have a meeting
with you later.
31. On Monday, October 1, 2007, one (1) business day after Complainants complaint of
discrimination to Mark Sirotkin, Complainant was terminated.
32. Complainants termination was, in relevant part, in retaliation for her opposition to
discriminatory practices with respect to the Respondents allocation of work and
Respondents discriminatory implementation of its leave and attendance practices.