Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 1 of 46 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ALFONZO GABRIEL ARIAS, BETUEL )

CASTRO CAMACHO, WILLIAN ALBERTO )
GIMENEZ GONZALEZ, LUIS ADRIAN )
GOMEZ, JUAN CARLOS MONTANO, )
and LATINO UNION, INC., )
)
Plaintiffs, ) No.
)
v. )
)
CITY OF CHICAGO, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., )
INC., ANGEL MARTINEZ, ERIC GAYTAN, )
ALEJANDRO ROJAS, DONNIE REID, )
CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOES, )
and HOME DEPOT JOHN DOES, )
)
Defendants. ) JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT

1. Day labor is an inherently tenuous occupation that is exploited by employers and

businesses while also being targeted as unsightly and undesirable by public officials and police.

Individual Plaintiffs Alfonzo Arias, Betuel Camacho, Willian Gimenez, Luis Gomez, and Juan

Carlos Montano represent a population of recent arrivals who support themselves through this

precarious work. These day laborers — jornaleros in Spanish — “seek temporary employment on

public street corners in the home construction and landscaping industries.” 1 The Individual

Plaintiffs travel to areas near hardware stores, often waiting for hours in brutal weather with the

goal of being hired by construction professionals, homeowners, or others needing immediately

available labor. The instant case presents a pattern of discriminatory, unlawful, and brutal abuses

agreed to, ordered, and committed by Defendants against a specific demographic of jornaleros.

1
About Us, LATINO UNION OF CHICAGO, https://www.latinounion.org/about- (last visited July 30,
2024)
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 2 of 46 PageID #:2

2. Recent arrivals from countries like Venezuela, needing work, have sought

employment through day labor. Individual Plaintiffs sought work as jornaleros near the premises

of Home Depot Store #1986 located at 4555 S. Western Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60609

(“Home Depot Store #1986”). In a series of strikingly similar incidents occurring between October

2023 and May 2024, the Individual Plaintiffs experienced egregious civil rights violations while

trying to secure work around Home Depot Store #1986.

3. These abuses, while horrifying, are not new. Day laborers have sought work at

Home Depot locations across the Chicagoland area, and across the country, for decades.2 The

abuses Plaintiffs allege have been raised by other day laborers at the same Home Depot location.3

4. In response to the influx of new arrivals seeking work near its parking lot, Home

Depot Store #1986 has turned to off-duty Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) officers working

secondary employment and acting as additional Home Depot security. In turn, the Individual

Plaintiffs have endured physical violence at the hands of off-duty Chicago Police Department

officers as they have been targeted based on their race, ethnicity, and national origin and thrown

to the ground, aggressively handcuffed, and beaten by officers in displays of excessive force.

5. Individual Defendant CPD officers and Doe Defendants detained Individual

Plaintiffs either near Home Depot Store #1986 property or on its parking lot and took them into a

secluded room inside the store where they were beaten and insulted while handcuffed.

6. Individual Plaintiffs have also endured xenophobic and racially motivated insults

about their experiences as Venezuelan migrants while detained by off-duty CPD officers. Several

2
“The last two decades have seen a dramatic rise in the number of informal day labor sites
throughout the continental United States, to the point that they have become a ubiquitous
presence in most of the country’s urban areas.” Juan Thomas Ordonez, Being a Day Laborer in
the USA, Introduction p. 1 (2015).
3
Antonio Olivo, Day laborers sue city over arrests, CHI. TRIB. (Dec. 6, 2007),
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/12/06/day-laborers-sue-city-over-arrests/

2
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 3 of 46 PageID #:3

Individual Plaintiffs were subsequently charged with criminal trespass by CPD’s on-duty officers.

Meanwhile, the off-duty Chicago Police Department officers have not abused other day laborers

seeking work on or near Home Depot premises who are not perceived to be recent arrivals.

7. Defendants City of Chicago (“the City”), through the Chicago Police Department,

Home Depot, and the Individual Defendants named herein have targeted the Individual Plaintiffs,

and dozens of other migrants perceived to be Venezuelan, in a conspiracy to criminalize day

laborers’ attempts to find work in Chicago. Chicago Police Department officers working secondary

employment at Home Depot Store #1986 have engaged in unchecked abuses of police power while

mistreating Plaintiffs. The Chicago Police Department and the City of Chicago have facilitated

these abuses by failing to supervise their employees and mitigate civil rights violations committed

under the color of law and by discriminatorily arresting workers for trespassing violations at Home

Depot.

8. The conduct of Chicago police officers and conspiracy among Defendants is a

continuation of Chicago’s history of police officers targeting racial minorities. Security personnel

hide abuses behind a cloak of legal authority in multiple ways: police working secondary

employment remove day laborers from a public parking lot or public spaces and sequester them in

a private room where the day laborers are handcuffed and beaten with open- and closed-fists. Day

laborers are coerced to sign documents written in English that they do not understand. Day laborers

are charged with criminal trespass, conceivably in an effort to shield the City and Individual CPD

Defendants from potential liability for their actions.

9. Plaintiffs file this Complaint against the City of Chicago, individually named and

John Doe CPD officers, and Home Depot and their named and unnamed employees. This lawsuit

seeks to enforce the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States

3
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 4 of 46 PageID #:4

Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, and Illinois state law. Plaintiffs

seek declaratory and injunctive relief so that Individual Plaintiffs may seek work pursuant to their

needs without threat of arrest and further retaliatory action and so that Plaintiff Latino Union may

continue to engage in its mission of organizing and advancing the interests of day laborers in

Chicago. Furthermore, Individual Plaintiffs individually seek monetary damages against the

Defendants for the harm they incurred as a result of the Defendants’ unlawful actions.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, §§ 1981, 1983,

1985, and 1986, as well as Illinois law.

11. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1343(a) and over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to the Court’s supplemental

jurisdiction, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

12. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

because the parties reside in this district, or, at the time the events took place, resided in this judicial

district or because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff ALFONZO GABRIEL ARIAS is a Venezuelan man who was detained

and assaulted at Home Depot Store #1986 on December 8, 2023.

14. Plaintiff LUIS ANTONIO ADRIAN GOMEZ is a Venezuelan man who was

detained and assaulted at Home Depot Store #1986 on January 10, 2024.

15. Plaintiff JUAN CARLOS MONTANO is a Venezuelan man who was detained and

assaulted at Home Depot Store #1986 on December 12, 2023.

16. Plaintiff BETUEL CASTRO CAMACHO is a Colombian man who was detained

4
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 5 of 46 PageID #:5

and assaulted at Home Depot Store #1986 on May 22, 2024.

17. Plaintiff WILLIAN ALBERTO GIMENEZ GONZALEZ is a Venezuelan man who

was detained and assaulted at Home Depot Store #1986 on October 25, 2023.

18. At all times relevant, all Plaintiffs named above were present within the United

States of America and entitled to the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to all people

within the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

19. Plaintiff LATINO UNION, INC. (“Latino Union”) is a not-for-profit corporation

dedicated to building power with day laborers, household workers, and other contracted workers

to fight for social and economic justice. Founded in 2000, Latino Union operates a Day Laborer

Program that has reached hundreds of construction and landscaping industry day laborers with

vital information on preventing construction accidents and wage theft, as well as workforce

development and education services. Latino Union’s initiatives led to the passing of the first Day

Labor Ordinance in 2002, subsequently passed in strengthened form as the Day Laborer Protection

Act in 2005. LATINO UNION is based in Chicago, Illinois.

20. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is a municipal corporation under the laws of the

City of Chicago, located in the Northern District of Illinois. It is authorized under the laws of the

State of Illinois to maintain the Chicago Police Department, which acts as the City’s agent and

policymaker in the area of municipal law enforcement, and for which the City is ultimately

responsible. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO was, at all times material to this Complaint, the

employer and principal of the Defendant Officers described below.

21. Defendant HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. (“Home Depot”) is a home improvement

retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services. Home Depot

espouses values of “doing the right thing” and “building strong relationships” on “trust, honesty

5
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 6 of 46 PageID #:6

and integrity” and “listen[ing] to the needs of customers, associates, communities and vendors,

treating them as partners.”4 Home Depot is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of

Delaware, and at all relevant times has conducted business within Illinois and this judicial district

including at its facility located at 4555 S. Western Blvd, Chicago, IL 60609, Store #1986.

Defendant HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. was, at all times material to this Complaint, the employer

and principal of the Defendant Chicago Police Officers and Defendant Home Depot employees

described below.

22. Defendant Police Officers ANGEL MARTINEZ (#5124) and ERIC GAYTAN

(#9303) are City of Chicago employees with the Chicago Police Department. They are sued in

their individual capacities. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants MARTINEZ and

GAYTAN acted under color of state law as police officers of the City of Chicago and employees

of Home Depot and acted in the course of and within the scope of their employment.

23. Defendants ALEJANDRO ROJAS and DONNIE REID (“the Named Home Depot

Defendants”) were, at all times material to this Complaint, employees of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

They are sued in their individual capacities.

24. Defendant CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOES are City of Chicago

employees with the Chicago Police Department. They are sued in their individual capacities for

violating the constitutional rights of the Individual Plaintiffs. At all times material to this

Complaint, these defendants acted under color of state and municipal law as police officers of the

City of Chicago and employees or agents of Home Depot and acted in the course and within the

scope of their employment. The true names and identities of these defendants are unknown to

Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave

4
Our Values, Home Depot, https://corporate.homedepot.com/page/our-values (last visited Aug.
3, 2024)

6
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 7 of 46 PageID #:7

to amend their complaint to include the true names and identities of these Defendants when they

have been ascertained.

25. Defendant HOME DEPOT JOHN DOES are employees of Home Depot. They are

sued in their individual capacities for violating the Individual Plaintiffs’ rights. The true names

and identities of these Defendants are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these Defendants

by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend their complaint to include the true

names and identities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Treatment of Asylum Seekers from Venezuela and South America in Chicago

26. On August 31, 2022, Texas Governor Greg Abbott began sending buses of newly

arrived migrants ― particularly asylum seekers ― to Chicago.5

27. This recent increase in asylum seekers from Venezuela and other South American

countries coincides with what Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker

have described as a “critical workforce shortage[]” facing the region.6

28. Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker have implored federal authorities to address

this labor shortage by creating expanded pathways to work authorization: “This would

unquestionably contribute ‘significant public benefit’ to our nation’s labor shortages while

providing non-citizens, like the thousands of asylum seekers we serve, a faster and more

5
https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/texas-new-arrivals/home.html
6
Press Release, J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois & Brandon Johnson, Mayor of Chicago, Joint
Letter From Mayor Brandon Johnson And Governor JB Pritzker Calling Upon The Federal
Government To Streamline Work Authorization For Non-citizens When States Demonstrate A
Public Benefit And Critical Workforce Shortages (Aug. 28, 2023),
https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2023/august/JointLetter
FromMayorBrandonJohnsonAndGovernorJBPritzkerStreamlineWorkAuthorization.html

7
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 8 of 46 PageID #:8

streamlined pathway to self-sufficiency.”7

29. Despite Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker’s acknowledgement of lack of labor

in Chicago and pleas for help, the federal government has failed to act, and recent arrivals continue

to face considerable barriers establishing themselves in their new home, including barriers to work

authorization.

30. Most asylum seekers must wait at least six months before the federal government

will grant them employment authorization documents providing a route to employment in the

formal economy.8

31. Additionally, new arrivals frequently turn to migrant shelters, as their only source of

shelter. In these shelters, thousands of individuals sleep on cots on the floor next to one another and

the shelters have been the source of various outbreaks of disease.9

32. Because the City of Chicago only permits new arrivals to stay in shelters for sixty

days, even at times when there are enough shelter beds, recent migrants must navigate an unfamiliar

private housing market or risk falling into houselessness.10

33. This need for housing intensifies the need for work among new arrivals.

34. For migrants who do find work in Chicago, stories of wage theft, including

7
Id.
8
8 CFR 208.7(a)(2) (establishing federal timing for work authorization); see also Nicole Narea,
Immigrants could help the US labor shortage — if the government would let them, VOX, May
22, 2022, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22933223/work-permit-uscis-backlog-
immigration-labor-shortage
9
Sophia Tareen & Claire Savage, Migrant child’s death and other hospitalizations spark
concern over shelter conditions, A.P. News (Dec. 19, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/migrant-
boy-death-child-shelter-chicago-de2d8e7766f418ea52eb5218d519c72c
10
Sabrina Franza, Chicago city official explains why migrant shelter stay limit is being enforced,
despite enough space for all, CBS News Chi. (June 14, 2024),
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/chicago-city-official-migrant-shelter-stay-limit-
enforced/

8
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 9 of 46 PageID #:9

underpayment or no payment for work performed, are common.11

Discriminatory and Unlawful Detentions at Home Depot Store #1986

35. Defendant Home Depot took steps to increase security presence at Home Depot

Store #1986, in or around October 2023, including an effort to hire off-duty CPD officers working

secondary employment.

36. The effort to bolster security at Home Depot Store #1986 by recruiting and hiring

off-duty CPD officers to provide security was done with the knowledge and consent of Defendant

City of Chicago.

37. Home Depot and CPD entered this agreement together in approximately October

2023.

11
Abena Bediako, et al., Threats, ‘Abuse’ and No Pay: What Chicago Migrants Face When
Looking for Work, City Bureau (Feb. 29,
2024), https://www.citybureau.org/newswire/2024/2/29/what-chicago-migrants-face-when-
looking-for-work

9
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 10 of 46 PageID #:10

38. Day laborers seeking work have done so with the acquiescence of Defendant Home

Depot ― largely without incident ― for decades.

39. Beginning around Fall 2023, a significant number of day laborers from Venezuela

and other South American countries began arriving at Home Depot Store #1986.

40. Venezuelan day laborers have sought, and continue to seek, work in a specific area,

situated near the west entrance to the Home Depot Store #1986 parking lot facing Western Ave.

41. Day laborers of other ethnicities have sought, and continue to seek, work in a

different area of the parking lot, situated nearer to the south entrance to Home Depot Store #1986,

facing 47th Street.

42. Defendants Home Depot, CPD Defendants Gaytan, Martinez, some or all of the

individual Named Home Depot Defendants, and some or all of the Defendant Does were and are

aware that day laborers congregate and historically have congregated on or near the parking lot at

Home Depot Store #1986 seeking work.

43. Defendants Home Depot, CPD, Defendants Gaytan and Martinez, the Named

Home Depot Defendants and Defendant Does were and are aware that day laborers from

Venezuela and other South American countries have, sought, and continue to seek, work in a

specific area, situated near the west entrance to the Home Depot Store #1986 parking lot facing

Western Avenue while day laborers of other ethnicities have sought, and continue to seek, work

in a different area of the parking lot, situated nearer to the south entrance to Home Depot Store

#1986, facing 47th Street.

44. Since larger numbers of Venezuelans have begun seeking work at Home Depot

Store #1986, Defendants Gaytan, Martinez, Rojas, Reid, CPD, Chicago Police Officer John Does,

and Home Depot John Does have placed a specific and excessive attention on harassing, moving,

10
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 11 of 46 PageID #:11

and detaining day laborers perceived to be Venezuelan seeking work near the Western Boulevard

entrance to the parking lot of Home Depot Store #1986.

45. Day laborers seeking work at Home Depot Store #1986 who typically congregate

near the entrance to the parking lot of Home Depot Store #1986 near 47th Street who are not

Venezuelan are not subject to the same harassment as day laborers perceived to be Venezuelan

near the Western Boulevard entrance.

46. Plaintiffs are a group of day laborers who were victims of Home Depot and the

City’s abusive scheme to target and exploit workers based on, among other things, their race,

ethnicity, and national origin.

47. Each Plaintiff was detained and assaulted while seeking work at Home Depot Store

#1986 by an off-duty CPD officer working secondary employment.

48. Each Plaintiff was insulted with xenophobic racial epithets, including “Mexicans

are the real day laborers,” “Pinche Venezolano” (meaning “Fucking Venezuelan”), and “You don’t

belong here.”

49. Some Plaintiffs were released from the back room of the Home Depot and free to

leave with no criminal legal system consequences.

50. Other Plaintiffs were charged with criminal trespass and their case were either

dismissed or stricken.

51. Plaintiffs were shocked to be singled out for abuse by members of the Chicago

Police Department collaborating with Home Depot because they sought work at a location that has

long served as an unproblematic place to seek work.

52. The Defendant City of Chicago, its Chicago Police Department, the named and

unnamed individual officers, and Home Depot and individually named Home Depot Defendants

11
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 12 of 46 PageID #:12

have collectively conspired to harm and criminalize Plaintiffs based on their national origin,

ethnicity, race, and attempts to support themselves and their families.

The Unlawful Abuse and Detention of Plaintiff Alfonzo Gabriel Arias

53. Alfonzo Arias is a 26-year-old man from Valencia, Venezuela.

54. Mr. Arias moved to Chicago in September 2023.

55. On December 27, 2023, Mr. Arias traveled to the Home Depot Store #1986 with

the intention of seeking short-term employment.

56. On that day, Mr. Arias entered the parking lot to seek work near a group of other

workers.

57. A John Doe officer, clothed in black with metal handcuffs, a firearm, and a vest

with the word “POLICE” printed on the back asked him to leave the premises.

58. Mr. Arias complied and left the parking lot by moving to the public sidewalk

running along Western Boulevard.

59. Mr. Arias was then approached by three Defendants in vests with the word

“POLICE.” which included Defendant Gaytan.

60. One Defendant who approached Mr. Arias wore a full CPD uniform.

61. The group of men who approached Mr. Arias included Defendant Gaytan and

Defendant CPD Officer Does.

62. The Defendant John Doe Officer in the vest who requested Mr. Arias exit the

parking lot grabbed him by his shirt and threw him to the ground.

63. While Mr. Arias was still on the ground, one of the Defendants in vests hit him

in the stomach and handcuffed him.

12
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 13 of 46 PageID #:13

64. Mr. Arias was then forcibly dragged into Home Depot Store #1986 by the

Defendants in vests through the front door.

65. Mr. Arias was taken by two Defendants in vests to a room on the western side

of the building.

66. The men told Mr. Arias that they were police.

67. Three Defendants in vests, including Defendant Gaytan, were present in the

room.

68. While handcuffed in the room with the door closed, Mr. Arias was shoved onto

a bench by one Defendant in a vest.

69. Mr. Arias was then struck in the face, ribs, and stomach by Defendant Gaytan

and another Defendant in a vest.

70. Mr. Arias was also choked by one of the Defendants in a vest.

71. While Mr. Arias was being beaten and choked by the Defendants in vests, they

laughed.

72. The Defendant in a vest who did not choke Mr. Arias said in English to the

Defendant in a vest who choked him that he should stop or he would kill Mr. Arias.

73. During his time being beaten in the room, Mr. Arias was also told in Spanish by

one Defendant in a vest that, among other things:

a. That the Defendant in a vest “would get [Mr. Arias] deported”;

b. That Home Depot “did not want immigrants here” and that they knew

Mr. Arias “is an immigrant”;

c. That if Mr. Arias said anything about the incident, that the Defendant in

the vest would have him deported and that he “had authority to do that

13
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 14 of 46 PageID #:14

as a police officer”;

d. That Mr. Arias was “trash”; and

e. One Defendant in a vest told Mr. Arias that if he saw Mr. Arias near the

Home Depot again, that it “would be worse.”

74. Mr. Arias was released after approximately ten minutes.

75. Mr. Arias subsequently filed a complaint alleging that he was battered at Home

Depot Store #1986.

76. Mr. Arias filed the police report after consulting with and with the assistance of

Latino Union on December 27, 2023.

77. Mr. Arias was not charged with a crime.

78. Mr. Arias went to the hospital the same day he was beaten by the Defendants in

vests.

79. Mr. Arias was diagnosed with a fracture of his hand/wrist.

80. Mr. Arias was in extreme pain for approximately two weeks.

81. Mr. Arias continues to suffer emotional distress and fear of continued abuse

from the Defendants and other officers if he were to seek work near Home Depot Store #1986.

The Unlawful Abuse and Detention of Plaintiff Betuel Castro Camacho

82. Betuel Castro Camacho is a 37-year-old man from Bogota, Colombia.

83. Mr. Camacho moved to Chicago on January 6, 2024.

84. On May 22, 2024, Mr. Camacho traveled to Home Depot Store #1986 with the

intention of seeking short-term employment.

85. On that day, Mr. Camacho entered the parking lot to seek work near a group of

other workers.

14
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 15 of 46 PageID #:15

86. Mr. Camacho was approached by three Defendants, two of whom wore black

vests that said “POLICE.”

87. The Defendant who was not wearing a vest wore a black t-shirt and carried a

gun.

88. The Defendants who approached Mr. Camacho herded a group of other workers

toward the parking lot exit facing Western Boulevard.

89. As Mr. Camacho was walking toward the exit, one Defendant in a vest, who Mr.

Camacho believes was Mexican American, approached him from behind and handcuffed him.

90. Mr. Camacho told the Defendant in a vest who handcuffed him that Mr.

Camacho had recently dislocated his shoulder.

91. When Mr. Camacho told the Defendant in a vest about his injury, the Defendant

in a vest applied more pressure to that arm.

92. As he was handcuffed, none of the Defendants who detained him explained to

Mr. Camacho why he was being detained.

93. Mr. Camacho was pushed into Home Depot Store #1986 through the front door

by the three Defendants who detained him.

94. Mr. Camacho was taken by the three Defendants who detained him to a room

on the western side of the building.

95. Three Defendants in vests were present in the room.

96. While handcuffed in the room with the door closed, the Defendant dressed in a

black t-shirt who detained Mr. Camacho shoved him.

97. Mr. Camacho fell, striking his eye.

98. Mr. Camacho was then struck on the abdomen by the Defendant dressed in a

15
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 16 of 46 PageID #:16

black t-shirt approximately four times with a closed fist.

99. As the Defendant in the black t-shirt struck Mr. Camacho, he said “don’t look at

me” in Spanish.

100. The Defendants who detained Mr. Camacho primarily spoke English, but the

Defendant in the black t-shirt stopped striking Mr. Camacho at one point to tell him in Spanish

that he “took a shit on the American flag.”

101. One of the Defendants in a vest struck Mr. Camacho approximately three times

with an open palm.

102. Mr. Camacho told the Defendants who detained him that he is Colombian.

103. In response, one of the Defendants who detained Mr. Camacho said to Mr.

Camacho that he was lying and that he was Venezuelan.

104. The Defendants who detained Mr. Camacho continued to insult him based on

their belief that he was Venezuelan.

105. One of the Defendants who detained Mr. Camacho took his belongings,

including his phone, backpack, and hat.

106. Mr. Camacho’s phone was cracked when it was returned to him.

107. Defendant Rojas participated in the detention, arrest and prosecution of Mr.

Camacho, initiating a criminal complaint against him.

108. After approximately one hour, on-duty police officers arrived at the back room

where Mr. Camacho was being held.

109. The on-duty police gave Mr. Camacho a paper that was written in English which

Mr. Camacho could not read and did not understand because he does not speak or understand

English.

16
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 17 of 46 PageID #:17

110. Mr. Camacho signed the paper out of fear that he would not be allowed to leave

if he did not sign and because he was afraid of being hit again.

111. Mr. Camacho was then released from the Home Depot.

112. Mr. Camacho called to make a doctor’s appointment on the same day.

113. On June 24, 2024, Mr. Camacho received an x-ray.

114. Mr. Camacho later learned that he was charged with Class B misdemeanor

criminal trespass to land.

115. Mr. Camacho appeared for a criminal hearing before an Illinois court on July 8,

2024.

116. At that hearing, the charges against Mr. Camacho were dismissed.

The Unlawful Abuse and Detention of Plaintiff Willian Gimenez Gonzalez

117. Willian Alberto Gimenez Gonzalez is a 37-year-old man from Yaracuy,

Venezuela.

118. Mr. Gimenez moved to Chicago on October 12, 2023.

119. On October 25, 2023, Mr. Gimenez arrived at Home Depot Store #1986 around

7:00 AM hoping to find work.

120. Mr. Gimenez stood near the sign to the store’s Western Boulevard entrance.

121. Around 2:00 PM, two Defendants Mr. Gimenez believed to be African

American and two Defendants Mr. Gimenez believed to be Mexican American approached him.

122. The two African American Defendants wore black clothing and black vests.

123. One of the Mexican American Defendants also wore a black vest.

124. The second Mexican American Defendant wore a hooded sweatshirt and flat-

brimmed cap.

17
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 18 of 46 PageID #:18

125. The two African American Defendants in black vests carried firearms and

handcuffs.

126. The Mexican American Defendant in a black vest also carried handcuffs..

127. These four Defendants are among the CPD and Home Depot John Doe

Defendants named herein.

128. Three of the Defendants who approached Mr. Gimenez threw him to the ground.

129. One of the African American Defendants dressed in a vest handcuffed Mr.

Gimenez while the two Mexican American Defendants were on top of Mr. Gimenez, holding

him down.

130. While handcuffed, the Defendant in the hooded sweatshirt pulled Mr. Gimenez

by his shirt into the Home Depot.

131. Mr. Gimenez was pulled into a private back room on the western side of the

building.

132. Once inside, the Defendants who detained Mr. Gimenez handcuffed him to a

seat and removed his belongings.

133. Another day laborer was handcuffed in the room with Mr. Gimenez.

134. A Caucasian woman with black hair and civilian clothing was inside the room.

135. The Caucasian woman with black hair and civilian clothing is a Home Depot

Doe Defendant.

136. While Mr. Gimenez was handcuffed to the seat, there were six other people in

the room: the Mexican American Defendant in the hoodie, the Mexican American Defendant

in the black vest, the two African American Defendants in black vests, the Caucasian

Defendant, and another day laborer.

18
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 19 of 46 PageID #:19

137. The Mexican American Defendant in the hooded sweatshirt said to Mr.

Gimenez, “Pinche venezolanos. No me miren, aqui los vamos a hacer que siguan las leyes.”

(translated: “fucking Venezuelans. Do not look at me, here we are going to make you follow

the laws.”)

138. The same Defendant in the hooded sweatshirt, slapped Mr. Gimenez with an

open hand approximately three times in his chest and face.

139. The same Defendant in the hooded sweatshirt slapped Mr. Gimenez each time

he looked toward the man or tried to speak.

140. The same Defendant in the hooded sweatshirt struck the other day laborer

handcuffed in the room with Mr. Gimenez approximately six times.

141. The Defendant in the hooded sweatshirt gave Mr. Gimenez a paper that was

written in English which Mr. Gimenez could not read and did not understand because he does

not speak or understand English.

142. The Defendant in the hooded sweatshirt demanded that Mr. Gimenez sign the

paper while he wore handcuffs.

143. Mr. Gimenez signed the paper out of fear that he would not be allowed to leave

if he did not sign and because he was afraid of being hit again .

144. After Mr. Gimenez was held in the office for approximately 40 minutes, two on-

duty CPD officers arrived.

145. The on-duty CPD officers retrieved a key for the handcuffs from one of the

African American Defendants wearing a black vest and unlocked his handcuffs.

146. The on-duty CPD officers then put Mr. Gimenez in a new pair of handcuffs.

147. The on-duty CPD officers took Mr. Gimenez out of Home Depot Store #1986

19
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 20 of 46 PageID #:20

and to a squad car while wearing handcuffs.

148. Defendant Rojas participated in the detention and arrest of Mr. Gimenez,

initiating a criminal complaint against him.

149. The on-duty officers drove Mr. Gimenez to a Chicago Police Department

station.

150. Mr. Gimenez was held in a cell for approximately six hours. He was released at

approximately 9:00 PM.

151. Mr. Gimenez was charged with Class B misdemeanor criminal trespass to land.

152. Mr. Gimenez is scheduled to appear for a hearing at Branch 35 of the Circuit

Court of Cook County’s First Municipal District regarding his criminal trespass charge on

August 14, 2024.

The Unlawful Abuse and Detention of Plaintiff Luis Adrian Gomez

153. Luis Antonio Adrian Gomez is a 28-year-old man from Isla Margarita, Nueva

Esparta, Venezuela.

154. On January 10, 2024, Mr. Gomez arrived at Home Depot #1986 in the morning

hoping to find work.

155. Mr. Gomez stood near the trees near the Western Boulevard entrance to the

parking lot of Home Depot Store #1986.

156. After about an hour, Mr. Gomez was instructed by a Defendant in a black vest

with “POLICE” on the back to leave the parking lot.

157. As Mr. Gomez attempted to comply, the Defendant in a black vest pushed Mr.

Gomez from behind.

158. The Defendant in the black vest then threw Mr. Gomez to the ground.

20
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 21 of 46 PageID #:21

159. Another Defendant in a black vest approached Mr. Gomez while he was on the

ground and assisted the first Defendant who approached Mr. Gomez in handcuffing Mr. Gomez.

160. As he was being thrown to the ground by the Defendant in a black vest, Mr.

Gomez suffered a bruise to his right eye and pain in the back of his head.

161. The two Defendants in black vests who detained Mr. Gomez took him,

handcuffed, into a private back room in Home Depot, located on the western side of the

building.

162. One of the Defendants in a black vest who detained Mr. Gomez threw Mr.

Gomez into a wall, and Mr. Gomez fell into an office chair.

163. The Defendant in a black vest who initially detained Mr. Gomez hit Mr. Gomez

in the chest and rib area on the right side of his body three times with a closed fist.

164. The Defendants in black vests who detained Mr. Gomez took and later returned

a cell phone, wallet, and documents Mr. Gomez was carrying.

165. Mr. Gomez was detained in the back room of Home Depot Store #1986 for

approximately one hour.

166. On-duty CPD officers arrived and had a conversation that appeared to be

friendly with the Defendant in black vests who detained Mr. Gomez.

167. Together with on-duty CPD officers, the Defendants in black vests who detained

Mr. Gomez escorted him outside of the Home Depot.

168. The on-duty CPD officer instructed Mr. Gomez to sign a paper that was written

in English that he could not understand because he does not speak or understand English.

169. Mr. Gomez signed the paper out of fear that he would not be allowed to leave if

he did not sign and because he was afraid he would be hit again.

21
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 22 of 46 PageID #:22

170. Mr. Gomez later learned that he was charged with Class B misdemeanor

criminal trespass to land.

171. Defendant Martinez participated in the detention and arrest of Mr. Gomez,

initiating a criminal complaint against him.

172. Mr. Gomez initially appeared in an Illinois court on January 31, 2024.

173. Mr. Gomez returned to court on April 10, 2024. At that hearing, the charges

were dismissed.

The Unlawful Abuse and Detention of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Montano

174. Juan Carlos Montano is a 45-year-old man from Maturin, Venezuela.

175. Mr. Montano moved to Chicago in November 2023.

176. On December 20, 2023, Mr. Montano arrived at Home Depot Store #1986

around 7:00 AM with the intention of meeting a person with whom he had previously discussed

a job.

177. Mr. Montano waited for the person with whom he had discussed a job outside

of the Home Depot Parking lot, near the entrance on Western Boulevard.

178. At around 9:00 AM, four Defendants, three of whom wore black vests with the

word “POLICE” on their backs, approached Mr. Montano.

179. One of the Defendants was an older white man, one was African American, and

Mr. Montano believes the other two were Mexican American.

180. These men are named as John Doe Defendants herein.

181. One of the Defendants in a black vest with the word “POLICE” on its back

punched Mr. Montano in the stomach, kicked him in the knee, and threw him to the ground.

182. One of the Defendants in a black vest with the word “POLICE” on its back

22
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 23 of 46 PageID #:23

handcuffed Mr. Montano.

183. As he was handcuffed, none of the Defendants who detained him explained to

Mr. Montano why he was being detained.

184. The Defendants who detained Mr. Montano then pushed him through the Home

Depot into a private room inside the store on the western side of the building.

185. In the office, one of the Defendants in a vest who detained Mr. Montano and

who spoke Spanish yelled offensive epithets at him, including: “You don’t belong here.”;

“Pinche Venezolano.” (Translated: “Fucking Venezuelan.”); and “You can’t work here, you’re

illegal.”

186. The Defendants in vests also conversed in English and laughed at Mr. Montano.

187. At approximately 12:00 PM, on-duty CPD officers arrived and formally arrested

Mr. Montano.

188. Defendant Reid was present for and participated in the detention and arrest of

Mr. Montano, initiating a criminal complaint against him.

189. The on-duty CPD officers who formally arrested Mr. Montano transported him

to a CPD police station.

190. Mr. Montano was detained at the CPD police station for roughly two hours.

191. Mr. Montano was charged with criminal trespass.

192. Mr. Montano appeared for a criminal hearing before an Illinois court on March

6, 2024.

193. At that hearing Mr. Montano’s case was dismissed.

CPD History of Rights Violations, Unlawful Arrests, and Abuses by Off-Duty Officers

194. The harms experienced by Plaintiffs at the hands of the Chicago Police

23
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 24 of 46 PageID #:24

Department and Home Depot, are a continuation of a long history of CPD abuses of day

laborers, Black and Latino communities, migrants. and other persons of color.

195. The scheme, joint action and conspiracy instituted at Home Depot Store #1986

is not a new one, and in fact, is an amalgamation of past abuses wrapped into one.

196. The Chicago Police Department has a long history of abusing day laborers

seeking work at corners and hardware stores.

197. In 2008, a different group of day laborers sued the City of Chicago, various

Chicago Police Department officers, and Home Depot for a similar series of abuses against

jornaleros. See Chicago Day Laborer Committee, et al. v. City of Chicago, et al., 1:08-cv-03425

(N.D. Ill. 2008).

198. In Chicago Day Laborer Committee, et al. v. City of Chicago, et al., day laborers

stood on public sidewalks seeking work near a manufacturing business and the same Home

Depot store located at 47th and Western. Id.

199. At the manufacturing business, police arrived and detained the plaintiffs while

they were standing on the public sidewalk. The plaintiffs were arrested, taken to a police station,

booked, and charged with criminal trespass. Id.

200. While standing outside the parking lot at the 47th and Western Home Depot,

three of the plaintiffs were asked by a person in a white van inside of the parking lot to approach

them. As the plaintiffs entered the parking lot, unmarked cars approached them and arrested

them for criminal trespass. Id.

CPD’s Policies, Practices and Customs

201. The Chicago Police Department has, for decades, and more specifically, from 2008

to the present, a pattern and practice of Chicago police officers working secondary employment

24
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 25 of 46 PageID #:25

using unreasonable excessive and deadly force and making false arrests.

202. This pattern and practice is evidenced, inter alia, by:

a. The numerous incidents of excessive force and false arrests occurring over

several months in 2023 and 2024 as alleged in this complaint against CPD

officers working secondary employment;

b. From 2006 to 2021, the City has paid more than $10 million to settle at least 32

lawsuits against off-duty Chicago police officers;

c. From 2014 to 2016, there were at least 11 complaints of excessive force and

unnecessary display of a weapon filed against CPD officers working secondary

employment.

d. The facts set forth in Chicago Day Laborer Committee, et al. v. City of

Chicago, et al., 1:08-cv-03425 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

203. CPD did not discipline any, or only a disproportionate few, of the officers named

in these incidents, including the Defendant Officers, and they remain working for the CPD and

maintaining secondary employment.

204. The CPD has maintained, for decades and up until the present, grossly inadequate

policies, practices and customs concerning secondary employment (“moonlighting”) of off-duty

officers, as evidenced by, inter alia:

a. The CPD does not have a policy that requires officers to report and get approval

for engaging in secondary employment, including police-related secondary

employment;

b. The CPD does not tag or categorize whether excessive force complaints involve

secondary employment;

25
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 26 of 46 PageID #:26

c. The CPD bans disclosure of secondary jobs;

d. The CPD does not monitor where or when its officers work secondary

employment;

e. As CPD officers, they are exempt from state licensing requirements and can

therefore carry weapons and handcuffs;

f. CPD officers regularly violate the CPD’s ban on officers working security in

bars and other liquor establishments without consequence;

g. There is no requirement that CPD officers report in to the Department when

beginning or ending their working secondary employment shifts;

h. There is no limit on how many hours an officer can work at his secondary

employment after working an on-duty shift;

i. The officer, rather than the Department, organizes the secondary employment,

controlling where, when and for whom its officers moonlight.

205. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice found, in a report that was written after an

exhaustive pattern and practice investigation of the CPD, and was served on Mayor and City

policymaker Rahm Emanuel:

“That a significant amount of alleged officer misconduct involves officers working

secondary employment …indicat[ing] that there is a need for a thorough review of the

policies and accountability measures related to officers’ secondary employment.

206. In 2017, the City’s Office of the Inspector General recommended that the Chicago

Police Department adopt a more rigorous secondary employment policy to avoid the potential for

officer burnout, corruption, and legal exposure.

207. In 2021, Mayor and City policymaker Lori Lightfoot acknowledged the gross

26
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 27 of 46 PageID #:27

inadequacies of the CPD’s secondary employment policies and practices, and the need to reform

them, but to date the City, its policymakers, and the CPD, despite having actual notice for years,

have taken no meaningful steps to remedy these gross inadequacies.

Injury to Plaintiff Latino Union

208. Defendants’ conduct has injured and continues to injure Plaintiff Latino Union.

209. Plaintiff Latino Union’s mission is to “build[] power with Day Laborers, Household

Workers, and other contracted workers to fight for social and economic justice through education,

organizing, advocacy, and coalition building.”12

210. Defendants’ conduct has frustrated and continues to frustrate Latino Union’s

mission of building power with day laborers to fight for social and economic justice in Chicago.

In response, Latino Union has diverted its limited resources to investigating and remedying

Defendants’ conduct. Those resources would have been expended on other projects if not for

Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint.

211. Latino Union has diverted considerable staff time and monetary resources to

analyzing the nature and scope of Defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct, including interviewing

affected day laborers, supporting their efforts to hold City employees accountable for their

unlawful conduct, educating affected individuals regarding their rights, and learning more about

abuses near Home Depot’s facility and at police stations.

212. Additionally, in order to counteract Defendants’ conduct, Latino Union has taken

several other actions that it would not have taken but for Defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct.

These actions include, but are not limited to:

a. Requiring staff to attend trainings on de-escalating situations involving law

12
About Us, LATINO UNION OF CHICAGO, https://www.latinounion.org/about- (last visited July
30, 2024),

27
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 28 of 46 PageID #:28

enforcement, including a training for the whole staff held on July 31, 2024, and

an additional training for the organization’s Day Labor Organizer.

b. Creating and filling a new Day Laborer Outreach Specialist position focused on

conducting outreach with day laborers near Home Depot Store #1986,

educating them about their rights, connecting them to resources, and training

them on how to address civil rights and other abuses through organizing.

c. Providing transportation for day laborers to criminal court dates arising from

Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

d. Developing a know your rights training for day laborers about their rights when

interacting with law enforcement and the American criminal legal system.

e. Diverting over 300 hours of staff time away from other mission-critical

activities in favor of activities related to combating Defendants’ unlawful

activities at Home Depot Store #1986.

f. Collaborating with reporters from the non-profit organization City Bureau on a

story regarding the alleged abuses experienced by day laborers while working

at Home Depot Store #1986.

g. Participating in a panel discussion on April 27, 2024 designed to inform social

service providers working with newly arrived migrant populations on the rights

of newly arrived migrants with a particular emphasis on their rights while

working as day laborers.

213. All of these activities have required the diversion and expenditure of financial

resources and staff time.

214. As a result of this diversion of resources, Latino Union has had to postpone,

28
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 29 of 46 PageID #:29

abandon, or limit previously planned activities. For example:

a. Latino Union’s Day Labor Organizer is responsible for conducting outreach

with day laborers at ten different street corners throughout the City of Chicago.

Prior to Defendants’ unlawful conduct, he visited workers near Home Depot

Store #1986 approximately once every one or two months. Defendants’

unlawful conduct has forced him to visit Home Depot Store #1986 about every

one or two weeks, forcing him to abandon planned visits to other street corners.

Latino Union has not visited at least four designated street corners in more than

three months, which it would have visited once a month, due to Defendants’

unlawful conduct. As a result, Latino Union has been deprived of information

about the experiences and problems faced by day laborers elsewhere in the City

of Chicago.

b. Latino Union has had to dramatically reduce the time that it spends organizing

household workers, one of the core constituencies of the organization who are

central to its mission, including by decreasing the number of workshops

conducted for that group of workers.

c. Latino Union has scaled back its involvement in multiple policy campaigns

central to its mission, including by reducing the number of meetings it attends

with the Chicago Paid Time Off coalition and the Gig Workers Alliance. As a

result, the priorities of day labors and household workers are underrepresented

in those policy campaigns.

215. Latino Union’s core business activities include providing day laborers with “health

and safety trainings; information about immigration rights; employment skills support; and

29
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 30 of 46 PageID #:30

education about preventing and reporting work accidents and wage theft” through its Day Labor

Program.13 Defendants’ unlawful conduct has interfered with the core business activities of Latino

Union by impairing Latino Union’s ability to provide day laborers with valuable information and

trainings. For example:

a. By detaining day laborers who are lawfully seeking work and holding them

inside Home Depot Store #1986, Defendants’ have created a physical barrier

preventing Latino Union organizers from reaching those day laborers with

information about their rights, and from receiving information from those day

laborers about their experiences. Latino Union staff have visited the area around

Home Depot Store #1986 on multiple occasion while day laborers were being

held inside Home Depot Store #1986.

b. Defendants’ unlawful conduct has created an atmosphere of fear and

intimidation among the day laborers who seek work near Home Depot Store

#1986, preventing some day laborers from speaking with Latino Union about

their experience out of a fear of being targeted for abuse by law enforcement.

This has interfered with Latino Union’s ability to provide day laborers with

information about their rights and to receive information from day laborers

about their experiences.

c. On multiple occasions when unlawfully detaining and harassing day laborers,

Defendants have threatened Latino Union organizers who are in the vicinity of

Home Depot Store #1986 with arrest, interfering with their ability to provide

day laborers with trainings and information about their rights.

13
Day Labor Program/ Programa de Jornaleros, LATINO UNION OF CHICAGO,
https://www.latinounion.org/day-labor-program (last visited July 30, 2024).

30
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 31 of 46 PageID #:31

216. Multiple members of Latino Union have been harmed by Defendants’ unlawful

conduct, including Betuel Camacho, Willian Alberto Gimenez Gonzalez, Luis Gomez, and Juan

Carlos Montano.

217. Latino Union members Betuel Camacho, Willian Alberto Gimenez Gonzalez, Luis

Gomez, and Juan Carlos Montano voluntarily joined the organization and support its mission.

218. Latino Union members Betuel Camacho, Willian Alberto Gimenez Gonzalez, Luis

Gomez, and Juan Carlos Montano are actively involved in this lawsuit— in which they serve as

Individual Plaintiffs. They are involved in major case decisions, receive regular updates about the

case, and have had the opportunity to provide input on and to direct the case.

LEGAL CLAIMS

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Violation of the Fourth Amendment – Excessive Force
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendant CPD Officers)

219. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

220. Count I is alleged against all Defendant CPD Officers.

221. As described in detail above, the Defendant CPD Officers used unreasonable and

excessive force, without legal cause, against Plaintiffs and/or failed to intervene to prevent the use

of excessive force against Plaintiffs, in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

222. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Violation of the Fourth Amendment – False Arrest
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendant CPD Officers)

223. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

31
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 32 of 46 PageID #:32

224. Count II is alleged against all Defendant CPD Officers.

225. The actions of the Defendant CPD Officers in falsely detaining, arresting and

imprisoning Plaintiffs without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and/or failing to intervene

to prevent the false arrest of Plaintiffs violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

226. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments – Unlawful Search and
Seizure of Property
(Plaintiffs Gomez, Montana, Camacho and Gimenez Against All Defendant CPD Officers)

227. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

228. Count III is alleged against all Defendant CPD Officers.

229. The actions by the Defendant CPD Officers in knowingly searching and seizing

Plaintiffs’ property during the events described in the Complaint, without a warrant, probable

cause, or legal justification, violated Plaintiffs’ right to be free from unreasonable search and

seizure of Plaintiffs’ property guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

230. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT IV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Violation of the Fourth Amendment – Unlawful Pretrial Detention
(Plaintiffs Gomez, Montano, Camacho and Gimenez Against All Defendant CPD Officers)

231. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

232. Count IV is alleged against all Defendant CPD Officers.

233. The Defendant CPD Officers caused Plaintiffs to be unreasonably seized, detained,

imprisoned and deprived of their liberty without probable cause to believe that they had committed

32
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 33 of 46 PageID #:33

a crime, in violation of their rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution.

234. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT V – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendant CPD Officers)

235. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

236. Count V is alleged against all Defendant CPD Officers.

237. The Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs, all of whom are Latino day laborers of

Venezuelan or Colombian national origin, to excessive force and/or unlawful detention and arrest,

with discriminatory motive and intent, and racial animus toward each and every Plaintiff

individually and as a group, because of their race and/or ethnicity.

238. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT VI – 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986

Racially Motivated Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiffs of Their Constitutional Rights
(All Plaintiffs Against All Individual Defendant)

239. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

240. Count VI is alleged against all of the Defendant Martinez, Defendant Gaytan,

Defendant Rojas, Defendant Reid, Defendant CPD Officer Does, and Defendants Home Depot

Does.

241. Some or all of the individual Defendants together reached an understanding,

engaged in a course of conduct, and otherwise jointly acted and/or conspired among and between

themselves to commit the unconstitutional overt acts set forth in the facts above.

33
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 34 of 46 PageID #:34

242. Because said conspiracy or conspiracies and the overt acts in furtherance thereof,

including, but not limited to, each and every act alleged in the facts above, were done with the

knowledge and purpose of depriving Plaintiffs, all of whom are Latino day laborers of Venezuelan

or Colombian national origin, of the equal protection of the laws and/or of equal privilege and

immunities under the law, and with racial animus toward each and every Plaintiff individually and

as a group, because of their race and/or ethnicity, and the other victims of this racially motivated

conspiracy, the individual Defendants also deprived Plaintiffs of their right to equal protection of

the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

243. Additionally, or alternatively, these Defendants, knowing that the above § 1985

conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights was about to be committed, and having

the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the acts in furtherance of said

conspiracy, neglected and/or refused to do so, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986.

244. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT VII – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiffs of Their Constitutional Rights
(All Plaintiffs Against All the Individual Defendants)

245. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

246. Count VII is alleged against all the Individual Defendants.

247. Some or all of the individual Defendants agreed between and among themselves

and with other individuals to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, guaranteed by the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as described in the various paragraphs of this Complaint.

248. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the coconspirators engaged in and

facilitated numerous overt acts, including but not limited to those set forth above – such as seizing,

34
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 35 of 46 PageID #:35

detaining, and imprisoning Plaintiffs without probable cause to believe that they had committed a

crime, and physically abusing Plaintiffs – and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity.

249. Each of the individual Defendants was a voluntary participant in the common

venture to deprive Plaintiffs of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Each of the

Defendant Officers personally participated in the unconstitutional conduct or acted jointly with

other Defendants who participated or acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct, or was at least

aware of the conduct or plan, and failed to take action to prevent such conduct from occurring.

250. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT VIII – 42 U.S.C. § 1981

Denial of Equal Protection Based on Race in the Making and Enforcement of Contracts
(All Plaintiffs Against All Individual Defendants)

251. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

252. Count VIII is alleged against all the individual Defendants.

253. Plaintiffs are Latino day laborers of Venezuelan or Columbian national origin and

thereby members of a protected class.

254. These Defendants, with discriminatory motive and intent, and racial animus toward

each and every Plaintiff individually and as a group, because of their race and/or ethnicity,

individually, and/or jointly, and in conspiracy, interfered with Plaintiffs’ protected activity to make

and/or enforce contracts as day laborers and to the right to full and equal benefit of laws.

255. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT IX – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Unlawful Policy and Practice
(All Plaintiffs Against Defendant City of Chicago)

35
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 36 of 46 PageID #:36

256. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

257. Count IX is alleged against City of Chicago.

258. The Defendant CPD Officers acted under the color of law, and under the authority

of, and pursuant to, one or more interrelated de facto policies, practices, and/or customs of the

Chicago Police Department, to violate Plaintiffs’ rights as set forth in the preceding claims.

259. The City of Chicago through its Police Department, Police Superintendent, Police

Board, Mayor, and City Council maintained, at all times relevant to this complaint, interrelated de

facto policies, practices, and customs which included, inter alia:

a. A pattern and practice of the unreasonable use of excessive and deadly force,

including, but not limited to, by officers engaged in secondary employment or

while acting while “off duty”;

b. A pattern and practice of the unreasonable detainment, arrests, imprisonments

and prosecutions, including but not limited to, by officers engaged in secondary

employment or while acting “off duty”;

c. Maintaining grossly inadequate policies and practices concerning secondary

employment and “off duty” officers;

d. The failure to properly train, discipline, supervise, monitor, and control CPD

officers, including, but not limited to, officers working secondary employment

or while “off-duty”;

e. The police code of silence, including, but not limited to, officers working

secondary employment or while “off-duty.”

260. The interrelated policies, practices, and customs alleged above, at all times relevant

this complaint, are or should be well-known within the CPD and to its policymakers.

36
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 37 of 46 PageID #:37

261. The CPD is aware of the harms suffered by Plaintiffs and others as a result of the

interrelated policies, practices, and customs alleged above.

262. The City has implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned CPD’s policies,

practices, and customs alleged above in violation of Plaintiffs’ and others Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights.

263. The City and its police policymakers have acted with deliberate indifference to the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of the acts

and omissions of the City the CPD, and its policymakers, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

rights of Plaintiffs have been violated.

264. The policies, practices, procedures, and customs of the CPD were the direct and

proximate cause (i.e., a moving force) of the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and the

damages they suffered as set forth more fully above.

COUNT X – Illinois State Law Claim

Assault and Battery
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendant Officers)

265. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

266. Count X is alleged against all the CPD Defendant Officers.

267. As described in detail above, the Defendant CPD Officers physically abused

Plaintiffs.

268. The actions of the Defendant CPD Officers were affirmative acts and threatened to

cause or did cause an unpermitted contact of a harmful and/or offensive nature, to which Plaintiffs

did not consent, and thus constitute assault and battery under the laws of the State of Illinois.

269. The actions of the Defendant Officers were committed in a willful and wanton

manner.

37
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 38 of 46 PageID #:38

270. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT XI – Illinois State Law Claim

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(All Plaintiffs Against All Individual Defendants)

271. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

272. Count XI is alleged against all the Defendants

273. The acts and conduct of the individual Defendants were extreme and outrageous,

were rooted in an abuse of power and authority, were undertaken with an intent to cause, or were

in reckless disregard of the probability that their conduct would cause, severe emotional distress

to Plaintiffs, as alleged more fully above. The Defendant Officers’ actions were also willful and

wanton.

274. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT XII – Illinois State Law Claim

False Arrest
(All Plaintiffs Against All Individual Defendants)

275. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

276. Count XII is alleged against all the individual Defendants

277. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT XIII – Illinois State Law Claim

Malicious Prosecution
(Plaintiffs Gomez, Montano, Camacho and Gimenez Against All Individual Defendants)

278. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

38
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 39 of 46 PageID #:39

279. Count XIII is alleged against all the individual Defendants.

280. The individual Defendants individually, jointly and in conspiracy, initiated and

continued false criminal charges against Plaintiffs without probable cause to believe that they had

committed a crime, and they made statements to prosecutors with the intent of exerting influence

and to institute and/or continue judicial proceedings.

281. These Defendants, individually, jointly and in conspiracy, caused Plaintiffs to be

improperly subjected to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These judicial

proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury.

282. These Defendants’ actions were intentional, malicious, willful, and wanton and

exhibited a deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, Plaintiffs rights and safety.

283. The charges against Plaintiffs were terminated in their favor.

284. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT XIV – Illinois State Law Claim

Conspiracy
(All Plaintiffs Against All Individual Defendants)

285. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

286. Count XIV is alleged against all the Individual Defendants.

287. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, the individual Defendants,

acting in concert with other known and unknown coconspirators, conspired by concerted action to

assault and battery, falsely arrest, imprison and maliciously prosecute and continue said

prosecutions, and/or to intentionally inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiffs.

288. In furtherance of the conspiracy, these Defendants committed overt acts set forth

above.

39
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 40 of 46 PageID #:40

289. The misconduct described in this Court was undertaken intentionally, with malice,

willfulness and reckless indifference to the rights of others. These Defendants’ actions were also

willful and wanton.

290. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT XV – Illinois State Law Claim

Gross Negligence
(All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Home Depot, Rojas, Reid, and Defendant Home Depot
John Does)

291. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

292. Count XV is alleged against Home Depot, Allied Universal, Rojas, Soria, Santiago,

Reid, Davis, Zavala and Home Depot John Does.

293. At all relevant times, the Defendant CPD Officers were acting within the scope of

their employment and/or agency as employees and/or agents of Defendants Home Depot.

294. At all relevant times, Defendants Rojas, Reid, and Home Depot John Does were

acting within the scope of their employment and/or agency as employees and/or agents of

Defendants Home Depot.

295. Defendant Home Depot is vicariously liable for the individual actions of their

agents and employees.

296. In addition, Defendant Home Depot had a duty to exercise reasonable case in hiring,

training, maintaining and supervising law enforcement and/or security guards and/or security

companies to provide security related services to Home Depot.

297. At all relevant times, Defendants Home Depot had a duty to ensure any security

officers and/or security guards and/or security companies provide unbiased, police, security and

public services, and act in accordance with the constitutional rights of all members of the public

40
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 41 of 46 PageID #:41

with whom they interact.

298. At all relevant times, Defendant Home Depot acted in contravention of their duty

of care to Plaintiffs, and/or pursuant to their policies and practices, by negligently, carelessly, and

recklessly failing to properly train, supervise, control, discipline, direct, counsel, hire, source and

monitor the security officers while carrying out their duties and responsibilities at Home Depot as

set forth herein.

299. Defendant Home Depot by and through their management and policymakers, were

deliberately indifferent to the rights of Plaintiffs when Defendant established and maintained their

policies and practices and hired their security officers, security guards, and/or security companies

that provide services to Home Depot.

300. Defendant Home Depot knew or should have known, based on complaints,

wrongful arrests, stops, seizures, detainment, arrests, prosecutions, and assaults of day laborers by

the individual Defendants, that there was a dangerous condition on the premises that they failed to

remedy, guard against or warn Plaintiffs about.

301. Defendant Home Depot had the following duties to Plaintiffs:

a. To avoid assault, battery, wrongful detention, arrest, prosecution, and

imprisonment, , and/or other harm or injury to day laborers at or near Home

Depot.

b. To intervene to stop any assault, battery, use of excessive or unwarranted force,

wrongful detention, arrest or seizure of day laborers at or near Home Depot.

c. To avoid putting day laborers in harm’s way by ensuring all security officers

providing security services at Home Depot are without racial biases or known

history of racial profiling, excessive or unwarranted use of force,

41
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 42 of 46 PageID #:42

discrimination, assault and/or false arrest of day laborers.

d. To ensure that security officers providing security services for Home Depot are

properly vetted, trained and supervised to ensure the safety and protection of

day laborers at or near Home Depot.

e. To immediately deescalate any potential confrontations with day laborers at or

near Home Depot in order to avoid using any force against day laborers.

f. To take appropriate measures to ensure that the constitutional rights of day

laborers at or near Home Depot are not violated on their property.

g. To ensure their premises is free of racial bias, harassment and discrimination.

h. To ensure their workplace rules are enforced in a civil and professional manner.

i. To ensure that security officers and/or employees and/or contractors that use

unreasonable and/or excessive force or violence against day laborers are

prohibited from their premises.

j. To ensure that any security company and/or agency working in Home Depot

does so in a manner that does not violate the constitutional rights of the

Plaintiffs.

302. Defendant Home Depot acted in contravention of these duties of care to Plaintiffs

by negligently, carelessly, and recklessly failing to properly train, supervise, control, direct, hire,

monitor and discipline their security personnel and/or security agencies that provide security

related services to Home Depot.

303. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct described in this Count,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT XV – Illinois State Law Claim

Respondeat Superior

42
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 43 of 46 PageID #:43

(All Plaintiffs Against Defendant City of Chicago)

304. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

305. Count XV is alleged against Defendant City of Chicago.

306. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, each of the CPD

Defendants was an employee and agent of the Chicago Police Department and the City of Chicago,

acting at all relevant times within the scope of his employment and under color of law.

307. Defendant City of Chicago is liable for all state law torts committed by the CPD

Defendant Officers as alleged herein under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

COUNT XVI – Illinois State Law Claim

Respondeat Superior
(All Plaintiffs Against Defendant Home Depot)

308. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

309. Count XVI is alleged against Defendant Home Depot.

310. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, each of the individual

Defendants was an employee and agent of Home Depot, acting at all relevant times within the

scope of his employment.

311. Defendant Home Depot is liable for all state law torts committed by the Defendant

Officers as alleged herein under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

COUNT XVII – Illinois State Law Claim

Indemnification
(All Plaintiffs Against Defendant City of Chicago)

312. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

313. Count XVII is alleged against Defendant City of Chicago.

314. In Illinois, pursuant to 735 ILCS 10/9-102, public entities are directed to pay any

tort judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their

43
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 44 of 46 PageID #:44

employment activities.

315. The Defendant CPD Officers acted within the scope of their employment in

committing the misconduct described herein. Therefore, Defendant City of Chicago is liable as

their employer for any resulting damages or award of attorney’s fees.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Individual Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in their favor

against the Defendants by awarding Individual Plaintiffs significant compensatory and punitive

damages against the Individual Defendants and Home Depot, and compensatory damages against

the City of Chicago.

In addition, Individual Plaintiffs and Organizational Plaintiff Latino Union requests that

this Court:

a. Issue an order declaring that Plaintiffs' rights have been violated as alleged

above and that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violative of

the acts cited;

b. Issue an order granting the following injunctive relief:

i. Enjoining the City of Chicago from its policy, practice, and/or custom

of unreasonable use of excessive and force, including but not limited to

by officers engaged in secondary employment or while acting while “off

duty”;

ii. Enjoining the City of Chicago from its policy, practice, and/or custom

of unreasonable detainment, arrests, imprisonments and prosecutions,

including but not limited to by officers engaged in secondary

employment or while acting “off duty”;

44
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 45 of 46 PageID #:45

iii. Enjoining the City of Chicago from its policy, practice, and/or custom

of maintaining grossly inadequate policies and practices concerning

secondary employment and “off duty” officers;

iv. Enjoining the City of Chicago from its policy, practice, and/or custom

of failing to properly train, discipline, supervise, monitor, and control

CPD officers, including, but not limited to, officers working secondary

employment or while “off-duty”;

v. Enjoining the City of Chicago from its policy, practice, and/or custom

of maintaining the police code of silence, including, but not limited to

officers working secondary employment or while “off-duty.”

vi. Enjoining all Defendants from engaging in each of the unlawful

practices, policies, customs, and usages set forth herein, and from

continuing any and all other practices shown to be in violation of

applicable law.

2. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988.

3. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate

and just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.

Dated: August 06, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Kevin L. Herrera

Kevin L. Herrera (ARDC # 6324045)

45
 Case: 1:24-cv-06859 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/24 Page 46 of 46 PageID #:46

Jamitra L. Fulleord (Motion for pro hac vice forthcoming)

Mark H. Birhanu
Isabel Flores-Ganley
RAISE THE FLOOR ALLIANCE
1 N. LaSalle St. Ste 1275
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Ben H. Elson
G. Flint Taylor
Tayleece Paul
PEOPLE’S LAW OFFICE
1180 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Chicago, IL 66042

Chris Williams
WORKER’S LAW OFFICE
2729 N. Magnolia Ave.
Chicago IL 60614

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

46