FILED

9/27/2021 4:15 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – LAW DIVISION CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

JANE DOE and JULIE DOE ) 2020L011493

)
14980543
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
vs. )
) Case No. 2020L011493
MICHAEL JOHNSTON and )
KELLY JOHNSTON )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
)
)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AT LAW

NOW COME Plaintiffs, JANE DOE (“Jane”) and JULIE DOE (“Julie”) (collectively, the

“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, LOFTUS & EISENBERG, LTD., and complain against

the Defendants, MICHAEL JOHNSTON (“Michael”) and KELLY JOHNSTON (“Kelly”)

(collectively, the “Johnstons”), as follows:

NATURE OF CLAIM

The Johnstons hired Jane, a recent college graduate, to provide in-home childcare for their

two young daughters. Within days of hiring her, the Johnstons exposed Jane to x-rated content in

their home. Soon after, they secretly filmed Jane and her close friend Julie by placing hidden

cameras, disguised as ordinary household objects, in the bathroom and other private areas of the

home. They invited Jane and Julie to house-sit, encouraged them to use the private areas where the

cameras were hidden, and secretly filmed them naked. The Johnstons’ actions intimidated and

humiliated Jane Doe and Julie Doe, causing severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs bring this action

not only to regain their own power, but to deter would-be voyeurs and highlight the psychological

damage caused by such abuse, which is too often minimized by our society.
 PARTIES

1. The Plaintiffs bring this action under the fictitious names of Jane Doe and Julie Doe,
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

pursuant to the provisions of 735 ILCS 5/2-401(e). This action is brought under these fictitious

names in order to preserve the safety, privacy, dignity, and reputations of the Plaintiffs.1

2. Jane Doe is an individual and resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

3. Julie Doe is an individual and resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

4. Michael Johnston is an individual and resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

5. Kelly Johnston is an individual and resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

VENUE

6. Venue is proper in accordance with 735 ILCS 5/2-101, as both Defendants reside in Cook

County, Illinois.

FACTS OF CLAIM

i. History and background

7. Jane and Julie are friends and roommates who both recently graduated from DePaul

University.

8. On or about December 30, 2019, the Johnstons hired Jane to work as their home manager,

child caretaker, and personal assistant.

9. Jane’s duties included nanny care for the Johnstons’ two young daughters and managing the

family home, including preparing meals, cleaning, and other household tasks.

10. In her second week on the job, Kelly asked Jane to organize boxes in Kelly’s bedroom

closet.

11. One of the boxes was filled with sex toys and other sexual paraphernalia.

1 By Order dated October 21, 2020, Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed under fictitious names.
2
 12. Jane felt extremely uncomfortable, but she continued working for the Johnstons.

13. In or around January of 2020, the Johnstons requested that Jane house-sit while they were
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

out of town on vacation.

14. They requested that Jane stay at their home overnight, and they encouraged her to use the

master bedroom suite during her stay.

15. The Johnstons invited Julie to accompany Jane while she was house sitting.

16. Julie works as a nanny for two of the Johnstons’ close friends, and the Johnstons have

known her in that capacity since 2019.

17. Before she left, Kelly encouraged Julie and Jane to use the jacuzzi bathtub in the master

bathroom.

18. She also invited them to help themselves to the Johnstons’ wine and beer while they were

away.

19. Jane and Julie accepted the Johnstons’ offer to house-sit.

20. Jane stayed at the Johnston home from January 22, 2020, to January 26, 2020, and Julie

stayed from January 24, 2020, to January 25, 2020.

21. While they were house-sitting, and without their knowledge or consent, the Johnstons’

secretly video-taped Julie and Jane undressed and bathing, using spy cameras they had hidden in the

bathroom and elsewhere.

ii. Discovery of the hidden cameras

22. In February of 2020, the Johnstons once again asked Jane to house-sit overnight.

23. Kelly suggested that Jane could again invite Julie over to keep her company.

3
 24. On the evening of February 14, 2020, as she was about to undress for a bath, Jane

discovered a hidden video camera, disguised as a picture frame, aimed at the bathtub she intended
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

to use.

25. Jane subsequently discovered multiple cameras hidden in the Johnston home, some

disguised to look like ordinary household objects.

26. Jane was extremely shaken by this discovery, so she invited Julie over for assistance and

security.

27. Had they not discovered the cameras, Jane and Julie would have once again undressed in the

private areas of the home where the cameras were located, including the bathroom.

iii. The purpose of the hidden cameras

28. The cameras Jane and Julie discovered were not childcare cameras or “nanny cams”.

29. The cameras were also not security cameras that were not hidden.

30. The Johnstons had separate childcare cameras, which were not hidden, that they used to

monitor the children in their rooms and play areas.

31. They were also not designed to monitor Jane’s job performance while she was nannying.

32. The cameras were placed in private areas of the home that the Johnston children did not

normally use.

33. The hidden cameras were in place and online on both of the occasions that the Johnstons

asked Jane and Julie to house-sit.

34. The Johnston children were not at home on either of these occasions.

35. The Johnstons expressly invited Jane and Julie to use the rooms where the cameras were

hidden while they were house-sitting, including the master bathroom.

4
 36. The cameras were motion activated to record video if there was any activity within the field

of vision.
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

37. On one of the days Jane and Julie were scheduled to house-sit, Michael charged and

positioned a camera so that it was aimed at the jacuzzi bathtub in the master bathroom.

38. The video footage shows Michael positioning the camera, standing in the bathtub, and

reviewing the camera stream on a cell phone to ensure that the bathtub area would be filmed while

the Johnston family was out of town and Jane and Julie were house-sitting.

39. Before leaving town, Kelly expressly encouraged Jane and Julie to use this bathtub during

their stay.

40. Upon information and belief, Kelly and Michael were acting in concert to obtain nude video

footage of Jane and Julie without their knowledge or consent.

41. Upon information and belief, Kelly and Michael captured this footage for their own sexual

gratification.

42. Upon information and belief, Kelly and Michael were attempting to groom Jane and Julie to

involve them in future sexual activities. 2

iv. The video footage.

43. The Johnstons’ hidden cameras worked as intended.

44. The cameras captured nude video footage of both Jane and Julie, without their knowledge or

consent.

45. At least two of the hidden camera devices included Wi-Fi capability and smartphone apps

that allowed the user to view the footage remotely.

2 “Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so
they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.” Nat’l Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Grooming
(2021), https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/ (last accessed Sept. 13, 2021).
5
 46. Upon information and belief, the Johnstons used these apps to view video footage of Jane

and Julie taken through the hidden cameras.

FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

47. Upon information and belief, there is now nude video footage of Jane and Julie on the

servers of the third-party companies that operate the apps used by the Johnstons.

v. After the discovery

48. Since learning about the hidden cameras, Jane and Julie have suffered tremendously.

49. They have both experienced, and continue to experience, severe emotional and

psychological distress.

50. They scour for hidden cameras everywhere, fearing they are being secretly recorded even in

restrooms and other locations where they would normally expect privacy.

51. They are terrified that the Johnstons’ secret recordings have reached, or will reach, the

internet, either through an intentional upload or through a data breach at one of the companies that

makes the camera apps.

52. Jane is now unable to return to work at the Johnston home out of fears for her safety.

53. As a result, the Johnstons constructively terminated Jane’s employment and she was left

jobless.

COUNT I:
INVASION OF PRIVACY – INCLUSION UPON SECLUSION
(Against both Defendants)

54. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate each paragraph in the Statement of Facts as though

fully restated herein.

55. The Johnstons committed unauthorized intrusions or prying into Jane and Julie’s seclusion

by covertly videotaping them while they were undressed, using hidden cameras.

6
 56. The intrusions are of a type that would be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable

person, as the Johnstons captured nude images of both Jane and Julie without their knowledge or
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

consent.

57. The matters intruded upon were private, as the Johnstons secretly recorded Jane and Julie in

areas of the home where they reasonably expected privacy, including the bathroom.

58. The intrusion caused both Jane and Julie significant anguish and suffering.

59. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct, both Jane and Julie suffered

damages, including but not limited to severe emotional distress, psychological trauma, other

damages to be proven at trial, and in Jane’s case, lost wages, benefits, and future earnings.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, JANE DOE and JULIE DOE, respectfully request that this

honorable Court grant judgment in their favor and against the Defendants, MICHAEL JOHNSTON

and KELLY JOHNSTON, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 to be determined at trial, including

compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs of suit, and such further relief as

may be just and appropriate under the circumstances.

COUNT II:
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against both Defendants)

60. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate each paragraph in the Statement of Facts and Count I as

though fully restated herein.

61. The Johnstons engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by intentionally and covertly

videotaping Jane and Julie while they were bathing and undressed.

62. The Johnstons knew that there was a high probability that their conduct would inflict severe

emotional distress on Jane and Julie, and they recklessly disregarded that probability.

63. The Johnstons’ conduct was atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

7
 64. The Johnstons’ conduct caused both Jane and Julie severe emotional distress.

65. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct, both Jane and Julie suffered
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

damages, including but not limited to severe emotional distress, psychological trauma, other

damages to be proven at trial, and in Jane’s case, lost wages, benefits, and future earnings.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, JANE DOE and JULIE DOE, respectfully request that this

honorable Court grant judgment in their favor and against the Defendants, MICHAEL JOHNSTON

and KELLY JOHNSTON, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 to be determined at trial, including

compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs of suit, and such further relief as

may be just and appropriate under the circumstances.

COUNT III:
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF
THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
(Jane Against both Defendants)

66. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate each paragraph in the Statement of Facts and Counts I-

II as though fully restated herein.

67. The Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102, et seq. (the “IHRA”), makes it unlawful

for any employer to engage in sexual harassment against employees or nonemployee performing

services for that employer in the workplace.

68. Jane was an “employee” of Defendants because she was performing services for

remuneration within Illinois for the Defendants. 775 ILCS 5/2-101(A)(1)(a).

69. The Johnstons were “employers” under the Act because they employed Jane, who alleges

sexual harassment, to provide services for renumeration within Illinois. 775 ILCS 5/2-101(B)(1)(b).

70. The Johnstons subjected Jane to sexual harassment prohibited under the IHRA in one or

more of the ways identified in the Statement of Facts and Counts I-II above.

8
 71. The Johnstons subjected Jane to this sexual harassment while she was in the workplace and

engaged in the performance of job-related duties.

FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

72. The Johnstons’ sexual harassment had the effect of substantially interfering with Jane’s

work performance and creating an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment, making

it impossible for her to safely return to her place of employment.

73. The Johnstons’ conduct caused Jane severe emotional distress and resulted in the

constructive termination of her employment and the loss of her income, health insurance, and other

benefits.

74. Jane filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Illinois Human Rights Commission and

received a Notice of Substantial Evidence before timely amending this Complaint.

75. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct, Jane suffered damages, including

but not limited to severe emotional distress, psychological trauma, lost wages, benefits, future

earnings, and other damages to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, JANE DOE, respectfully requests that this honorable Court grant

judgment in her favor and against the Defendants, MICHAEL JOHNSTON and KELLY

JOHNSTON, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 to be determined at trial, including

compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs of suit, and such further relief as

may be just and appropriate under the circumstances.

COUNT IV:
PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Against both Defendants)

76. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate each paragraph in the Statement of Facts and Counts I

through III above as though fully restated herein.

9
 77. Jane and Julie seek a permanent injunction barring the Johnstons from distributing the

footage of Jane and Julie to the internet or to other third parties and barring them from engaging in
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

similar future conduct.

78. Jane and Julie possess clear and ascertainable rights to the private images taken by the

Johnstons without their consent, including rights of privacy and rights to their own image and

likeness.

79. Jane and Julie will suffer irreparable harm if the Johnstons distribute nude images of them to

third parties or to the internet, as such images, once released, would likely remain on the internet

forever, accessible to Jane and Julie’s friends, family, coworkers, and future employers.

80. There is no adequate remedy at law, as money damages alone could not rectify the potential

image or reputational harm caused by releasing nude videos of Jane and Julie to the public.

81. Jane and Julie seek future restrictions against the Johnstons, as they reasonably believe the

Johnstons will engage in similar conduct in the future.

82. The Johnstons began secretly recording Jane, their nanny, within three weeks of her start

date.

83. This suggests that the Johnstons are likely to engage in similar predatory conduct towards

other domestic workers in the future if appropriate restrictions are not put in place.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, JANE DOE and JULIE DOE, respectfully request that this

honorable Court enter an order against the Defendants, MICHAEL JOHNSTON and KELLY

JOHNSTON:

a. Permanently enjoining them from distributing the videos of the Plaintiffs to the

internet or to any third parties;

10
 b. Ordering the return of all copies, physical, digital or otherwise, of the videos of the

Plaintiffs;
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

c. Permanently enjoining them from recording any person without their consent using

hidden camera devices;

d. Permanently enjoining them from using or possessing any covert video recording

devices in their homes or businesses;

e. Barring them from employing in-home domestic workers; and

f. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the

circumstances.

Dated: September 27, 2021

Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiffs, JANE DOE and JULIE DOE.
By: ___/s/ Gail S. Eisenberg_________________
One of their attorneys

Gail Schnitzer Eisenberg

Alexander Loftus
Loftus & Eisenberg, Ltd.
161 N. Clark, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60601
T: 312.899.6625
[email protected]
[email protected]
Firm No. 64600

11
 RULE 222 AFFIDAVIT

I, Gail S. Eisenberg, an attorney, certify that the damages sought in this matter exceed
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

$50,000.00. Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this Rule 222 Affidavit are true
and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such
matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verily believes the same to be true.

By: /s/ Gail S. Eisenberg , Esq.

12
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
FILED DATE: 9/27/2021 4:15 PM 2020L011493

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing First Amended Compliant at Law was served
upon all parties who have appeared and have not been found by the Court to be in default.

/s/ Gail S. Eisenberg

Gail S. Eisenberg

13