IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

IRSHAD LEARNING CENTER, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No.
)
v. )
)
COUNTY OF DUPAGE and ROBERT 1. )
SCHILLERSTROM, ROBERT 1. KARTHOLL, )
1R., 1OHN HAKIM, BARRY A. KETTER, )
TOM LAZ, MICHAEL LOFTUS, )
1IM MCNAMARA, 1ACK L. MURPHY, )
1OHN CURRAN, DIRK ENGER, PAUL )
FICHTNER, RITA GONZALEZ, )
1.R. MCBRIDE, MICHAEL MCMAHON, )
DEBRA OLSON, PATRICK O`SHEA, )
DONALD PUCHALSKI, 1IM ZAY, )
in their individual capacities, )
) 1ury Trial Demanded
Defendants, )

COMPLAINT

PlaintiII IRSHAD LEARNING CENTER ('ILC¨), an Illinois not-Ior-proIit corporation,
by and through its counsel, Kevin Vodak, oI Council on American-Islamic Relations, Chicago
Chapter (CAIR-Chicago), complaining oI DeIendants, COUNTY OF DUPAGE and ROBERT J.
SCHILLERSTROM, ROBERT J. KARTHOLL, JR., JOHN HAKIM, BARRY A. KETTER,
TOM LAZ, MICHAEL LOFTUS, JIM MCNAMARA, JACK L. MURPHY, JOHN CURRAN,
DIRK ENGER, PAUL FICHTNER, RITA GONZALEZ, J.R. MCBRIDE, MICHAEL
MCMAHON, DEBRA OLSON, PATRICK O`SHEA, DONALD PUCHALSKI, and JIM ZAY,
in their individual capacities, states as Iollows.
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This is an action to enIorce PlaintiII`s rights under the First and Fourteenth
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 49
2

Amendments to the United States Constitution, under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act oI 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to
authorize PlaintiII to use its building within the limits oI unincorporated DuPage County Ior
religious purposes, namely to conduct Thursday evening prayer services, Saturday aIternoon
religious education, and other religious services according to the Islamic calendar. PlaintiII also
presents claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against certain DuPage County oIIicials in their
individual capacities. PlaintiII presents additional state law claims, including under the Illinois
Religious Freedom Restoration Act and statutes authorizing declaratory and iniunctive relieI.
2. PlaintiII seeks declaratory relieI, mandatory iniunctive relieI, and damages to
redress the unlawIul conduct and discriminatory practices engaged in by DeIendants.
1URISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has iurisdiction over the aIorementioned Iederal claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331. The state law claims are so closely related to the Iederal questions as to create
supplemental iurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
4. Venue is proper in this district and division, as the land where PlaintiII seeks to
conduct its religious activities is in DuPage County, Illinois, and all oI the DeIendants reside in
this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2).
PARTIES
5. PlaintiII, ILC, is a religious institution incorporated under the Illinois Not-For-
ProIit Corporation Act. Since March 2008, ILC has been the owner oI record oI certain premises
located at 25W030 75th Street, Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois, reIerred to herein as the
'Subiect Property¨ or '25W030 75th St.¨
6. DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, is an Illinois municipal corporation and is a
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 49
3

non-home rule unit oI local government under Illinois law.
7. DeIendant, ROBERT J. SCHILLERSTROM ('SCHILLERSTROM¨), is
Chairman oI the DuPage County Board and is named in his individual capacity.
8. DeIendant, ROBERT J. KARTHOLL, JR. ('KARTHOLL¨), is the Chairman oI
DuPage County`s Zoning Board oI Appeals and is named in his individual capacity.
9. DeIendant, JOHN HAKIM ('HAKIM¨), is a member oI DuPage County`s Zoning
Board oI Appeals and is named in his individual capacity.
10. DeIendant, BARRY A. KETTER ('KETTER¨), is a member oI DuPage County`s
Zoning Board oI Appeals and is named in his individual capacity.
11. DeIendant, TOM LAZ ('LAZ¨), is a member oI DuPage County`s Zoning Board
oI Appeals and is named in his individual capacity.
12. DeIendant, MICHAEL LOFTUS ('LOFTUS¨), is a member oI DuPage County`s
Zoning Board oI Appeals and is named in his individual capacity.
13. DeIendant, JIM MCNAMARA ('MCNAMARA¨), is a member oI DuPage
County`s Zoning Board oI Appeals and is named in his individual capacity.
14. DeIendant, JACK L. MURPHY ('MURPHY¨), is a member oI DuPage County`s
Zoning Board oI Appeals and is named in his individual capacity.
15. DeIendant, JOHN CURRAN ('CURRAN¨), is a member oI the DuPage County
Board and is named in his individual capacity.
16. DeIendant, DIRK ENGER ('ENGER¨), is a member oI the DuPage County
Development Committee, as well as a member oI the County Board, and is named in his
individual capacity.
17. DeIendant, PAUL FICHTNER ('FICHTNER¨), is a member oI the DuPage
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 49
4

County Board and is named in his individual capacity.
18. DeIendant, RITA GONZALEZ ('GONZALEZ¨), is a member oI the DuPage
County Development Committee, as well as a member oI the County Board, and is named in her
individual capacity.
19. DeIendant, J.R. MCBRIDE ('MCBRIDE¨), is a member oI the DuPage County
Board and is named in his individual capacity.
20. DeIendant, MICHAEL MCMAHON ('MCMAHON¨), is a member oI the
DuPage County Board and is named in his individual capacity.
21. DeIendant, DEBRA OLSON ('OLSON¨), is a member oI the DuPage County
Development Committee, as well as a member oI the County Board, and is named in her
individual capacity.
22. DeIendant, PATRICK O`SHEA ('O`SHEA¨), is a member oI the DuPage County
Board and is named in his individual capacity.
23. DeIendant, DONALD PUCHALSKI ('PUCHALSKI¨), is a member oI the
DuPage County Board and is named in his individual capacity.
24. DeIendant, JIM ZAY ('ZAY¨), is a member oI the DuPage County Board and is
named in his individual capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Zoning Ordinance
25. The COUNTY OF DUPAGE adopted the DuPage County Zoning Ordinance (the
'Zoning Ordinance¨) and incorporated it as Chapter 37 oI the DuPage County Code. The
Zoning Ordinance is incorporated herein by reIerence in its entirety. (The Zoning Ordinance is
available online at http://www.sterlingcodiIiers.com/IL/DuPage°20County/index.htm, but is not
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 4 of 49
5

physically appended due to its bulk.)
26. Administration and enIorcement oI the Zoning Ordinance is governed by the
Zoning Enabling Act within the Illinois Counties Code, 55 ILCS 5/5-12001 et. seq.
27. All unincorporated land in DuPage County, outside the limits oI cities, villages,
and incorporated towns which have in eIIect municipal zoning ordinances, is categorized into
one oI several zoning districts, including generally residential, business, oIIice, and industrial.
Zoning Ordinance 37-601.
28. The Subiect Property is located within an R-1 Single-Iamily residence district (an
'R-1 District¨).
29. At all relevant times, Section 37-701.1 oI the Zoning Ordinance permitted
primary structures Ior numerous uses as oI right in R-1 Districts, including daycare homes,
excavation, golI courses, group homes, model homes, and temporary oIIices.
30. At all relevant times, Section 37-701.2 oI the Zoning Ordinance permitted
numerous conditional uses in R-1 Districts, subiect to Iirst obtaining a 'conditional use¨ approval
Ior such use Irom the COUNTY OF DUPAGE, aIter a public hearing in accordance with the
requirements oI Section 37-1413 oI the Zoning Ordinance. Religious institutions are listed as
one oI the authorized conditional uses in the R-1 district regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.
31. The Zoning Ordinance, while not speciIically deIining religious institutions,
describes such institutions as 'Chapels, churches, synagogues, temples and other religious
institutions including parsonages and rectories.¨ Section 37-701.2. The Ordinance does not
mention mosques or other Iacilities Ior Muslim religious activities with speciIicity, but such
activities are within Section 37-701.2.
32. Section 37-302 oI the Zoning Ordinance deIines 'conditional use¨ as: 'A use
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 5 of 49
6

either public or private having some special impact that requires a careIul review oI the location,
design, conIiguration, and the desirability oI permitting its establishment on any given site. Its
use may or may not be appropriate in a particular location depending on a weighing, in each
case, oI the local impact and eIIect.¨
33. A conditional use under the Zoning Ordinance is a special use as authorized and
used by the Illinois Counties Code, 55 ILCS 5/5̻12009.5, and should be approved other than
when the use at the location carries eIIects that render it unsuitable at the location as compared to
other properties in the zoning district Ior which the use is authorized.
34. Section 37-1413.5 Standards Ior Conditional Uses provides that the DuPage
County Zoning Board oI Appeals (the 'ZBA¨):
|S|hall make Iindings as to each conditional use petitioner. The Iindings shall be
based upon the evidence presented to it in each speciIic case demonstrating
consideration with respect to the Iollowing:
A. That the granting oI any conditional use is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent oI this chapter, and will not be iniurious to the
neighborhood, detrimental to the public welIare, or in conIlict with the
county`s comprehensive plan Ior development: and speciIically that the
granting oI the conditional use will not:
1. Impair an adequate supply oI light and air to adiacent property:
2. Increase the hazard Irom Iire or other dangers to said property:
3. Diminish the value oI land and buildings in the vicinity oI the proposed
conditional use:
4. Unduly increase traIIic congestion in the public streets and highways:
5. Increase the potential Ior Ilood damages to adiacent property:
6. Incur additional public expense Ior Iire protection, rescue or relieI: or
7. Otherwise impair the public health, saIety, comIort, morals or general
welIare oI the inhabitants oI DuPage County, nor will it otherwise create a
nuisance.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 6 of 49
7

The ILC`s Religious and Educational Activities
35. The ILC has been an Illinois Not-For-ProIit Corporation and a 501(c)(3) religious
organization since 2000.
36. The ILC has approximately 75 members, most oI whom live in DuPage County,
Illinois. The ILC provides religious worship and education catering to the Muslim community.
Its members are predominantly oI Middle Eastern origin and/or descent. Many oI its members
are immigrants who came to the United States seeking political liberty, religious Ireedom, and
economic opportunity. The ILC members aspire to engage their community as Iull members and
responsible citizens, with a spirit oI tolerance, harmony, and understanding.
37. The ILC normally has two regular weekly meetings: a Thursday evening prayer
service at Community Centers or College oI DuPage Ior all members and a Saturday aIternoon
session Iacilitating religious education led by volunteer instructors Ior youth currently taking
place at the Islamic Foundation School in Villa Park, Illinois. This class includes Persian
language education. Persian language has special religious signiIicance Ior ILC members, as
many leading texts oI theology, philosophy, history, and poetry are in Persian.
38. AIter actively searching Ior a permanent Iacility to accommodate its religious
activities, the ILC purchased the Subiect Property in March 2008.
39. The ILC plans to use the Subiect Property as a religious institution, including a
Thursday evening prayer service, beginning around 7:00 p.m., and a Saturday aIternoon religious
education class. The ILC also plans to use the property Ior other typical religious uses, including
board meetings, open houses, Iuneral services, and wedding services. Based on the space
available in the existing building on the Subiect Property, the ILC plans to have no more than
one hundred (100) worshipers during prayer services and no more than eighty-Iive (85) persons
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 7 of 49
8

attending educational classes. The ILC outlined these and other planned uses Ior the Subiect
Property in its conditional use application.
40. The ability to conduct, the cost oI conducting, and the quality oI each religious
educational activity listed in the preceding paragraphs is signiIicantly impacted by the ability oI
ILC to obtain and occupy a building or Iacility suitable Ior such uses.
The Subject Property
41. The Subiect Property is situated at 25W030 75th Street, is depicted in Exhibit A,
and is legally described as Iollows:
LOT 16 IN HOBSON HOMELANDS UNIT NO. 2, A SUBDIVISION IN
SECTIONS 28 AND 29, IN TOWNSHIP 38, RANGE 10 EAST OF THE THIRD
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED APRIL 25, 1959, AS DOCUMENT 929229, IN DUPAGE
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

42. The Subiect property, amounting to approximately 2.9 acres, was purchased by
the Balkwill Family in 1994 Ior use as a primary residence and as a private school. From 1994
until 2008, a private school was operating on the Subiect Property.
43. In 2005, the Balkwill Family received a conditional use permit Irom DuPage
County to use the Subiect Property Ior a private school, which allowed sixty-Iive (65) students
and a staII oI Iive (5) to participate in daily school activities. DuPage County Ordinance 5146-
05.
44. Prior to the ILC`s purchase oI the property, the Balkwill Family converted the
garage to a classroom and added another classroom onto the second Iloor as well as increased the
parking area in the Iront oI the home. During the private school use oI the Subiect Property, the
Balkwills had class and school meetings Ior teachers and parents.
45. In March 2008, the ILC purchased the Subiect Property Irom the Balkwill Family,
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 8 of 49
9

and the Balkwill School completed its term in June 2008.
46. The Subiect Property has Irontage along the north side oI 75th Street between
Naper Boulevard and Wehrli Road. 75th Street is a Iour lane divided road designated as a
Strategic Regional Arterial roadway by the State oI Illinois and serves an average oI over 68,000
vehicles daily.
47. The Subiect Property is bordered on the north by the Fox Meadows single Iamily
residential subdivision, north oI which is Hobson Road. West oI the Subiect Property is also the
Fox Meadows residential subdivision, beyond which is a commercial strip center, the Fox Run
Square Shopping Center, which houses Dominick`s Fine Foods, Blockbuster, Ace Hardware, and
Hallmark, among others. To the east oI the Subiect Property is a single Iamily home which also
Ironts onto 75th Street, and Iurther to the east on the north side oI 75th Street is the Peter Pan
Early Learning Center. South oI 75th Street is New Day Montessori School, single Iamily
homes, cellular towers, and a proposed small commercial strip center.
48. ILC applied Ior a conditional use Ior a religious institutional use, the various
aspects oI which are highlighted in this Complaint. The original and Iinal applications Iiled by
ILC are voluminous and number in the hundreds oI pages and, as a result, are not attached to the
Complaint.
The ILC`s Satisfaction of Zoning Ordinance Standard for Conditional Use
49. In November 2008, Houseal Lavigne Associates, acting as market consultants Ior
the City oI Naperville in its 75th Street Corridor Study, published a study that Iound that
additional residential development in the area was unlikely, and the strongest market support lies
in retail similar to the existing Fox Run and Market Meadows. Houseal noted that its Iindings
were consistent with an absence oI new residential development within the 75th Street Corridor.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 9 of 49
10

50. Within approximately one-halI mile radius Irom the Subiect Property, there are
Iive (5) other religious institutions.
A. No Impairment of Adequate Supply of Light and Air Adjacent to Property
51. Due to ILC using the same structures in place Ior the Balkwill School, DuPage
County Ordinance 5146-05 already Iound that the Subiect Property 'will not impair an adequate
supply oI light and air to the adiacent property.¨ No developments on the Subiect Property have
occurred subsequent to DuPage County passing Ordinance 5146-05.
B. No Increase in Hazard from Fire or Other Dangers to Property
52. Due to ILC using the same structures in place Ior the Balkwill School, DuPage
County Ordinance 5146-05 already Iound that using the property Ior a school 'will not increase
the hazard Irom Iire or other dangers to said property because the Balkwills are not doing any
new construction at the site and all structures on the property currently meet all other building
and Iire codes.¨
53. The Subiect Property is inspected annually by the Naperville Fire Department and
the State Fire Marshall. Furthermore, the County Stormwater Permitting Manager, on behalI oI
the Stormwater Division oI the Department oI Economic Development, was consulted and
expressed no concerns regarding ILC`s proposed use oI the Subiect Property. The proposed use
by ILC did not pose an increased hazard Irom Iire or other dangers to property.
C. No Diminishment in Value of Land and Buildings in Vicinity of Proposed Use
54. DuPage County previously approved the Subiect Property Ior a private school Ior
elementary age students.
55. While the Subiect Property is bordered on three sides by residential homes, within
1000 Ieet oI the Subiect Property, there are currently two (2) religious institutions and a
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 10 of 49
11

commercial strip center. Based on the ease oI direct, non-residential access Irom 75th Street to
the Subiect Property as well as the surrounding uses, the ILC religious institution remains
consistent with the mixed use neighborhood along the 75th Street corridor and Iully aligns with
the trend oI development in the area.
56. Use oI the Subiect Property by ILC Ior a religious institution would not diminish
the Iair current market value or the use and enioyment oI any oI the adiacent properties.
D. No Undue Increased Traffic Congestion in the Public Streets and Highways
57. The Subiect Property Iormerly supported a private day school Ior up to 70 people,
and thus ILC`s proposed use Ior 27 to 39 vehicles on a less Irequent basis and during oII-peak
hours is directly comparable to the previous approved conditional use. Ordinance 5146-05 Iound
that the Balkwill School`s use oI the Subiect Property will not increase traIIic congestion in the
public streets and highways.
58. ILC`s primary activities on the Subiect Property occur on Thursdays aIter 6:00
p.m. and Saturdays Irom 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Given the limited number oI vehicles accessing
the property outside oI the evening rush hour, as well as the large amount oI traIIic already using
75th Street, traIIic congestion will not be increased Irom the proposed use.
59. The Lisle Township Highway Commissioner veriIied, prior to the County Board`s
Iinal decision, that he had no obiections or concerns to ILC`s proposed conditional use and no
obiections have arisen since the decision.
E. No Increase in the Potential for Flood Damages to Adjacent Property
60. On February 25, 2009, the County Stormwater Permitting Manager, on behalI oI
the Stormwater Division oI Economic Development, veriIied that he had no concerns regarding
the approval oI ILC`s conditional use permit.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 11 of 49
12

61. ILC`s use poses no increased risk oI Ilooding. Such proposed use remains
consistent with the Balkwill School`s use oI the Subiect Property, previously approved in
Ordinance 5146-05, insoIar as stormwater planning was concerned.
F. No Additional Public Expense for Fire Protection, Rescue or Relief
62. The Subiect Property Iormerly supported a private day school Ior up to 70 people,
and thus PlaintiII`s proposed use is directly comparable to the previous approved use, thereby
not requiring any additional Iire protection services Irom the County.
63. Even in the event oI Iuture growth, Iire and liIe saIety codes would apply to
reduce or eliminate Iire hazards and no new additional local Iire or emergency equipment or
planning would be required.
G. No Impairment of the Public Health, Safety, Comfort, Morals, or General
Welfare of the Inhabitants of DuPage County

64. ILC`s goal is to conduct religious education or worship using the existing
buildings on the Subiect Property in a manner that creates little or no disturbance to its
residential neighbors.
65. The proposed use oI the Subiect Property remains consistent with Section 37-
701.2 oI the Zoning Ordinance, explicitly authorizing a religious institution as a conditional use.
All oI the properties adiacent to the Subiect Property within the zoning district, by deIinition in
the Zoning Ordinance, would also be permitted to engage in religious conditional use.
66. Section 37-701.2 constitutes a legislative determination that a religious
institutional use is appropriate at the Subiect Property, absent exceptional circumstances that do
not exist in other similarly zoned properties.
ILC`s Original Application
67. On August 19, 2008, the ILC Iiled an application Ior conditional use with the
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 12 of 49
13

County oI DuPage. At the time, the Conditional Use Application was Ior a learning center, with
a variance to allow parking in the Iront and side yard.
68. AIter discussion with ILC representatives and inquiring about the nature oI ILC`s
activities, the zoning administrator suggested that ILC change the conditional use application
Irom a learning center to a religious institution.
69. As suggested by the zoning administrator, the ILC withdrew its previous
application and Iiled a conditional use application Ior a religious institution on December 11,
2008 (the 'Original Application¨). This application also withdrew the request Ior a variance.
70. In conIormity with the Zoning Ordinance and the DuPage County Code, the
ILC`s Original Application requested use Ior 100 worshippers, 27 parking spaces, and an
additional 12 'banked¨ parking spaces to be constructed iI deemed necessary by the DuPage
County Plan Commission and Board. The ILC would use existing structures.
71. The DuPage County Board already entered Iindings that all structures on the
Subiect Property comply with all applicable drainage, Iire, and building codes, DuPage County
Ordinance 5146-05, and all other relevant County oIIicials and authorities approved the property
as in compliance with the County`s codes.
72. All structures would comply with the codes noted in paragraph 71 under ILC`s
proposed use oI the Subiect Property.
73. The ILC and its counsel held open door meetings with neighbors at the Subiect
Property on November 18, 2008 and January 13, 2009.
February 26, 2009 ZBA Meeting
74. On February 26, 2009, the ZBA held its Iirst public hearing on the ILC`s Original
Application. Scott Day, counsel Ior the ILC, presented evidence in support oI the ILC`s position
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 13 of 49
14

and, as in all meetings throughout the process, several ILC representatives made themselves
available to testiIy.
75. ZBA member JOHN HAKIM questioned Scott Day on whether there will be 'any
animal sacriIices¨ as part oI 'typical religious activities,¨ as well as whether the ILC would use
loudspeakers on the property. Mr. Day conIirmed that no such sacriIices would be conducted
and no loudspeakers would be used on the property.
76. The representative oI the obiecting neighbors, Dan Wallace, suggested that the
ZBA consider ILC`s speculative Iuture use oI the property rather than the application as
submitted. (HereinaIter, 'Speculative Use¨ will reIer to allegations oI Iuture use oI the Subiect
Property by the ILC not requested in their application). Wallace argued that the board must
consider Speculative Use because it was 'ludicrous¨ Ior the ZBA to consider the ILC`s assertion
that it did not plan to grow.
77. Wallace contended to the ZBA that neighbors acquired inIormation by observing
ILC members while perIorming religious worship and education at other sites. As established by
representatives oI the other sites, ILC did not even attend one oI the events listed in Wallace`s
submission, and the neighbors` purported evidence did not establish any need Ior ILC to expand
the existing structure oI the Subiect Property.
78. On its Iace, the evidence presented at the February 26, 2009 was suIIicient to
require the ZBA to recommend granting the conditional use permit.
March 12, 2009 ZBA Meeting
79. The February 26, 2009 ZBA meeting was continued until March 12, 2009, to
allow the ILC to respond to concerns raised by the obiectors.
80. The ILC, through its counsel, submitted a rebuttal binder oI materials addressing
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 14 of 49
15

the concerns raised by the neighbors at the February 26, 2009 ZBA hearing.
81. The rebuttal submittal properly noted that the all obiections at the February 26,
2009 meeting were those inherently associated with religious institutions, including parking
Iacilities, lighting standards, and traIIic.
82. With regards to alleged current use by ILC and the Speculative Use, the ILC
provided written correspondence Irom a representative oI each Iacility where the ILC had
operated in recent years. Each letter conIirmed that the ILC was never the subiect oI any
complaints, complied with all load limitations and hourly limits, and that ILC`s current use oI
these Iacilities was not inconsistent with the uses in the Original Application. Each letter
commended ILC`s use oI the property, and although each representative oIIered to answer
questions relating to ILC`s use oI the Iacilities, neither the ZBA, County staII, nor the County
Board made any inquiries.
83. The ILC inIormed the ZBA that obiectors` allegations regarding Speculated Use
were unIounded, irrelevant, and unconstitutional to consider.
84. Although the COUNTY OF DUPAGE would exceed its lawIul authority by
unilaterally imposing a 10:30 p.m. worship limit, the ILC oIIered to comply with a selI-imposed
10:30 p.m. end to worship services, and to make that time a condition oI approval
notwithstanding the impact on planning Ior religious worship.
85. The ILC identiIied every religious institution within Iour (4) miles oI the Subiect
Property, and every religious institution conditional use approved by the DuPage County,
consisting oI Christian religious institutions. Every church, including the twenty-three (23) in
unincorporated DuPage County, is adiacent to residential land uses and has a parking lot. None
oI these special use ordinances restrict hours oI worship.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 15 of 49
16

86. The record available as oI March 12, 2009 was suIIicient to require the ZBA to
recommend granting the conditional use permit.
May 14, 2009 ZBA Meeting
87. The ZBA meeting was again continued until May 14, 2009, which ZBA Chairman
KARTHOLL stated would be the Iinal public hearing on the matter.
88. At the meeting, obiectors continued to emphasize Speculative Use. No new
inIormation was presented regarding the Original Application.
89. There was no evidence in the record which would be legally suIIicient Ior the
ZBA to issue a Iinding against the ILC`s Original Application.
1une 4, 2009 ZBA Meeting
90. At a meeting on June 4, 2009, the ZBA unanimously (LAZ was not present)
recommended denial oI the Original Application to the County Board.
91. The ZBA Iailed to adopt any Iindings oI Iact regarding the Original Application,
as required by Section 37-1413.5 oI the Ordinance. Instead, ZBA members indicated that they
were voting on Speculative Use.
92. ZBA member MICHAEL LOFTUS also stated he was recommending denial
because the ILC had not 'met |its| case Ior demonstrating that the conditional use is in harmony
with the intent and purpose oI the law, not iniurious to the neighborhood, didn`t impair the public
welIare, etc.¨
93. Notwithstanding a record devoid oI any Iacts disputing whether the ILC use was
religious, ZBA Chairman KARTHOLL even questioned 'whether the principal use is a religious
institution or a house oI worship.¨ He Iurther stated: 'I am not satisIied that it made it over that
hurdle. My initial suspicions were raised when the petition was named as a learning center.¨
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 16 of 49
17

94. In direct conIlict with Chairman KARTHOLL`s comments, DuPage County
zoning oIIicials had previously recommended that, because the ILC intended to conduct religious
education and worship services at the Subiect Property, the ILC should obtain a conditional use
as a religious institution. Furthermore, ILC has been recognized under Iederal and state law as a
religious institution since 2000. Lastly, education is one Iunction oI nearly every religious
institution in the United States.
The CDC Rejects ZBA`s Recommendation
95. The County Development Committee (the 'CDC¨) met to discuss the application
on June 16, 2009, but tabled the case until July 7, 2009, when the CDC voted unanimously to
remand the ILC`s case back to the ZBA with speciIic direction to the ZBA to publicly deliberate
and to adopt their Iindings on the Original Application. The CDC ordered the ZBA to 'issue
Iindings in accordance with the petition that has been filea bv the petitioner and include adopted
rationale and explanation Ior Iindings as they have been submitted¨ (emphasis added).
96. On August 6, 2009, the ZBA held a remand hearing. At that hearing, ZBA
Chairman KARTHOLL stated that the CDC 'remanded the case to us so that the board could
clariIy its Iindings oI Iact in the matter.¨
97. Chairman KARTHOLL stated that the case would be continued until September
10, 2009, but there was neither a motion to continue nor a vote to continue.
September 10, 2009 ZBA Meeting
98. On September 10, 2009, the ZBA unanimously (LAZ abstained and LOFTUS was
absent) agreed to adopt Iindings oI Iact and recommended denial oI the ILC`s conditional use
application.
99. ZBA Chairman KARTHOLL stated that the previous conditional use granted to
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 17 of 49
18

the Balkwill Family was irrelevant to the ILC`s conditional use application.
100. Contrary to the clear record beIore the ZBA, Chairman KARTHOLL obiected
that the ILC had not presented 'any sort oI live testimony¨ during the prior ZBA hearings.
101. ILC members were present at every meeting, oIIered substantially uncontested
testimony through their attorney, and oIIered to answer questions by the ZBA. None oI the ZBA
members mentioned this issue during the hearings, and representatives Irom the ILC were
present in all hearings.
102. Chairman KARTHOLL reiterated his obiection that the ILC was not a religious
institution, noting that 'it wasn`t crystal clear that the principal use to which the property would
be put is or would be a religious purpose.¨
103. In clear disregard Ior the CDC`s speciIic mandate, the ZBA made Iindings based
on Speculative Use, such as 250 people in attendance and 100 parking spaces needed, and made
no Iindings oI Iact regarding the Original Application. The Iindings and decision to avoid
deciding the Original Application violated Section 37-1413 oI the Zoning Ordinance.
The CDC Again Rejects ZBA`s Recommended Denial
104. On October 6, 2009, the CDC tabled the ILC`s case until October 20, 2009. At
the October 20, 2009 meeting, the CDC received supportive comments oI several ILC members
and voted unanimously (5-0) to amend the Original Application with conditions and to
recommend approval oI the ILC`s application as amended. This amended application (the 'CDC-
Amended Application¨) included the Iollowing twelve (12) conditions:
1. Restrict hours oI use to 10:30 PM Ior all events/activities.
2. Allow one live-in caretaker.
3. Allow short-term occupancy by visiting scholar/clergy Ior not longer than two
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 18 of 49
19

consecutive weeks (with Iamily).
4. Exterior lighting not to exceed County standards at all lot lines.
5. No exterior sound ampliIication.
6. Landscaping depicted on Ex. 3 |to the CDC recommendation| to be
maintained and Iull evergreen vegetation screening along west property line to
be added.
7. Restrict occupancy to the lesser oI 100 people or the number allowed based on
building occupancy oI principal structure.
8. Restrict worship services and other special events to principal structure and
require education classes to be conducted within principal structure.
9. Restrict number oI parking spaces to 27.
10.Compliance with all other County codes and ordinances.
11.Make relieI limited to operation oI subiect site by Irshad Learning Center.
12.An amended site plan and landscape plan reIlecting these conditions shall be
required to obtain any permit Ior the subiect property.
105. Between October 21, 2009 and November 9, 2009, the ILC revised its site plan
many times (at signiIicant expense) to accommodate all requests by County`s zoning staII, the
CDC, and other County Board members.
Fall 2009 County Board Meetings
106. DuPage County Board tabled ILC`s application at the October 27, 2009 hearing.
107. On November 5, 2009, the ILC, their counsel, and neighbors attended an inIormal
meeting hosted by CDC Chair Anthony Michelassi to discuss the conditions in the CDC-
Amended Applications. On recommendations oI County Board member Jim Healy
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 19 of 49
20

(representative oI the Naperville district) made prior to the meeting, a proposal was made to
place Iurther conditions on approving PlaintiII`s application and revisions to the site plan Ior the
property, including but not limited to the Iollowing:
a. ReconIigure the parking lot in the Iront to include 39 spaces.
b. Installation oI berming around the west, northwest, and east portion oI the
parking and circulation areas to be a minimum oI 30 inches in height.
c. Planting oI trees on top oI the berming to be at least 6 Ieet tall.
d. No occupancy or use oI the building will be allowed until all oI the
improvements are completed.
e. The hours oI operation Ior worship service and education classes will be
limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m.
I. All parking lot lighting shall be turned oII by 10:45 p.m.
108. On November 10, 2009, the County Board met to consider the ILC`s application
Ior a conditional use as a religious institution.
109. CDC Chair Michelassi moved to amend the ordinance by adding the additional
conditions proposed during the November 5, 2009 public meeting. No vote was taken on the
amendments noted in paragraph 107.
110. No vote on either approval or denial oI the application was taken during the
November 10, 2009 Board meeting, whether the original or CDC-amended application.
111. One non-CDC Board member, Puchalski, suggested a motion to remand the
application with the additional proposed amendments to the ZBA Ior Iurther deliberation.
112. The County Board approved (15-2) the motion to remand the application back to
the ZBA to discuss the additional proposed amendments noted in paragraph 107.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 20 of 49
21

113. On inIormation and belieI, such a remand to the ZBA was unprecedented by the
County Board Ior conditional use permits. In a letter to ZBA Chairman Kartholl dated
December 7, 2009, Mr. Day reserved the rights oI the ILC to obiect to the process.
Alavi Foundation News
114. The Alavi Foundation is a private New York not-Ior-proIit organization devoted
to the promotion and support oI Islamic culture and Persian language.
115. As part oI its mission, the Alavi Foundation provides Iinancing Ior a variety oI
charitable purposes, including interest Iree loans to college students: loans to public charities:
contributions to public charities such as Doctors without Borders and Mercy Corps: contributions
to institutions oI higher education such as Harvard University, Harvard Law School, and
Columbia University: and loans to local Islamic religious organizations to purchase property.
116. AIter years oI going through the normal and customary application process, the
Alavi Foundation provided partial Iinancing to the ILC to help assist in the purchase oI the
Subiect Property. The ILC has no other connection with the Alavi Foundation.
117. On November 12, 2009, the U.S. Attorney`s OIIice Ior the Southern District oI
New York announced the Iiling oI an amended civil complaint seeking asset IorIeiture by the
Alavi Foundation because oI its alleged associations with the Iranian National Bank.
118. The ILC is not implicated in the Alavi Foundation case and has never been
implicated in any wrongdoing by any government oIIicials.
119. Several obiectors suggested to DuPage County Board members that they should
deny the ILC`s conditional use application because oI its Iinancial history with the Alavi
Foundation.
120. On inIormation and belieI, obiectors` Ialse assertions oI a connection between
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 21 of 49
22

ILC and the IorIeiture proceeding against the Alavi Foundation Iurther inIluenced the ZBA,
CDC, and County Board members to vote against the ILC`s conditional use application.
December 7, 2009 ZBA Meeting
121. On December 7, 2009, the ZBA held a 'special public hearing,¨ in response to the
County Board`s decision to remand the matter back to the ZBA.
122. ZBA Chairman KARTHOLL noted that the deliberations had been completed
weeks ago, stating that the 'ZBA record on this matter is in the can.¨ Chairman KARTHOLL
stated that the purpose oI the hearing was to allow the obiectors to hear the conditions and
express their views on the twelve (12) conditions approved at the October 20, 2009 CDC
meeting. Such a purpose contradicted the Board`s direction to the ZBA to deliberate directly on
the CDC Chair`s recommendations proposed at the November 10, 2009 meeting.
123. One non-neighbor woman, Virginia Petru, testiIied that the conditional
application should be denied because oI alleged Alavi Foundation connections.
124. Mr. Day, ILC`s counsel, obiected that the scope, purpose, and procedures Ior the
meeting were not clear, and he asked Ior clariIication Irom Chairman KARTHOLL, to which
KARTHOLL responded that he could not oIIer any clariIication.
125. AIter statements Irom the neighbors about the Speculative Use, the ZBA
unanimously (7-0) voted to recommend denial oI the CDC-amended application.
December 15, 2009 CDC Meeting
126. On December 15, 2009, the CDC held a meeting to consider the conditional use
permit with conditions.
127. At the meeting, Peter Poteres, a neighbor, voiced his concerns regarding the
alleged ILC aIIiliation with the Alavi Foundation.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 22 of 49
23

128. The CDC voted 3-1 to recommend the conditional use permit again to the County.
Two members abstained Irom voting because this was the same as the recommendation Irom the
previous meeting on October 20, 2009, Ior which they had already voted in Iavor. Member
DEBRA OLSON voted against the application.
129. No relevant legal or Iactual changes occurred between the CDC`s original
October 20, 2009 unanimous vote to recommend that application and the December 15, 2009
vote.
130. The main intervening act between October 20, 2009 and December 15, 2009 was
the increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric propagated by obiectors to Board members.
Events Preceding 1anuary 12, 2010 DuPage County Board Meeting
131. Prior to the Iinal vote by the DuPage County Board, Board members received
numerous messages contending that ILC was engaged in illegal activities as a Muslim
organization.
132. On January 11, 2010, Virginia Petru oI Naperville, Illinois emailed all oI the
DuPage County Board members making allegations about connections between the ILC and the
Alavi Foundation, including the statement: 'You MUST NOT GRANT APPROVAL on this
conditional use oI residential property to Irshad, UNTIL YOU HAVE COMPLETE AND
ABSOLUTE clearance Irom our local FBI and Homeland Security. Again . . . as President
Obama said last week . . . PLEASE connect the dots.¨
133. Prior to the January 12, 2010 meeting, a group calling themselves the Naperville
Tea Patriots posted their opposition to the ILC`s application on their website. The website
reIerenced Alavi Foundation`s support Ior the ILC and contained many links to inIormation
regarding 'radical Islam¨ in the United States.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 23 of 49
24

134. The Tea Patriot`s website included a link to a Word document download entitled
'MUST READ!¨ The downloaded document is a letter dated January 4, 2010 and is addressed
to 'Naperville City Council members.¨ The letter contained the Iollowing assertions:
a. It was sent to public oIIicials and newspapers in the Naperville area.
b. The letter provides 'much needed background inIormation that ties together
some inIormation regarding the Irshad Learning Center` zoning issue in
Naperville, IL.¨
c. The ILC was lying to DuPage County oIIicials.
d. The ILC intended to spread 'Radical-Jihadist Islamic Ideology`!!¨.
e. The ILC intended to build upon its conditional use application to gradually
create a 'compound¨ to spread 'Islamic-Jihaaist iaeologies/ teachings.¨
I. The ILC is synonymous with Alavi Foundation.
g. The ILC is synonymous with or otherwise connected to a variety oI national
and international Islamic and terrorist organizations.
h. The ILC`s conditional use application is a Iorm oI 'Stealth Jihad.¨
135. The Tea Patriot`s website encouraged individuals to contact the County Board
members and attend the January 12, 2010 meeting.
136. On January 8, 2010, Board member ZAY emailed an obiecting neighbor stating,
'I have been Iighting this same battle in my district Ior years with these kinds oI uses coming
into residential neighborhoods. I have tried to change the zoning Ior religious institutions, social
clubs, etc. but it was voted down by the board. You have a right when you buy your property to
assume it will continue to be a residential area, not have these kinds oI uses.¨
137. Based upon his own written statements, ZAY reIused to vote according to the
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 24 of 49
25

Ordinance which, by including religious institutions as a conditional use in residential zoning
areas, accepts as a matter oI law that religious use is in harmony with residential use as
contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance.
1anuary 12, 2010 DuPage County Board Meeting
138. On January 12, 2010, the DuPage County Board held a meeting to consider
Ordinance #ZP-Z08-074A, the ILC`s conditional use application with conditions imposed by the
CDC.
139. Individuals protested outside oI the meeting. On inIormation and belieI, these
individuals were members or aIIiliated with the anti-Muslim group Act! For America and the
Tea Patriots. Protesters made Ialse accusations against the ILC and its members.
140. At the meeting, Constance Gavras, leader oI the South Elgin chapter oI the anti-
Muslim group Act! For America, made comments stating that the ILC 'is the Alavi Foundation,¨
was 'actively involved in deception,¨ and suggested that ILC was a 'Iront group¨ Ior terrorist
activity.
141. On a motion to adopt the amended conditional use application with the CDC-
imposed conditions in paragraph 104, the County Board voted 10-7 against the application.
SpeciIically, Board members CURRAN, ENGER, FICHTNER, GONZALEZ, MCBRIDE,
MCMAHON, OLSON, O`SHEA, PUCHALSKI, and ZAY voted against the application.
Notably, members ENGER and GONZALEZ voted against the application, aIter previously
voting in Iavor oI the same conditions at the CDC meetings on October 20, 2009 and December
15, 2009.
County Clerk`s 1anuary 15, 2010 Letter
142. On January 15, 2010, the DuPage County Clerk sent the ILC a letter veriIying that
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 25 of 49
26

the ILC`s petition to enact the ordinance Ior their application was denied. This letter included a
detailed recommendation Irom the ZBA to deny the application.
143. The ZBA`s January 2010 recommendation contains inaccuracies as to the course
oI events, such as the County Board requesting that the ZBA, at a meeting held on December 7,
2009, allow public comment on the CDC`s recommendations and adopt new Iindings.
144. Despite ILC`s application pending Ior approximately seventeen (17) months,
DeIendants never issued a decision on the original conditional use application Ior a religious
institution as submitted by PlaintiII.
145. DeIendant SCHILLERSTROM, Chairman oI the County Board, Iailed to ensure
that the County Board voted on PlaintiII`s original application or that all procedures were
Iollowed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance in considering PlaintiII`s application.
146. Based on the County Board`s Iinal vote against the CDC-amended application,
and in light oI multiple attempts to have the original application voted on, ILC has exhausted its
administrative remedies prior to Iiling this lawsuit.
COUNT I
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA):
Unequal Treatment and Discrimination

147. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) as iI set Iorth herein. Count I is presented against DeIendant COUNTY OF
DUPAGE.
148. The COUNTY OF DUPAGE`s procedures in its Ordinance Ior determining
conditional uses (Section 37-1413) and the DeIendants` activities, acting through the ZBA, CDC,
and County Board, to deny the PlaintiII`s conditional use application constitute a 'system oI land
use regulations, under which a government makes or has in place Iormal or inIormal procedures
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 26 of 49
27

or practices that permit the government to make individualized assessments oI the proposed uses
Ior the property involved,¨ within the meaning oI Section 2(a)(2)(C) oI RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc(2)(a)(2)(C).
149. DeIendants denied PlaintiII`s application Ior a conditional use as a religious
institution Ior the same property that was previously authorized Ior a substantially similar use to
a secular school, thereby violating the unequal treatment provision in Section 2(b)(1) oI
RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(b)(1).
150. On inIormation and belieI, the DeIendants have also Ireely granted conditional
use applications Ior non-religious institutional uses in similar circumstances.
151. DeIendants applied diIIerent standards and procedures in considering the
PlaintiII`s application Ior conditional use as a Muslim religious institution than applied in
considering applications Ior similar non-Muslim religious conditional uses. Such disparate
treatment oI PlaintiII`s conditional use application violates the anti-discrimination provision in
Section 2(b)(2) oI RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(b)(2).
152. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the RLUIPA, PlaintiII, its oIIicers,
directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars
have suIIered the Iollowing damages:
a. Loss oI Iree exercise oI religion:
b. Loss oI Ireedom oI assembly:
c. Loss oI Ireedom oI speech:
d. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
e. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 27 of 49
28

I. Expenses incurred in purchasing, owning, and maintaining the Subiect
Property while not being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education:
and
g. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Declare and order that the DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE`s actions violate RLUIPA
and are thereIore invalid and void as they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI that property as a religious institution as proposed by
the PlaintiII in its original conditional use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
enIorcing or endeavoring to enIorcing the Ordinance or its regulations so as to prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in the manner proposed in the
original conditional use application:

D. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
interIering in any manner with PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in
the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

E. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:

F. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest:

G. Award compensatory damages against DeIendant in Iavor oI PlaintiII:

H. Award PlaintiII`s attorneys` Iees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b):
and

Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 28 of 49
29

I. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary.
COUNT II
RLUIPA: Substantial Burden

153. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) and paragraphs one hundred Iorty-eight (148) through one hundred IiIty-one
(151) as iI set Iorth herein. Count II is presented against DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE.
154. DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE violated Section 2(a) oI RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc(2)(a), by substantially burdening PlaintiII`s Iree exercise oI religion in its denial oI
PlaintiII`s application Ior conditional use oI the Subiect Property as a religious institution in the
manner proposed in the original conditional use application, and also in the manner proposed in
the conditional use application as amended by the CDC.
155. The COUNTY OF DUPAGE has no compelling governmental interest that is
served by its actions relating to denying PlaintiII`s application Ior conditional use.
156. Even iI the COUNTY OF DUPAGE had a compelling governmental interest in
denying PlaintiII`s use oI the property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use
application and in the manner proposed in the conditional use application as amended by the
CDC, the COUNTY OF DUPAGE`s decision was not narrowly tailored to achieve its
governmental interest nor was it the least restrictive means oI Iurthering such interest.
157. Further, as established above, DeIendant has no lawIul authority to deny
PlaintiII`s application Ior conditional use as a religious institution.
158. Lastly, the DeIendants grossly prolonged the process and denied ILC any timely
means through which it could satisIy administrative controls.
159. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the RLUIPA, PlaintiII, its oIIicers,
directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 29 of 49
30

have suIIered the Iollowing damages:
a. Loss oI Iree exercise oI religion:
b. Loss oI Ireedom oI assembly:
c. Loss oI Ireedom oI speech:
d. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
e. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
I. Expenses incurred in purchasing, owning, and maintaining the Subiect
Property while not being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education:
and
g. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Declare and order that the DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE`s actions violate RLUIPA
and are thereIore invalid and void as they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI that property as a religious institution as proposed by
the PlaintiII in its original conditional use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
enIorcing or endeavoring to enIorcing the Ordinance or its regulations so as to prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in the manner proposed in the
original conditional use application:

D. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
interIering in any manner with PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in
the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 30 of 49
31


E. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:

F. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest:

G. Award compensatory damages against DeIendant in Iavor oI PlaintiII:

H. Award PlaintiII`s attorneys` Iees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b):
and

I. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary.

COUNT III
Violation of U.S. Constitution Free Exercise Clause - First and Fourteenth Amendments

160. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) and paragraphs one hundred Iorty-nine (149) through one hundred IiIty-one (151)
as iI set Iorth herein. Count III is presented against DeIendants COUNTY OF DUPAGE,
SCHILLERSTROM, KARTHOLL, HAKIM, KETTER, LAZ, LOFTUS, MCNAMARA,
MURPHY, CURRAN, ENGER, FICHTNER, GONZALEZ, MCBRIDE, MCMAHON, OLSON,
O`SHEA, PUCHALSKI, and ZAY.
161. The Iorgoing actions by the DeIendants constitute an unlawIul impairment and
burden on the rights oI PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters,
members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars to the Iree exercise oI religion, in violation oI
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
162. The acts or omissions alleged herein constitute reckless or callous indiIIerence to
PlaintiII`s Iederally protected rights, entitling it to seek punitive damages against the DeIendants
named in their individual capacities.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 31 of 49
32

163. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies,
teachers, and scholars have suIIered the Iollowing damages:
a. Loss oI Iree exercise oI religion:
b. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
c. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
d. Expenses incurred in purchasing, owning, and maintaining the Subiect
Property while not being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education:
and
e. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Declare and order that the DeIendants` actions are invalid, void, and unconstitutional as
they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent PlaintiII`s development as use oI that
property as a religious institution as proposed by the PlaintiII in its original conditional
use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
enIorcing or endeavoring to enIorcing the Ordinance or its regulations so as to prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in the manner proposed in the
original conditional use application:

D. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
interIering in any manner with PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in
the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 32 of 49
33


E. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:

F. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest:

G. Award compensatory damages against DeIendants, and punitive damages against
DeIendants named in their individual capacities, in Iavor oI PlaintiII:

H. Award PlaintiII`s attorneys` Iees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b):
and

I. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary.
COUNT IV
Violation of Free Speech and Assembly Clauses of U.S. Constitution -
First and Fourteenth Amendments

164. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) and paragraphs one hundred Iorty-nine (149) through one hundred IiIty-one (151)
as iI set Iorth herein. Count IV is presented against DeIendants COUNTY OF DUPAGE,
SCHILLERSTROM, KARTHOLL, HAKIM, KETTER, LAZ, LOFTUS, MCNAMARA,
MURPHY, CURRAN, ENGER, FICHTNER, GONZALEZ, MCBRIDE, MCMAHON, OLSON,
O`SHEA, PUCHALSKI, and ZAY.
165. PlaintiII`s proposed use oI the Subiect Property as a religious institution included
engaging in speech protected by the Iree speech clause oI the First Amendment, such as prayer,
preaching, scriptural recitation, poetic perIormances, and teaching.
166. The Subiect Property was also to be used by PlaintiII to peaceIully assemble Ior
religious worship and education. As part oI the practice oI Islam, the PlaintiII, its oIIicers,
directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars
also engage in Shura, a process oI collective consultation Ior the common good.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 33 of 49
34

167. By denying the PlaintiII`s conditional use application, DeIendants denied oI
PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies,
teachers, and scholars the ability to engage in this constitutionally protected speech, in violation
oI the Iree exercise clause in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
168. The Iorgoing actions by DeIendants constitute an unlawIul inIringement and
burden on the PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members,
students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars to the exercise and enioyment oI the Ireedom oI
assembly, in violation oI the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
169. The acts or omissions alleged herein constitute reckless or callous indiIIerence to
PlaintiII`s Iederally protected rights, entitling it to seek punitive damages against the DeIendants
named in their individual capacities.
170. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies,
teachers, and scholars have suIIered the Iollowing damages:
a. Loss oI Iree exercise oI religion:
b. Loss oI Ireedom oI assembly:
c. Loss oI Ireedom oI speech:
d. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
e. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
I. Expenses incurred in purchasing, owning, and maintaining the Subiect
Property while not being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education:
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 34 of 49
35

and
g. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Declare and order that the DeIendants` actions are invalid, void, and unconstitutional as
they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent PlaintiII`s development as use oI that
property as a religious institution as proposed by the PlaintiII in its original conditional
use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
enIorcing or endeavoring to enIorcing the Ordinance or its regulations so as to prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in the manner proposed in the
original conditional use application:

D. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
interIering in any manner with PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in
the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

E. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:

F. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest:

G. Award compensatory damages against DeIendants, and punitive damages against
DeIendants named in their individual capacities, in Iavor oI PlaintiII:

H. Award PlaintiII`s attorneys` Iees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b):
and

I. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary.

Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 35 of 49
36

COUNT V
Violation of U.S. Constitution Equal Protection Clause - Fourteenth Amendment

171. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) as iI set Iorth herein. Count V is presented against DeIendants COUNTY OF
DUPAGE, SCHILLERSTROM, KARTHOLL, HAKIM, KETTER, LAZ, LOFTUS,
MCNAMARA, MURPHY, CURRAN, ENGER, FICHTNER, GONZALEZ, MCBRIDE,
MCMAHON, OLSON, O`SHEA, PUCHALSKI, and ZAY.
172. DeIendants denied PlaintiII`s application Ior a conditional use as a religious
institution Ior the same property that was previously authorized Ior a substantially similar use to
a secular school, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause oI the Fourteenth Amendment,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
173. On inIormation and belieI, the DeIendants have also Ireely granted conditional
use applications Ior non-religious institutional uses in similar circumstances.
174. DeIendants applied diIIerent standards and procedures in considering the
PlaintiII`s application Ior conditional use as a Muslim religious institution than applied in
considering applications Ior similar non-Muslim religious conditional uses. Such disparate
treatment oI PlaintiII`s conditional use application violates PlaintiII`s right to equal protection
under the laws.
175. The acts or omissions alleged herein constitute reckless or callous indiIIerence to
PlaintiII`s Iederally protected rights, entitling it to seek punitive damages against the DeIendants
named in their individual capacities.
176. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the Fourteenth Amendment, PlaintiII, its
oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and
scholars have suIIered the Iollowing damages:
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 36 of 49
37

a. Loss oI Iree exercise oI religion:
b. Loss oI Ireedom oI assembly:
c. Loss oI Ireedom oI speech:
d. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
e. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
I. Expenses incurred in purchasing, owning, and maintain the Subiect Property
while not being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education: and
g. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Declare and order that the DeIendants` actions are invalid, void, and unconstitutional as
they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent PlaintiII`s development as use oI that
property as a religious institution as proposed by the PlaintiII in its original conditional
use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
enIorcing or endeavoring to enIorcing the Ordinance or its regulations so as to prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in the manner proposed in the
original conditional use application:

D. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
interIering in any manner with PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in
the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

E. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 37 of 49
38


F. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest:

G. Award compensatory damages against DeIendants, and punitive damages against
DeIendants named in their individual capacities, in Iavor oI PlaintiII:

H. Award PlaintiII`s attorneys` Iees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b):
and

I. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary.
COUNT VI
Declaratory 1udgment Under Illinois Law - Compliance with Zoning Standards

177. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) as iI set Iorth herein. Count VI is presented against DeIendant COUNTY OF
DUPAGE.
178. Based on the Ioregoing Iacts, there is an actual controversy between the parties
that is likely to be redressed by court action, in that PlaintiII has an interest in using the Subiect
Property Ior religious worship and educational purposes, and DeIendants have opposed this
interest.
179. PlaintiII`s proposed use oI the Subiect Property as a religious institution Iully
satisIies the requirements oI the Zoning Ordinance. The conditional use remains in harmony
with the general purpose and intent oI the Zoning Ordinance. The conditional use will not be
iniurious to the neighborhood, detrimental to the public welIare, or in conIlict with the County`s
comprehensive plan Ior development.
180. ILC`s proposed use satisIies all seven (7) conditional use standards listed in
Section 37-1413.5 oI the Zoning Ordinance.
181. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that an application Ior a special use permit
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 38 of 49
39

may not be denied on the ground that the use was not in harmony with the surrounding
neighborhood. Citv of Chicago Heights v. Living Wora Outreach Full Gospel Church ana
Ministries. Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 1, 21 (2001). The burden was on the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to
prove that any adverse eIIects on the surrounding properties that PlaintiII`s proposed use would
cause is 'unique and diIIerent Irom the adverse eIIect¨ that an ordinary house oI worship would
cause. Ia. at 21-22. No one submitted any such prooI, and the inclusion oI religious institutions
in the Zoning Ordinance Ior R-1 districts establishes that PlaintiII`s proposed use is in harmony
with the general zoning plan.
182. Throughout belabored administrative proceedings Irom February 2009 through
January 2010, the DeIendants, acting through the ZBA and the County Board, repeatedly denied
and reIused to consider the PlaintiII`s application Ior a conditional use as a religious institution.
183. The ZBA never provided Iindings oI Iact and recommendations relating to the
conditional use application as submitted but instead provided Iindings oI Iact relating to the
Ieared Speculative Use.
184. DeIendants` actions, acting through the ZBA and County Board, to deny
PlaintiII`s original application Ior conditional use as a religious institution, was arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable, malicious, unconstitutional, against the maniIest weight oI the
evidence presented to the ZBA and County Board, and in violation oI the county zoning enabling
statutes oI the State oI Illinois (55 ILCS 5/5-12001, et. seq.), when PlaintiII`s proposed use oI the
Subiect Property meets the standards set Iorth in Section 37-1413.5 oI the Ordinance.
185. DeIendants` actions, acting through the ZBA and County Board, to deny
PlaintiII`s application as amended by the CDC Ior conditional use as a religious institution, was
arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, malicious, unconstitutional, against the maniIest weight oI
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 39 of 49
40

the evidence presented to the ZBA and County Board, and in violation oI the county zoning
enabling statutes oI the State oI Illinois (55 ILCS 5/5-12001, et. seq.), when PlaintiII`s proposed
use oI the Subiect Property meets the standards set Iorth in Section 37-1413.5 oI the Ordinance.
186. DeIendants` actions, acting through the ZBA and County Board, to reIuse to
consider PlaintiII`s application with amendments by the CDC Chair Ior conditional use as a
religious institution, was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, malicious, unconstitutional, against
the maniIest weight oI the evidence presented to the ZBA and County Board, and in violation oI
the county zoning enabling statutes oI the State oI Illinois (55 ILCS 5/5-12001, et. seq.), when
PlaintiII`s proposed use oI the Subiect Property meets the standards set Iorth in Section 37-
1413.5 oI the Ordinance.
187. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the law, PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors,
Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars have
suIIered the Iollowing damages:
a. Loss oI Iree exercise oI religion:
b. Loss oI Ireedom oI assembly:
c. Loss oI Ireedom oI speech:
d. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
e. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
I. Expenses incurred in purchasing, owning, and maintaining the Subiect
Property while not being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education:
and
g. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 40 of 49
41

administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Declare and order that the DeIendant COUTY OF DUPAGE`s actions are invalid, void,
and unconstitutional as they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent PlaintiII`s
development as use oI that property as a religious institution as proposed by the PlaintiII
in its original conditional use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest: and

D. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary,
including a iust and proper assessment oI corresponding prospective relieI to (1) enioin
Iurther violations, (2) return Iunds paid to the County during the process, and (3) make all
declarations necessary to allow the use to proceed.

COUNT VII
De Novo Review -- 55 ILCS 5/5̻ ̻̻ ̻12012.1

188. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) and one hundred seventy-eight (178) through one hundred eighty-seven (187) as
iI set Iorth herein. Count VII is presented against DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE.
189. Section 5-12012.1 oI the Illinois Counties Code, 55 ILCS 5/5̻12012.1, provides
that a county board`s decision in regard to a special use application shall be subiect to de novo
iudicial review as a legislative decision.
190. ILC`s proposed use satisIies all seven (7) conditional use standards listed in
Section 37-1413.5 oI the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the proposed use satisIies the standards
oI a special use under the Zoning Enabling Act in the Illinois Counties Code, as interpreted by
applicable caselaw.
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 41 of 49
42

WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Declare and order that DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE`s actions are invalid, void,
and unconstitutional as they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent PlaintiII`s
development as use oI that property as a religious institution as proposed by the PlaintiII
in its original conditional use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest: and

D. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary,
including a iust and proper assessment oI corresponding prospective relieI to (1) enioin
Iurther violations, (2) return Iunds paid to the County during the process, and (3) make all
declarations necessary to allow the use to proceed.
COUNT VIII
Injunctive Relief Under Illinois Law - Compliance with Zoning Standards

191. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) and one hundred seventy-eight (178) through one hundred eighty-seven (187) as
iI set Iorth herein. Count VIII is presented against DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE.
192. PlaintiII will suIIer irreparable damage in the absence oI relieI, and a presumption
oI irreparable harm arises Irom the DeIendants` violations oI County, Illinois, and Iederal law.
193. DeIendants` reIusal to grant PlaintiII a conditional use permit, aIter belabored
administrative proceedings Irom February 2009 through January 2010, was arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, malicious, unconstitutional, against the maniIest weight oI the evidence presented
to the ZBA and County Board, and in violation oI the county zoning enabling statutes oI the
State oI Illinois (55 ILCS 5/5-12001 et. seq.), when PlaintiII`s proposed use oI the Subiect
Property meets the standards set Iorth in Section 37-1413.5 oI the Ordinance.
194. PlaintiII has suIIered the deprivation oI clearly ascertainable rights to the
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 42 of 49
43

Iollowing:
a. Operate a lawIul and proper conditional use Ior religious institutional
purposes at the Subiect Property:
b. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
c. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
d. Expenses incurred in purchasing, owning, and maintaining the Subiect
Property while not being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education:
and
e. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
enIorcing or endeavoring to enIorcing the Ordinance or its regulations so as to prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in the manner proposed in the
original conditional use application:

B. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
interIering in any manner with PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in
the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:

D. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest: and

E. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary,
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 43 of 49
44

including a iust and proper assessment oI corresponding prospective relieI to (1) enioin
Iurther violations, (2) return Iunds paid to the County during the process, and (3) make all
declarations necessary to allow the use to proceed.

COUNT IX
Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

195. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) and one hundred seventy-nine (179) through one hundred eighty-six (186) as iI
set Iorth herein. Count IX is presented against DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE.
196. Section 15 oI RFRA provides that no government in the State oI Illinois may
substantially burden a person`s exercise oI religion 'unless it demonstrates that application oI the
burden to the person (i) is in Iurtherance oI a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the
least restrictive means oI Iurthering that compelling governmental interest.¨ 775 ILCS 35/15.
197. DeIendants substantially burdened the religious exercise oI the PlaintiII, its
oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and
scholars, by denying PlaintiII`s application Ior conditional use as proposed by the PlaintiII in its
original conditional use application and in the manner proposed in the conditional use
application as amended by the CDC.
198. The COUNTY OF DUPAGE has no compelling governmental interest that is
served by its actions relating to denying PlaintiII`s application Ior conditional use.
199. Even iI the COUNTY OF DUPAGE had a compelling governmental interest in
denying PlaintiII`s use oI the property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use
application and in the manner proposed in the conditional use application as amended by the
CDC, the COUNTY OF DUPAGE`s decision was not narrowly tailored to achieve its
governmental interest nor was it the least restrictive means oI Iurthering such interest.
200. Further, as established above, DeIendant has no lawIul authority to deny
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 44 of 49
45

PlaintiII`s application Ior conditional use as a religious institution.
201. Lastly, the DeIendants grossly prolonged the process and denied ILC any timely
means through which it could satisIy administrative controls.
202. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the Illinois Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members,
students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars have suIIered the Iollowing damages:
a. Loss oI Iree exercise oI religion:
b. Loss oI Ireedom oI assembly:
c. Loss oI Ireedom oI speech:
d. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
e. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
I. Expenses incurred in purchasing and maintain the Subiect Property while not
being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education: and
g. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:

A. Declare and order that DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE`s actions are invalid, void,
and unconstitutional as they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent PlaintiII`s
development as use oI that property as a religious institution as proposed by the PlaintiII
in its original conditional use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 45 of 49
46

enIorcing or endeavoring to enIorcing the Ordinance or its regulations so as to prevent
PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in the manner proposed in the
original conditional use application:

D. Issue an order oI iniunction restraining DeIendant, COUNTY OF DUPAGE, its oIIicers,
agents, employees, and attorneys on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis Irom
interIering in any manner with PlaintiII`s development and use oI the Subiect Property in
the manner proposed in the original conditional use application.

E. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:

F. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest:

G. Award compensatory damages against DeIendants in Iavor oI PlaintiII:

H. Award PlaintiII`s attorneys` Iees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 775 ILCS 35/20: and

I. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary.
COUNT X
Violation of Free Exercise Clause of Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 3

203. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Iorty-six (146) and one hundred seventy-nine (179) through one hundred eighty-six (186) as iI
set Iorth herein. Count X is presented against DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE.
204. The Iorgoing actions by the DeIendants constitute an unlawIul impairment and
burden on the rights oI PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters,
members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars to the Iree exercise oI religion, in violation oI
Article I, Section 3 oI the Illinois Constitution.
205. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the Illinois Constitution, PlaintiII, its
oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and
scholars have suIIered the Iollowing damages:
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 46 of 49
47

a. Loss oI Iree exercise oI religion:
b. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
c. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship and education:
d. Expenses incurred in purchasing and maintain the Subiect Property while not
being allowed to use it Ior religious worship and education: and
e. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
A. Declare and order that the DeIendant COUTY OF DUPAGE`s actions are invalid, void,
and unconstitutional as they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent PlaintiII`s
development as use oI that property as a religious institution as proposed by the PlaintiII
in its original conditional use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:

D. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest: and

E. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary,
including a iust and proper assessment oI corresponding prospective relieI to (1) enioin
Iurther violations, (2) return Iunds paid to the County during the process, and (3) make all
declarations necessary to allow the use to proceed.
COUNT XI
Violation of Free Speech and Assembly Clauses of Illinois Constitution -
Article I, Sections 4 and 5

206. PlaintiII incorporates the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 47 of 49
48

Iorty-six (146) and one hundred seventy-nine (179) through one hundred eighty-six (186) as iI
set Iorth herein. Count XI is presented against DeIendant COUNTY OF DUPAGE.
207. By denying the PlaintiII`s conditional use application, DeIendants denied oI
PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies,
teachers, and scholars the ability to engage in this constitutionally protected speech, in violation
oI the Iree exercise clause in Article I, Section 4 oI the Constitution oI the State oI Illinois.
208. The Iorgoing actions by DeIendants constitute an unlawIul inIringement and
burden on the PlaintiII, its oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members,
students, Iamilies, teachers, and scholars to the exercise and enioyment oI the Ireedom oI
assembly, in violation oI Article I, Section 5 oI the Constitution oI the State oI Illinois.
209. By virtue oI the Ioregoing violations oI the Illinois Constitution, PlaintiII, its
oIIicers, directors, Iinancial contributors, supporters, members, students, Iamilies, teachers, and
scholars have suIIered the Iollowing damages:
a. Loss oI Ireedom to speak, write, and publish Ireely:
b. Expenses incurred in attempting to secure a conditional use permit:
c. Expenses incurred by having to secure alternative Iacilities Ior religious
worship, education, and speech:
d. Expenses incurred in purchasing and maintain the Subiect Property while not
being allowed to use it Ior religious worship, education, and speech: and
e. The loss oI any timely mechanism whatsoever through which ILC could meet
administrative regulations and proceed with protected exercise oI religion,
assembly, and speech.
WHEREFORE, Ior the Ioregoing reasons, PlaintiII requests that this Court:
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 48 of 49
49

A. Declare and order that the DeIendant COUTY OF DUPAGE`s actions are invalid, void,
and unconstitutional as they relate to the Subiect Property and prevent PlaintiII`s
development as use oI that property as a religious institution as proposed by the PlaintiII
in its original conditional use application:

B. Declare and order that PlaintiII shall have the right to develop and use the Subiect
Property in the manner proposed in the original conditional use application:

C. Issue an order oI mandatory iniunction directing the COUNTY OF DUPAGE to either
approve a conditional use ordinance or reIlect the iudgment on the zoning map that
includes the Subiect Property:

D. Retain iurisdiction to grant relieI Irom any minor building code, zoning, or set back
requirements that may be imposed by the COUNTY OF DUPAGE but do not serve a
compelling government interest: and

E. Award any other and Iurther damages and relieI that this Court deems iust or necessary,
including a iust and proper assessment oI corresponding prospective relieI to (1) enioin
Iurther violations, (2) return Iunds paid to the County during the process, and (3) make all
declarations necessary to allow the use to proceed.
1URY TRIAL DEMAND

210. PlaintiII requests a iury trial on all questions oI Iact and law raised by the
Complaint.
RespectIully submitted,
IRSHAD LEARNING CENTER, PlaintiII,


By: /s/Kevin Vodak
KEVIN VODAK
Attorney Ior PlaintiII
Attorney #6270773
Council on American-Islamic Relations,
Chicago Chapter (CAIR-Chicago)
28 East Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Ph: 312.212.1520
Fax: 312.212.1530
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 49 of 49
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1-1 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 1-2 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:10-cv-02168 Document 2 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful