I have completed my initial investigation of the above matter and consistent with my previous promise to you, I am hereby providing you with the advanced notice that I plan to proceed with the filing of our initial administrative complaint no later than Monday, November 27, 2000.
Subsequently, Ms. Figueroa will proceed with her civil rights claim against your client, City of Milwaukee Mayor, John O. Norquist, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, as well as against the City of Milwaukee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000, et seq.
Nature of Ms. Figueroa' Claims
The would-be complainant /plaintiff claims that she began her employment with the City of Milwaukee on about April 29, 1991. All of the material times hereto she reported to the various Chiefs of Staff who then reported to the Mayor for the City of Milwaukee., John O. Norquist. Ms. Figueroa was directed and supervised by Mr. James Rowen, Chief of Staff throughout the majority of her employment with the city of Milwaukee. She was entitled to merit pay increases as well as transfer to other positions within the employment setting. The complainant/plaintiff was terminated by the then-Chief of Staff, Michael Soika, on or about February 7, 2000, while she was on medical leave due to the emotional stress imposed upon her by and illicit relationship with the Mayor of the City of Milwaukee, John O. Norquist.
Ms. Figueroa states that this relationship was initiated and vigorously pursued by Mr. Norquist both during normal work hours, as well as during after-hours work-related activities when Ms. Figueroa was present.
She states that the relationship began with strong sexual overtures on the part of Mr. Norquist while at work and eventually culminated into intimate relations at his place of residence while his wife was not present, as well as at Ms. Figueroa's place of residence when he dropped by to discuss "work related" issues.
Ms. Figueroa resisted and on more than one or more occasions attempted to end the relationship with Mr. Norquist. However, she was repeatedly forced and coerced to continue said unwarranted and unsolicited relationship in order to protect her employment and the community programs/projects for which she was responsible (i.e. block grants, etc.) as Mr. Norquist would threaten to affect negatively the same as part his displeasure for her refusal to heed his physical and emotional desires.
Ms. Figueroa will testify in due course that Mr. Norquist used his position to achieve a sexual and intimate advantage on Ms. Figueroa. Specifically, the testimony of my client will demonstrate that Mr. Norquist predicated this sexual harassment as a condition of continued employment as well as to conditions of a job benefit or the absence of a job detriment. See Nichols v. Frank, 42 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 1994); Kariban v. Columbia University, 14 F.3d 773 (2nd Cir. 1994).
As you are perhaps are aware, Ms. Figueroa does not have to show that Mr. Norquist made explicit threats (although she claims he did) of conditioning employment benefits upon receipt of sexual favors. See Ridge v. IICA Health Services of Kansas, Inc., 64 EPD 43, 071 (D. Kan. 1992). However, in the instant case Ms. Figueroa will establish that due to her strong desire to stop the illicit and "secret" relationship her opportunities for transfer, promotion and other benefits were affected.
Similarly, Ms. Figueroa has a potential case pursuant to both §§ 1981 and 1983 on the basis of race and retaliation. The record will reflect that she strongly objected to the discriminatory environment that existed within the workplace and that she was retaliated against with respect to promotion, transfer and other benefits. As you know, opposing race discrimination constitutes protected activity both under Title VII (42 U.S.C. §2000) as well as under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Ms. Figueroa will testify that she was denied certain job opportunities because of her race (Hispanic) as well as because Mr. Norquist made every attempt to keep her "close" and under his "control." These actions are on the part of the City as well on the part of Mr. Norquist clearly fall under 42 U.S.C. §§§2000, 1981, and 1983.
We have carefully reviewed the exemption provision you believe excluded Ms. Figueroa from Title VII coverage. We have also analyzed her job duties reporting and supervising structure and we believe that she would clearly prevail in a motion for summary judgment in federal court. See Leaving v. City of Chicago, 1988 WL 20046 (N.D., Ill).
However, assuming the would-be defendants prevail, pursuant to the exemption provision, §111 Wis. Stats. Clearly protects Ms. Figueroa. To that end we have planned following approach to the case.
Once we have requested a Right to Sue letter from FEOC agency we plan to file within the required 90 days pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000, et. Seq. Secondly, we plan to file our claim Monday, November 27, 2000 with the State of Wisconsin Equal Rights Division (unlike 42 U.S.C. §2000, Section 111.32(5) defines "employee" as anyone who is not an individual employed by his/her parents, spouse, or child). Obviously, independent from Title VII claims, Ms. Figueroa plans to pursue her other constitutional claims cited herein.
As you are aware, no news coverage has taken place with respect to this matter. I have instructed my client to remain silent on these issues in order to avoid any unnecessary publicity. However, once this case is filed with the ERD at the state level, all of the details will become public as a matter of law. I have proposed to Ms. Figueroa that we attempt to put this painful matter to rest for the amount of $275,000 in exchange for a confidential release of all claims. Please notify my office at your earliest convenience with a response from your client. I will not disclose this matter to the City Attorney as I believe he will get a copy directly from the ERD investigator. Obviously, you are free to discuss the aforementioned matter with the City if you so desire.
Very Truly Yours,
Lawton & Cates, S.C.
Victor M. Arellano
