DASILVA et al v. STATE OF INDIANA et al

Filing 265

ORDER - The Court's decision should in no way be read to condone the reprehensible behavior of Attorney General Hill - behavior that no woman should have to face, especially at the hands of one of the state's highest elected officials. Although this litigation started out targeting that behavior, it now focuses only on the House's and the Senate's actions in response to that behavior. Because Attorney General Hill's misconduct does not rise to the level that the Seventh Circuit has determined is actionable under Title VII, and because no reasonable jury could conclude that the House and the Senate failed to take reasonable action in response to that misconduct or that Plaintiffs faced actionable retaliat ion for reporting that misconduct, there is no basis on which to hold the House or the Senate liable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the House's Motion for Summary Judgment, 231 , and the Senate's Motion for Summary Judgment, 232 . Final judgment shall enter accordingly. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/17/2022. (JSR)

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 54 PageID #: 5862

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
NIKI DASILVA, SAMANTHA LOZANO, and
GABRIELLE MCLEMORE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and
INDIANA SENATE,
Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP

ORDER
In March 2018, Plaintiffs Niki DaSilva, Samantha Lozano, and Gabrielle McLemore
attended a gathering at AJ's Lounge in Indianapolis to celebrate the end of the legislative session
for the Indiana General Assembly. After each encountered then-Attorney General Curtis Hill at
the gathering and were subjected to his inappropriate behavior, they complained to their employers
– Defendants the Indiana House of Representatives (the "House") and the Indiana Senate (the
"Senate"). Based on the handling of those complaints, they initiated this litigation and now assert
claims against the House and Senate under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")
for hostile work environment and retaliation. The House and Senate have both filed Motions for
Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 231; Filing No. 232], which are now ripe for the Court's
consideration.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). On summary judgment, a party must show the Court
1

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 54 PageID #: 5863

what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events. Johnson
v. Cambridge Indus., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). The moving party is entitled to summary
judgment if no reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v.
Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court views the record in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Darst v.
Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence or make
credibility determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-finder.
O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011).
Each fact asserted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must
be supported by "a citation to a discovery response, a deposition, an affidavit, or other admissible
evidence." S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(e). And each "citation must refer to a page or paragraph number
or otherwise similarly specify where the relevant information can be found in the supporting
evidence." Id. The Court need only consider the cited materials and need not "scour the record"
for evidence that is potentially relevant. Grant v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 572-73
(7th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(h).
Where a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another
party's assertion of fact, the Court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the summary
judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court need only consider disputed facts
that are material to the decision. A disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law. Hampton v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2009). In
other words, while there may be facts that are in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate if those
facts are not outcome determinative. Harper v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 433 F.3d 521, 525 (7th Cir.
2

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 54 PageID #: 5864

2005). Fact disputes that are irrelevant to the legal question will not be considered. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The following factual background is set forth pursuant to the standard detailed above. The
facts stated are not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary judgment standard requires,
the undisputed facts and the disputed evidence are presented in the light most favorable to "the
party against whom the motion under consideration is made." Premcor USA, Inc. v. Am. Home
Assurance Co., 400 F.3d 523, 526-27 (7th Cir. 2005). The Court notes at the outset that Plaintiffs
have failed to comply with Local Rule 56-1, which requires a party who opposes a summary
judgment motion to include a section labeled "Statement of Material Facts in Dispute" "that
identifies the potentially determinative facts and factual disputes that the party contends
demonstrate a dispute of fact precluding summary judgment." S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b). Instead,
Plaintiffs have included a twenty-page "Factual Background" section in their response briefs,
which sets forth their version of the facts and does not attempt to demonstrate how their version
differs from Defendants' version. [See Filing No. 252 at 2-22; Filing No. 253 at 2-22.] Plaintiffs'
and Defendants' versions of the facts largely overlap but, where they conflict, the Court takes the
Plaintiffs' version as true – as it must at the summary judgment stage. 1

1

Defendants argue that some of the evidence Plaintiffs rely upon is inadmissible, including a Ring
doorbell receipt, [Filing No. 249-1], notes relating to a July 2, 2018 meeting between Attorney
General Hill and others, [Filing No. 249-2], articles and advertisements in which Attorney General
Hill attacks Plaintiffs' credibility, [Filing No. 248-27], transcripts from several interviews
conducted by the Indiana Inspector General, [Filing No. 249-3; Filing No. 249-4], the Inspector
General's Investigative Report, [Filing No. 248-22], the Hearing Officer's report in the disciplinary
action against Attorney General Hill, [Filing No. 248-23], and the Indiana Supreme Court's
decision in Attorney General Hill's disciplinary proceeding, [Filing No. 248-28]. Because
consideration of this evidence does not alter the Court's decision, the Court declines to exclude it.
3

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 54 PageID #: 5865

Plaintiffs have also included a "Statement of Genuine Issues In Dispute" section in their
brief, which is not contemplated by Local Rule 56-1 and simply contains a list of legal issues
followed by a lengthy string cite to evidence in the record (with no description of what that
evidence is). [See, e.g., Filing No. 253 at 23 (Plaintiffs listing as a genuine issue in dispute "The
unwelcome conduct that Plaintiffs experienced at the hands of the Attorney General was severe or
pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment," followed by a string cite containing sixtyfive citations to the record with no description of the evidence cited to or explanation of its
significance).] This section is unhelpful to the Court and amounts to undeveloped arguments that
the Court will not consider.

See Crespo v. Colvin, 824 F.3d 667, 674 (7th Cir. 2016)

("[P]erfunctory and undeveloped arguments…are waived.") (quotation and citation omitted).
Nevertheless, the Court has done its best to present the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs,
and does so below. 2
A.

Indiana's Governmental Structure

Indiana's government is divided into three separate branches – the executive, the
legislative, and the judicial. Ind. Const. art. 3, § 1. The three branches operate independently of
each other, and "no person, charged with official duties under one of these [branches], shall
exercise any of the functions of another." Id.

2

The Court also notes that Plaintiffs' response to the House's Motion for Summary Judgment is 38
pages, [Filing No. 253], and their response to the Senate's Motion for Summary Judgment is 39
pages, [Filing No. 252]. Both briefs exceed the 35-page limit for response briefs set forth in Local
Rule 7-1(e)(1). While the Court will consider the response briefs in full this time, Plaintiffs'
counsel is cautioned that compliance with Court rules is not optional but is mandatory, and that
they should have sought leave to file an overlong brief in which they would have been required to
demonstrate "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for exceeding the page limit. See S.D. Ind.
L.R. 7-1(e)(2).
4

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 54 PageID #: 5866

1.

The Attorney General

The Office of the Attorney General is part of the executive branch and is administered by
the Attorney General. Ind. Code § 4-6-1-2. The Attorney General is a state-wide elected official,
and his or her statutorily-conferred duties include the prosecution and defense of all suits by or
against the State of Indiana. Id.; Ind. Code 4-6-2-1, et seq. The Attorney General shall have those
employees "as the attorney general considers necessary to promptly and efficiently perform the
duties of the attorney general's office, and which shall be selected and appointed by the attorney
general." Ind. Code § 4-6-1-4. The Attorney General must keep his or her office in the Statehouse
and must be present "on all business days, during business hours…at the office, in person or by
deputy, unless engaged in court or elsewhere in the service of the state." Ind. Code § 4-6-2-3.
Curtis Hill was sworn in as the Indiana Attorney General on January 9, 2017. [Filing No. 248-20
at 32-33.]
2.

The House

The legislative authority of the State of Indiana is vested in the General Assembly, which
is comprised of the House and the Senate. Ind. Const. art. 4, § 1. The House and the Senate have
"all powers[ ] necessary for a branch of the Legislative department of a free and independent State,"
and each shall "determine its rules of proceeding." Id. at § 16. The Speaker of the House "retains
the ultimate authority over hiring decisions, should he or she wish to exercise it," although most
personnel issues are handled within each caucus by the appropriate Chief of Staff. [Filing No.
231-1 at 20.]
The House is committed to providing a work environment in which all employees are
treated with respect and are free from harassment based on sex and other protected categories.
[Filing No. 231-14 at 17.] The House strictly prohibits harassment in any form and encourages its
5

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 54 PageID #: 5867

employees to report harassment immediately. [Filing No. 231-14 at 17-19; Filing No. 231-15 at
17-19.] The House Personnel Handbook provides:
Any employee who believes that he or she has been harassed by a member of the
House or staff, immediate supervisor, agent of the House, or an individual with
whom the employee is required to have contact, should report the incident and
names of the individuals involved immediately to their immediate supervisor, the
appropriate Chief of Staff, the appropriate Chief Counsel or the Clerk.
Alternatively, the employee may directly contact the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
[Filing No. 231-14 at 19; Filing No. 231-15 at 19.]
A House employee who violates the harassment policy is subject to disciplinary action,
and the action does not need to be progressive and may include termination of employment and
civil or criminal prosecution. [Filing No. 231-14 at 19; Filing No. 231-15 at 19.] Additionally,
House employees are required to complete periodic sexual harassment training. [Filing No. 23114 at 18; Filing No. 231-15 at 18.]
3.

The Senate

The President Pro Tempore of the Senate, or his or her designee, has final responsibility
and authority with respect to hiring decisions, disciplinary actions, terminations, pay increases,
and promotions. [Filing No. 232-16 at 6; Filing No. 232-17 at 5.]
The Senate is committed to a work environment in which all employees are treated with
respect and are free from harassment based on sex and other protected categories. [Filing No. 23216 at 7; Filing No. 232-17 at 6.] The Senate strictly prohibits harassment in any form and
encourages its employees to report harassment immediately. [Filing No. 232-16 at 7-8; Filing No.
232-17 at 6.] The Senate Employee Handbook provides:
Any employee who believes he or she has been harassed by a member of the Senate
or employee, supervisor, agent of the Senate, or an individual with whom the
employee is required to have contact should report the incident and name of the
individual involved immediately. A report of harassment should be made first to
6

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 54 PageID #: 5868

the employee's immediate supervisor. However, if the employee's immediate
supervisor is unavailable to receive the report or is in any way involved in the
incident, the report should be made to the Majority Chief of Staff or to the
[Secretary of the Senate/Majority Chief Legal Counsel].
[Filing No. 232-16 at 8; Filing No. 232-17 at 7.]
A Senate employee who violates the harassment policy is subject to disciplinary action,
which does not need to be progressive and may include termination of employment and civil or
criminal prosecution. [Filing No. 232-16 at 8; Filing No. 232-17 at 7.] All Senate employees are
required to complete periodic sexual harassment training. [Filing No. 232-16 at 8; Filing No. 23217 at 7.]
B.

Plaintiffs' Positions at the House and the Senate

Ms. Lozano was an intern for the House Democrats starting in August 2017, and began
working as a legislative assistant for the House Democratic Caucus on January 1, 2018. [Filing
No. 231-1 at 14.]

Ms. Lozano was assigned to assist three representatives, including

Representative Mara Reardon. [Filing No. 248-5 at 8.] While the representatives she was assigned
to assist changed over time, she was Representative Reardon's legislative assistant in March 2018
at the close of the legislative session. [Filing No. 248-5 at 13; Filing No. 248-5 at 16; Filing No.
248-11 at 6.] During her employment, Ms. Lozano periodically received copies of the House's
Employee Handbook when it was updated or changed, and she acknowledged that she had received
and understood the policies set forth in the handbook. [Filing No. 231-1 at 19-21.]
Ms. DaSilva was an intern with the Senate Republicans in 2015 and began working as a
legislative assistant for the Senate in the summer of 2016. [Filing No. 232-3 at 28.] Ms. DaSilva
was assigned to support Senator Ryan Mishler for the majority of her employment. [Filing No.
232-3 at 66.] Attorney General Hill had visited Senator Mishler's office at times, but Ms. DaSilva's
relationship with Attorney General Hill was "minimal at best." [Filing No. 232-2 at 181-82.] Ms.
7

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 54 PageID #: 5869

DaSilva periodically reviewed the Senate's Employee Handbook during her employment, and each
time she received the handbook, she acknowledged that she had received it, read it, and understood
it.

[Filing No. 232-3 at 29-31.]

The Senate also walked through its polices prohibiting

discrimination and harassment with employees annually. [Filing No. 232-3 at 31.]
Ms. McLemore was an Indiana Senate intern in 2015 and was hired by the Senate as a press
secretary for the Senate Democrats in September 2016. [Filing No. 232-4 at 15; Filing No. 248-4
at 9-10.] She also received the Senate's Employee Handbook periodically as it was updated, and
certified that she had received it and understood each version of the handbook. [Filing No. 232-4
at 22.] Ms. McLemore attended annual training sessions on Senate policies, which included
opportunities to ask questions. [Filing No. 232-4 at 22-23.]
C.

The Sine Die Event

On the last day of the legislative session, legislators, lobbyists, and staff often gather at
informal parties to celebrate the end of the session. [Filing No. 232-13 at 1.] The parties are
organized informally, by word of mouth, and are not sponsored by the House or the Senate, nor
do they appear on the legislative social calendar. [Filing No. 232-1 at 45; Filing No. 232-3 at 6162; Filing No. 232-4 at 38-39.] Attendance at the parties is strictly voluntary. [Filing No. 232-1
at 45; Filing No. 232-3 at 61-62; Filing No. 232-4 at 38-39.] It is a work-related event, however.
[Filing No. 231-3 at 30-31; Filing No. 248-23 at 3.] One of these parties occurred during the early
morning hours of March 15, 2018 at AJ's Lounge in Indianapolis ("the Sine Die Event"). [Filing
No. 232-3 at 39; Filing No. 232-3 at 44; Filing No. 232-4 at 23.]
Attendees at the Sine Die Event "were unpleasantly surprised when [Attorney General Hill]
appeared at the party and made passes at several of the women," and "[a]s the evening lengthened
[he] progressed from verbal to physical harassment." DaSilva v. Indiana, 30 F.4th 671, 672 (7th
8

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 9 of 54 PageID #: 5870

Cir. 2022). 3 Ms. Lozano rode to AJ's Lounge for the Sine Die Event with Representative Reardon
and they arrived around 1:00 a.m. [Filing No. 248-11 at 12; Filing No. 248-11 at 16.] Ms. Lozano
noticed Attorney General Hill with a group of people when she walked in. [Filing No. 248-13 at
6.] It was unusual for Attorney General Hill to be at the Sine Die Event because it is an event for
legislative staff, lobbyists, and legislators. [Filing No. 248-11 at 14; Filing No. 248-12 at 19-20;
Filing No. 248-19 at 13.] Representative Reardon and Attorney General Hill said hello to each
other, and Attorney General Hill leaned in, put his hand on Representative Reardon's bare back,
and slid his hand all the way down her back and grabbed her butt. [Filing No. 248-11 at 20.]
Attorney General Hill had his thumb in Representative Reardon's dress and his fingers on her butt
and clinched his hand. [Filing No. 248-11 at 20-21.] Representative Reardon said to Attorney
General Hill "back off," and walked away. [Filing No. 248-11 at 22.] Representative Reardon did
not consent to the Attorney General's conduct and she was shocked, violated, angry, and afraid.
[Filing No. 231-3 at 37-38.]
Ms. Lozano was standing a few feet behind Representative Reardon, and she saw the
Attorney General touch Representative Reardon on her back and slowly rub his hand down her
back, which Ms. Lozano found concerning and disturbing. [Filing No. 248-13 at 7-8.] Ms. Lozano
had to look away because she was so bothered by Attorney General Hill's actions. [Filing No.
248-13 at 12.] Ms. Lozano walked away to look for her friend. [Filing No. 248-13 at 12.]
Representative Reardon then walked over to another group of people standing in a circle
and the Attorney General came back behind Representative Reardon and she heard him say, "that

3

This case relates to Plaintiffs' appeal of the Court's grant of a Motion to Dismiss filed by Attorney
General Hill and the State of Indiana – the original Defendants in this case. The Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's dismissal of the claims against Attorney General Hill and
the State of Indiana.
9

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 10 of 54 PageID #: 5871

skin, that back" as he reached out to touch her shoulder. [Filing No. 248-11 at 22-24.] As soon as
Attorney General Hill touched Representative Reardon's shoulder, she moved away from him and
went to the other side of the circle. [Filing No. 248-11 at 24.]
Ms. Lozano walked over toward the bar to greet some of her friends and co-workers.
[Filing No. 248-5 at 23.] While she was standing with a group of people, Attorney General Hill
approached her and asked, "Do you know who I am?" [Filing No. 248-5 at 26.] Ms. Lozano said
yes and that she went to college with Attorney General Hill's daughter. [Filing No. 248-5 at 24.]
Ms. Lozano hoped that Attorney General Hill would understand that she was his daughter's age
and would not approach her or touch her in the way that he had touched Representative Reardon.
[Filing No. 248-5 at 24-25.]
Meanwhile, Ms. DaSilva rode to AJ's Lounge for the Sine Die Event with Senator Mishler
and a lobbyist and also arrived around 1:00 a.m. [Filing No. 231-3 at 179-80.] Attorney General
Hill was there when they arrived. [Filing No. 249-4 at 5.] Ms. DaSilva went to the bar to order a
drink and stood behind Senator Mishler with three staffers and, while she waited to order, Attorney
General Hill came over to the bar, put his arm around Ms. DaSilva, and asked her and the other
women why they were standing at the bar. [Filing No. 249-4 at 6; Filing No. 231-3 at 183.] When
they responded that they were waiting for their drinks, Attorney General Hill said, "don't you know
how to get a drink? You have to show your knee, you have to show a little skin." [Filing No. 2313 at 183.] Ms. DaSilva's mouth dropped open, and she felt uncomfortable. [Filing No. 231-3 at
184.] She would have said something if it were not the Attorney General making the statement.
[Filing No. 231-3 at 184-85.] Senator Mishler saw Attorney General Hill walk up and put his arm
around Ms. DaSilva and two other females and say, "Don't you ladies know how to get service?"

10

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 11 of 54 PageID #: 5872

[Filing No. 249-4 at 6.] He also saw Attorney General Hill hug another female and put his hand
on her butt. [Filing No. 249-4 at 10.]
Following her initial interaction with Attorney General Hill, Ms. Lozano went to the bar to
get a drink and Attorney General Hill was nearby drinking a martini. [Filing No. 248-5 at 27.]
Ms. Lozano commented that the room was hot, and Attorney General Hill said, "Yeah, you're
really hot," which made Ms. Lozano uncomfortable. [Filing No. 248-5 at 27.] Attorney General
Hill then put his arm around Ms. Lozano's waist and brought her closer to him, hugging her. [Filing
No. 248-5 at 27.] Ms. Lozano did not feel comfortable, did not like it, and tried to sit on a bar
stool to create some space between her and Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 248-5 at 27.] Ms.
Lozano gave Ms. DaSilva a look, and Ms. DaSilva came and stood between Ms. Lozano and
Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 248-5 at 28.] Ms. Lozano walked away to try to avoid further
contact with Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 248-5 at 29.]
Attorney General Hill then put his hand on Ms. DaSilva's back. [Filing No. 231-3 at 187.]
Ms. DaSilva froze, and Attorney General Hill's hand began moving down her back. [Filing No.
231-3 at 188.] Ms. DaSilva tried to move the Attorney General's hand with her free hand, but he
grabbed it and pulled her hand and arm down with his and touched her butt. [Filing No. 231-3 at
188-89.] After Attorney General Hill touched Ms. DaSilva's butt, he let go of her hand and stared
at her, smirking.

[Filing No. 231-3 at 190-91.]

Ms. DaSilva felt white-hot anger and

embarrassment and found the quickest way to get away from Attorney General Hill. [Filing No.
231-3 at 191-92.] She was in shock, upset, embarrassed, ashamed, and felt violated. [Filing No.
248-1 at 20; Filing No. 248-1 at 26.] While still at AJ's Lounge, Ms. DaSilva told a representative
and some others what Attorney General Hill had done to her. [Filing No. 248-1 at 27; Filing No.

11

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 12 of 54 PageID #: 5873

248-1 at 31.] Neither Ms. Lozano nor Ms. DaSilva consented to being touched by Attorney
General Hill. [Filing No. 231-3 at 134; Filing No. 231-3 at 192.]
Ms. McLemore arrived to the Sine Die Event sometime after 1:00 a.m. [Filing No. 24812 at 6-7.] Shortly after she arrived, she learned from others that Attorney General Hill was there
and was "behaving weirdly." [Filing No. 248-4 at 36-37.] Ms. McLemore was sitting at the bar
on a bar stool that had no back when Attorney General Hill approached her, pulled up a stool next
to her, sat down, and asked, "Do you know who I am?" [Filing No. 248-12 at 21-23.] Attorney
General Hill then put his hand on Ms. McLemore's back and began rubbing her entire back, up and
down, slowly. [Filing No. 248-12 at 24-25.] Ms. McLemore was trapped between the bar and
Attorney General Hill and mouthed "help me" to her intern, who walked over and asked Ms.
McLemore if she wanted to go to the bathroom with her. [Filing No. 231-3 at 243-44; Filing No.
248-12 at 25.] Ms. McLemore and the intern then went into the bathroom and Ms. McLemore told
the intern what had happened. [Filing No. 248-12 at 25; Filing No. 248-12 at 29.] Ms. McLemore
was emotional because Attorney General Hill had touched her and she was concerned that people
would think she had "brought this on [herself] somehow." [Filing No. 248-12 at 26.] Ms.
McLemore then went outside with the intern and was crying. [Filing No. 248-12 at 30.] Ms.
McLemore did not consent to Attorney General Hill rubbing her back and did not feel comfortable
saying anything to Attorney General Hill because of his position. [Filing No. 231-3 at 246.]
Following the Sine Die Event, if Ms. McLemore saw Attorney General Hill in the Statehouse, she

12

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 13 of 54 PageID #: 5874

would go in the opposite direction. [Filing No. 248-4 at 33-34.] 4
D.

Plaintiffs Tell Others About Attorney General Hill's Inappropriate Conduct

Ms. DaSilva rode home from the Sine Die Event with Senator Mishler and Laura
McCaffrey, a lobbyist, and told them about her interactions with Attorney General Hill. [Filing
No. 248-1 at 32; Filing No. 248-16 at 9; Filing No. 248-16 at 16-19.]
The next workday following the Sine Die Event, Ms. McLemore discussed her interaction
with Attorney General Hill with her officemates. [Filing No. 232-4 at 25-26; Filing No. 232-4 at
36.] One of her co-workers told her that she should tell the Minority Chief of Staff about Attorney
General Hill. [Filing No. 232-4 at 26.] Ms. McLemore did not tell her Chief of Staff, even though
she trusted the Chief of Staff to take the allegations seriously. [Filing No. 232-4 at 26.] She did
not think anything would be done in response to her making a report based on her experience and
her knowledge regarding how the Senate had handled a report of sexual harassment from one of
her co-workers in the past. [Filing No. 248-4 at 62-68.]
Ms. Lozano also discussed Attorney General Hill's conduct with her co-workers the next
workday. [Filing No. 248-13 at 23-24.] Ms. Lozano told her co-workers that Attorney General
Hill was acting weird, creepy, and inappropriate. [Filing No. 248-13 at 24.]
A few weeks after the Sine Die Event, Ms. McLemore learned from Senator Greg Taylor
that he had witnessed her interaction with Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 248-4 at 38.] Senator

4

Other attendees at the Sine Die Event observed Attorney General Hill's inappropriate behavior,
including: (1) Representative Ryan Hatfield, who was talking with three women with the first
name Laura, and who Attorney General Hill approached and said "how did you get so lucky, teach
me your ways with the three beautiful blonde-haired, blue-eyed Lauras," [Filing No. 248-16 at 1415; Filing No. 248-19 at 14-19]; (2) Laura McCaffrey, Laura Johnson, and Laura Brown, who
were the subject of Attorney General Hill's "Lauras" comment, which made them all feel
uncomfortable, [Filing No. 248-16 at 14-15]; and (3) Donna Smith, a legislative assistant who
noticed that every time a female would walk by Attorney General Hill, he would use his body to
rub up against them, [Filing No. 248-15 at 14-16].
13

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 14 of 54 PageID #: 5875

Taylor apologized to Ms. McLemore for not doing anything in response to Attorney General Hill
touching her. [Filing No. 248-4 at 39-40; Filing No. 248-12 at 32.]
Ms. McLemore's Chief of Staff later learned of Ms. McLemore's interaction with Attorney
General Hill and that Democratic Caucus members were already working to respond to Attorney
General Hill's behavior. [Filing No. 232-14 at 1-2.] Sometime in April 2018, a few weeks after
Ms. McLemore had spoken to Senator Taylor, Senator Jean Breaux questioned Ms. McLemore
about her interaction with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event and suggested that Ms.
McLemore report the incident to Senate leadership. [Filing No. 232-4 at 27-28.] Ms. McLemore
stated that she would think about it. [Filing No. 232-4 at 27-28.] During this time, Ms. McLemore
also discussed her interaction with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event with the Chief of
Staff for the Senate Democrats. [Filing No. 232-4 at 28-29.] The Chief of Staff offered to assist
Ms. McLemore in documenting her allegations with Senate leadership. [Filing No. 232-4 at 29.]
Within a week of their first meeting, Ms. McLemore and Senator Breaux met a second time
and Ms. McLemore advised Senator Breaux that she was ready to report her interaction with
Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event to Senate leadership. [Filing No. 232-4 at 28-29.]
Ms. McLemore met with Senate leadership shortly thereafter. [Filing No. 232-4 at 28-29.]
In April 2018, Ms. Lozano spoke to Representative Reardon and another representative
about what had occurred at the Sine Die Event. [Filing No. 231-3 at 85; Filing No. 248-5 at 30;
Filing No. 248-13 at 25.] Representative Reardon mentioned her experience with Attorney
General Hill at the Sine Die Event and then Ms. Lozano told Representative Reardon and the other
representative about her interactions with Attorney General Hill and that he was acting "weird and
creepy." [Filing No. 248-11 at 30-31; Filing No. 248-13 at 26-28.] Representative Reardon told

14

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 15 of 54 PageID #: 5876

Ms. Lozano that she wanted to inform leadership about Attorney General Hill's conduct. [Filing
No. 248-5 at 31-32.]
E.

The House and Senate Learn of and Begin Investigating Attorney General
Hill's Inappropriate Conduct

On May 14, 2018, the General Assembly reconvened for a special legislative session.
[Filing No. 231-7 at 20-21; Filing No. 231-9 at 5; Filing No. 231-12 at 12; Filing No. 231-12 at
15.] That day, Representative Reardon approached Ms. DaSilva and asked about her interaction
with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event. [Filing No. 232-3 at 44.] Representative
Reardon told Ms. DaSilva that Attorney General Hill had also touched her, and that she was going
to report his conduct to House leadership. [Filing No. 232-2 at 199; Filing No. 232-3 at 44.] After
speaking with Representative Reardon, Ms. DaSilva also told Senator Mishler about her
interactions with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event. [Filing No. 232-2 at 199-200.]
The same day, Representative Reardon went to the minority House leader, Representative
Terry Goodin, and reported Attorney General Hill's conduct. [Filing No. 231-3 at 46-47.]
Representative Goodin told Representative Reardon that they needed to take the matter to the
Speaker of the House, Brian Bosma. [Filing No. 231-3 at 47.] Representative Goodin and
Representative Reardon met with Speaker Bosma and reported Attorney General Hill's conduct.
[Filing No. 231-3 at 48.] Representative Reardon described what happened to her and stated that
Attorney General Hill had been inappropriate with staffers, including a Senate staffer. [Filing No.
231-3 at 48-49; Filing No. 248-6 at 12.] This was the first time Speaker Bosma learned about
Attorney General Hill's conduct toward staff at the Sine Die Event, including a Senate staff
member. [Filing No. 231-7 at 23-24.] Because the allegations also involved Senate staff, Speaker
Bosma alerted the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, David Long. [Filing No. 231-7 at 24-25.]
Speaker Bosma and Senator Long then spoke with minority leaders Representative Goodin and
15

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 16 of 54 PageID #: 5877

Senator Tim Lanane, and the four decided to immediately launch an internal investigation into the
allegations. [Filing No. 231-7 at 25-26; Filing No. 231-9 at 9-11.]
On May 15, 2018, House and Senate leadership, including Speaker Bosma, Senator Long,
Senator Lanane, and Representative Goodin, decided to speak to the staffers. [Filing No. 248-17
at 9.] The House Chief Counsel and Principal Clerk interviewed Ms. Lozano about her allegations.
[Filing No. 231-1 at 28.] Ms. Lozano described her interactions with Attorney General Hill at the
Sine Die Event, as well as what she had observed between Attorney General Hill and
Representative Reardon that night. [Filing No. 231-2 at 45-46.] Ms. Lozano confirmed that she
did not have, and did not expect to have, any direct interaction with Attorney General Hill as part
of her daily job duties. [Filing No. 231-1 at 28.] Ms. Lozano advised that a formal apology from
Attorney General Hill would be sufficient, and that the fact that Speaker Bosma was paying close
attention to the situation and taking action meant a lot to her. [Filing No. 231-1 at 28.] The House
Chief Counsel advised Ms. Lozano that the House was committed to thoroughly investigating the
complaints about Attorney General Hill and assured Ms. Lozano that she would not be subject to
retaliation for raising her concerns. [Filing No. 231-1 at 28.]
Also on May 15, Ms. DaSilva met with Senator Long, Senator Mishler, Majority Chief of
Staff Skip Brown, and Majority Attorney Mitchell Osterday to discuss what had taken place at the
Sine Die Event. [Filing No. 232-3 at 45; Filing No. 232-10 at 12-14; Filing No. 232-10 at 20.]
This meeting was the first time Ms. DaSilva had disclosed her allegations against Attorney General
Hill to Senate leadership, and they told Ms. DaSilva that they would support her and try to respect
her wishes. [Filing No. 232-3 at 56-57; Filing No. 232-10 at 13-15.] Senator Mishler did not think
of the meeting as part of an investigation because in all of his conversations with Senator Long,

16

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 17 of 54 PageID #: 5878

they discussed that they were merely trying to determine if the Senate had any liability. [Filing
No. 249-4 at 20.]
Ms. McLemore also met with Senator Long, Senator Lanane, and the respective caucus
Chiefs of Staff to discuss her interaction with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event. [Filing
No. 232-4 at 29-30.] At the meeting, Ms. McLemore said that what had occurred at the Sine Die
Event made her very uncomfortable and emotional, and she received assurances that she was
protected. [Filing No. 232-4 at 30.]
F.

The House and Senate Engage Outside Counsel

Around the same time, leadership authorized Attorney George Angelone, the Executive
Director of Legislative Services, to engage outside counsel to determine if the House and Senate
had any liability in connection with Attorney General Hill's conduct. [Filing No. 248-17 at 12;
Filing No. 248-18 at 12-13.]

In a confidential memorandum dated June 18, 2018 ("the

Memorandum"), outside counsel concluded that the General Assembly had conducted a prompt
and effective investigation, and that Attorney General Hill's conduct did not constitute sexual
harassment in violation of Title VII. [Filing No. 232-7 at 27; Filing No. 232-10 at 18-19; Filing
No. 232-29 at 2-9; Filing No. 232-30 at 2-9.] At the request of some of the complainants, and
pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and applicable state law, the legislative leaders considered
the Memorandum to be confidential and restricted from public access. [Filing No. 232-7 at 41-42;
Filing No. 232-8 at 57-58; Filing No. 232-10 at 36-37.]
G.

The House and Senate Confront Attorney General Hill Regarding His
Inappropriate Conduct

Based on the recommendation of outside counsel, Speaker Bosma, Senator Long,
Representative Goodin, and Senator Lanane planned to speak with Attorney General Hill on July
2 or July 3, 2018. [Filing No. 232-8 at 40; Filing No. 232-10 at 28-29.] However, Speaker Bosma
17

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 18 of 54 PageID #: 5879

learned of media inquiries into the investigation while he was traveling abroad. [Filing No. 2328 at 40-41.] Specifically, Speaker Bosma and Senator Long learned on June 29, 2018 that the
Indianapolis Star was writing an article on the Attorney General's conduct at the Sine Die Event.
[Filing No. 248-17 at 14.] Speaker Bosma and Senator Long thought they owed it to the Attorney
General to let him know before an article was published or before he was approached, and they
arranged to speak with Attorney General Hill via telephone on June 29, 2018 to inform him of the
allegations related to his inappropriate conduct at the Sine Die Event. [Filing No. 248-17 at 1415; Filing No. 232-10 at 23-25.]
During the telephone call, Speaker Bosma informed Attorney General Hill that they had
received reports that Attorney General Hill had inappropriately touched multiple women at the
Sine Die Event and that the House and Senate had retained counsel to advise them regarding the
investigation into those allegations. [Filing No. 232-8 at 42-43; Filing No. 232-10 at 25-26; Filing
No. 248-17 at 15-18.] Attorney General Hill felt that they had reached out to him because of the
forthcoming Indianapolis Star article. [Filing No. 248-20 at 11.] Speaker Bosma admonished
Attorney General Hill that his behavior was inappropriate and unacceptable; that there was to be
absolutely no interaction between Attorney General Hill and any of the Senate's or House's
employees, no retaliation, and no effort to attempt to identify the individuals who reported his
actions; and that Attorney General Hill was not permitted to attend any legislative gatherings.
[Filing No. 232-8 at 32-33; Filing No. 232-8 at 42-43; Filing No. 232-10 at 25-26.] Attorney
General Hill asked if they could meet on July 2 when they would all be back in Indianapolis, and
Speaker Bosma and Senator Long indicated that was a good idea. [Filing No. 248-20 at 12.]
On July 2, 2018, Speaker Bosma met with Ms. Lozano and advised her that he had
admonished Attorney General Hill not to have any contact with legislative staffers. [Filing No.
18

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 19 of 54 PageID #: 5880

231-1 at 28-29.] Speaker Bosma asked Ms. Lozano to notify him or Representative Goodin if
Attorney General Hill contacted her or made her uncomfortable. [Filing No. 231-1 at 29.] After
July 2, 2018, Ms. Lozano did not contact Speaker Bosma or Representative Goodin about having
contact with Attorney General Hill or being made to feel uncomfortable by him. [Filing No. 2311 at 29.] Ms. Lozano was satisfied with the outcome of the investigation and appreciated how the
situation was handled. [Filing No. 231-12 at 56; Filing No. 231-21 at 1.]
Also on July 2, 2018, Senator Long and Senator Lanane met with Ms. McLemore. [Filing
No. 232-4 at 31.] Senator Long told Ms. McLemore that the Senate had hired outside counsel to
ensure that the General Assembly was following proper procedures and that outside counsel had
prepared the Memorandum. [Filing No. 232-4 at 31.] Senator Long reassured Ms. McLemore
that the Senate would maintain the Memorandum as an internal document, and asked Ms.
McLemore to inform Senator Lanane or the Minority Chief of Staff if Attorney General Hill
contacted her in the future in any way that made her uncomfortable. [Filing No. 232-4 at 31; Filing
No. 232-11 at 2.] Ms. McLemore stated that she was satisfied with the Senate's investigation.
[Filing No. 232-4 at 32.]
Senator Long and his Chief of Staff also met with Ms. DaSilva on July 2, 2018, to update
her on the Senate's investigation. [Filing No. 232-3 at 45; Filing No. 232-10 at 39-40.] Senator
Long told Ms. DaSilva that he had spoken with Attorney General Hill about the allegations against
him, and asked Ms. DaSilva to immediately inform him or the Majority Chief of Staff if she was
contacted by Attorney General Hill in the future in any way that made her uncomfortable. [Filing
No. 232-3 at 46; Filing No. 232-11 at 2.] Ms. DaSilva later stated that she believed the Senate had
supported her and respected her wishes during the investigation. [Filing No. 232-3 at 47; Filing
No. 232-20 at 4.]
19

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 20 of 54 PageID #: 5881

Because the Indianapolis Star was going to write an article, leadership put together a joint
statement regarding the allegations against Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 248-17 at 23-24.]
The statement read:
On Monday, May 14, legislative leaders were first made aware of employee
concerns regarding Attorney General Hill's conduct at a social gathering at the
closing of this year's legislative session. House and Senate personnel policies
strictly prohibit all forms of sexual harassment and clearly state that no employee
should be subjected to unsolicited or unwelcome sexual advances or conduct, either
verbal or physical. In accordance with House and Senate policies, interviews of
those employees expressing concern were immediately conducted and outside
counsel was engaged to be certain that the matter was handled properly and
thoroughly. Our investigation has been completed and the matter has been
addressed with the Attorney General to the satisfaction of the employees involved.
Protection of House and Senate employees is of paramount importance to
legislative leaders.
[Filing No. 232-9 at 1; Filing No. 232-9 at 13.]
At 1:30 p.m. on July 2, 2018, the legislative council met and during the meeting, Speaker
Bosma approved the joint statement. [Filing No. 248-17 at 24-25.] Ten or fifteen minutes after
the joint statement had been approved, leadership learned that the Indianapolis Star had a copy of
the Memorandum. [Filing No. 248-17 at 25.] Sometime later that day, Senator Lanane informed
Ms. McLemore that the media had obtained a copy of the Memorandum and that it would be
published. [Filing No. 232-4 at 32.] Subsequently, Senator Long advised Ms. DaSilva that the
Memorandum had been obtained by the media and would be made public, and he apologized to
her for the unauthorized disclosure. [Filing No. 232-3 at 45-46; Filing No. 232-10 at 38.]
Attorney General Hill did not hear from leadership about the July 2 meeting until
approximately 3:30 p.m. that day, when leadership indicated they were ready to meet with him
and his Chief Deputy, Aaron Negangard. [Filing No. 248-20 at 16; Filing No. 248-21 at 3.] At
the meeting, Speaker Bosma, Senator Long, Representative Goodin, and Senator Lanane reiterated
their disapproval of Attorney General Hill's actions and advised that they stood by their employees.
20

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 21 of 54 PageID #: 5882

[Filing No. 232-7 at 38; Filing No. 232-8 at 50; Filing No. 232-10 at 27-28; Filing No. 232-10 at
35-36; Filing No. 232-32.] During the meeting, Attorney General Hill was told that things had
gone from bad to worse with the leaking of the Memorandum to the media and that the
Memorandum would be printed in the Indianapolis Star within a few hours. [Filing No. 248-20
at 17; Filing No. 248-20 at 21.] Leadership gave Attorney General Hill the joint statement which
stated that the investigation had been completed and the matter had been addressed with Attorney
General Hill. [Filing No. 248-6 at 37-38; Filing No. 248-7; Filing No. 248-21 at 3; Filing No. 2492.] At the end of the meeting, Speaker Bosma told Attorney General Hill, "I am really sorry about
all of this." [Filing No. 248-17 at 29.] Neither Speaker Bosma, Senator Long, Representative
Goodin, nor Senator Lanane gave Attorney General Hill a copy of the Memorandum or disclosed
the names of any of the complainants or witnesses during the June 29, 2018 telephone call or the
July 2, 2018 in-person meeting. [Filing No. 232-10 at 36-37.]
On July 2, 2018 at 6:27 p.m., the Indianapolis Star published its article and released the
Memorandum. [Filing No. 248-26.] In the Memorandum, Plaintiffs were not identified by name
and their pseudonyms were blacked out. [Filing No. 248-26 at 8-15.]
H.

The House and Senate Publicly Condemn Attorney General Hill's
Inappropriate Conduct, Call for His Resignation, and Request an
Investigation by the Indiana Inspector General

Subsequently, Attorney General Hill issued statements, made comments on social media,
and held a press conference in which he called his accusers liars, denied the allegations, and
claimed that the allegations were vicious and false. [Filing No. 248-1 at 45; Filing No. 248-4 at
72; Filing No. 248-27.] Attorney General Hill, through his attorneys, also threatened to sue for
defamation. [Filing No. 248-27.] In the meantime, he continued to go to the office that Ms.
DaSilva shared with Senator Mishler. [Filing No. 248-1 at 47-48.]
21

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 22 of 54 PageID #: 5883

As a result of Attorney General Hill's denials, Speaker Bosma and Senator Long decided
to call for Attorney General Hill's resignation. [Filing No. 232-8 at 85-86; Filing No. 232-10 at
49.] Speaker Bosma and Senator Long issued the following statement on July 5, 2018:
We believe that the women who came forward with accounts of inappropriate
behavior by Attorney General Curtis Hill in the early hours of March 15, 2018, are
telling the truth regardless of the Attorney General's denial of these allegations. We
do not believe that Curtis Hill, as chief law enforcement officer of the State of
Indiana, can continue to perform his duties, nor should he, and we call for his
immediate resignation. We have further requested that the Indiana Inspector
General thoroughly investigate these allegations.
Sexual harassment is
unacceptable at any time, in any place. It makes no difference that these incidents
did not occur in a workplace environment. Curtis Hill is not our employee; if he
was, he would already have been fired. Because we cannot terminate his
employment, we ask instead for him to own up to his actions, apologize publicly to
the victims, and tender his resignation immediately.
[Filing No. 232-9 at 15.]
The Indiana Inspector General's Office conducted an investigation and interviewed Ms.
DaSilva, Ms. McLemore, and Ms. Lozano. [Filing No. 232-1 at 31; Filing No. 232-4 at 51.] On
July 18, 2018, after private attorneys for Attorney General Hill threatened a defamation lawsuit,
Speaker Bosma and Senator Long issued another statement:
We believe Curtis Hill is the individual who should be answering questions about
the allegations of inappropriate conduct, and we stand by our prior statements
regarding this matter. We are fully cooperating with the Inspector General's Office
as they conduct their current investigation and will await the results.
[Filing No. 232-9 at 17.]
I.

Ms. McLemore and Ms. DaSilva Publish Op-Eds Publicly Identifying
Themselves

On July 6, 2018, Ms. McLemore published an op-ed in which she discussed her allegations
against Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 232-28.] In the op-ed, Ms. McLemore stated that she
did not request an investigation into Attorney General Hill's conduct and did not need him to resign
or receive "a public slogging" as punishment. [Filing No. 232-28 at 2.] She stated:
22

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 23 of 54 PageID #: 5884

I want to first say that throughout the investigation – that I did not request but was
offered – I did not have a single defined motive. I didn't need Hill to resign. I didn't
need him to have a public slogging. I was going through the motions deciding day
by day what was best for me. I just wanted to put my story on record, anonymously,
in case it ever came up to bite me in the ass.
[Filing No. 232-28 at 2.] The op-ed was the first time that Ms. McLemore's name became public
as one of the complainants in the Memorandum. [Filing No. 232-4 at 40.]
Six days later, on July 12, 2018, Ms. DaSilva also published an op-ed which identified her
by name for the first time as one of the complainants in the Memorandum. [Filing No. 232-3 at
47; Filing No. 232-20.] Ms. DaSilva stated in the op-ed that the Senate did not try to hide its
investigation into Attorney General Hill and had maintained the confidentiality of the witnesses as
they had requested. [Filing No. 232-20 at 4.] She stated:
When I was interviewed by our caucus leadership, they wanted to know my account
of the night as well as what I would like to be done moving forward. They let me
know they would support any decisions I made and would respect my wishes. I
believe our legislative leadership, in all four caucuses, has done just that.
*

*

*

The legislative leadership was not trying to hide the investigation in order to save
face. They were keeping the internal investigation confidential because that was
what we, the victims, had asked for.
When the memo was leaked, the House and Senate leaders, who had promised us
this confidentiality, were furious, and rightfully so.
[Filing No. 232-20 at 3-4.] When Ms. DaSilva's identity became known, she began locking her
office door every day because she was afraid Attorney General Hill would come in. [Filing No.
231-3 at 203.] The Senate purchased her a Ring doorbell for her office several months after Ms.
DaSilva reported her fears. [Filing No. 249-1.]

23

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 24 of 54 PageID #: 5885

J.

The House and the Senate Reiterate Their Support for Plaintiffs

On October 23, 2018, the Inspector General concluded that Attorney General Hill had not
committed a crime or violated any ethical rules. [Filing No. 248-22.] Additionally, a courtappointed Special Prosecutor determined not to bring criminal charges against Attorney General
Hill. [Filing No. 232-4 at 51-52.] Speaker Bosma and Senator Long, however, reiterated their
calls for Attorney General Hill to resign. [Filing No. 232-4 at 52.] On October 23, 2018, Senator
Long issued the following statement:
I appreciate the thorough work performed by the Inspector General and the Special
Prosecutor, and I respect their conclusions. I believed the women who came
forward with reports of misconduct were telling the truth in May, and I believe
them now. The Attorney General's behavior that night toward the women involved
is unacceptable.
Hoosiers expect better from the people they elect to represent them in state
government, especially when the individual involved is the chief law enforcement
officer for the state of Indiana. I called for the Attorney General to step down in
July, and I continue to believe that is the right thing for him to do. However, it
appears that he has no intention to do so, and that is his decision alone to make at
this time. The people of Indiana will have the final say in this matter.
[Filing No. 232-11 at 19.] Speaker Bosma also maintained his position that Attorney General Hill
should resign, despite the findings of the Inspector General and the Special Prosecutor. [Filing
No. 232-9 at 2.]
After the Inspector General and the Special Prosecutor announced their findings, Plaintiffs
held a press conference. [Filing No. 231-1 at 32.] At the press conference, Ms. Lozano identified
herself publicly for the first time as one of the complainants. [Filing No. 231-1 at 32.] After the
press conference, Ms. Lozano told the Minority Chief of Staff and the staff director that she was
not mad at them, and the Minority Chief of Staff responded that Ms. Lozano had a right to do what
she had done. [Filing No. 231-1 at 44.] The Minority Chief of Staff assured Ms. Lozano that

24

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 25 of 54 PageID #: 5886

nothing had changed at work, and that if someone treated her differently or if she felt she was
being treated differently, she should contact him immediately. [Filing No. 231-1 at 44.]
The day after the press conference, Ms. Lozano gave an interview to NUVO magazine in
which she stated that everyone had been "very supportive," and she was "very happy and very
content with [her] decision to come forward publicly." [Filing No. 232-22 at 2.] Ms. DaSilva also
gave an interview to NUVO magazine, and stated that after her name became public, she felt
supported "even within [her] work." [Filing No. 232-22 at 2.]
K.

Events Underlying Plaintiffs' Retaliation Claims
1.

Ms. Lozano

In early January 2019, Ms. Lozano attended Latino Advocacy Day at the Statehouse, a
legislative event sponsored by the Senate Democrats. [Filing No. 231-1 at 36.] While speaking
to a table sponsor, Ms. Lozano realized that Attorney General Hill had come to stand beside her
so he could also speak to the table sponsor. [Filing No. 231-1 at 36.] Ms. Lozano and Attorney
General Hill did not exchange words or touch and when Ms. Lozano told her staff director, Alexis
Tucker, about the interaction, Ms. Lozano said that she felt uncomfortable and felt that Attorney
General Hill was trying to intimidate her. [Filing No. 231-1 at 35-36; Filing No. 248-5 at 52;
Filing No. 248-5 at 56.] When the House later attempted to investigate Ms. Lozano's claims, the
Minority Chief of Staff reiterated that if Ms. Lozano ever felt uncomfortable at a work event, she
had permission to leave. [Filing No. 231-1 at 44.] Ms. Lozano did not have any other interactions
with Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 231-1 at 48.]
After Ms. Lozano's identity became known as one of the victims of Attorney General Hill's
inappropriate conduct, her work environment completely changed. [Filing No. 248-5 at 58.] Staff
members started making statements to the effect that there were no more Sine Die Events because
25

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 26 of 54 PageID #: 5887

of what had occurred, essentially blaming Ms. Lozano. [Filing No. 248-5 at 58-61.] Two
legislators made similar comments, and one was also hostile towards Ms. Lozano and blamed her
for leaking the Memorandum. [Filing No. 248-5 at 59; Filing No. 248-5 at 64-65.] Legislators
joked about being careful how they approached or talked to a female staffer. [Filing No. 248-5 at
68-70.] Ms. Lozano does not remember reporting any of those comments. [Filing No. 231-1 at
39-40.]
Ms. Lozano observed that there was not much direct communication with her anymore and
that she was not included in meetings she should have attended as the leader's legislative assistant.
[Filing No. 248-5 at 60.] One legislator made Ms. Lozano uncomfortable because he was asking
her to dinner and texting her, which she reported to the Chief of Staff many times. [Filing No.
248-5 at 72-74.] Although the House claimed that Attorney General Hill was not permitted to
attend legislative functions, one representative continued to invite Attorney General Hill to events
that he hosted, but Ms. Lozano did not complain to anyone about that. [Filing No. 248-5 at 7374.] Ms. Lozano stopped attending events to which Attorney General Hill was invited, including
the state of the state address, and limited her social interactions after the workday. [Filing No.
248-5 at 75-76; Filing No. 248-5 at 93-99.]
2. Ms. DaSilva
At some point after Ms. DaSilva accused Attorney General Hill of misconduct, Senator
Karen Tallian put her hand on Ms. DaSilva's back, asked Ms. DaSilva whether she should ask for
permission to place her hand there, and said that she should not put her hand there because she did
not want to be accused of anything. [Filing No. 248-1 at 40-41; Filing No. 248-1 at 55.] Ms.
DaSilva did not complain about Senator Tallian's comment to Senate leadership. [Filing No. 2323 at 60.]
26

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 27 of 54 PageID #: 5888

During the summer of 2018, Ms. DaSilva and Ms. McLemore heard that two senators had
made comments that Plaintiffs got what they deserved due to the way they were dressed at the Sine
Day Event. [Filing No. 232-4 at 42-43.] Neither Ms. DaSilva nor Ms. McLemore heard these
statements firsthand or reported hearing about the comments to Senate leadership. [Filing No.
232-4 at 42-43.]
3.

Ms. McLemore

Sometime in 2019, in front of Ms. McLemore, Representative Phil GiaQuinta joked to
Senator Lanane that Senator Lanane wanted to hurry and leave to get to AJ's Lounge. [Filing No.
232-4 at 17.] Senator Lanane jokingly responded that he only wanted to attend if Attorney General
Hill was going to be there. [Filing No. 232-4 at 17.] When he learned that Ms. McLemore had
been involved in the events at the Sin Die Event, Representative GiaQuinta apologized to Ms.
McLemore, and she accepted his apology. [Filing No. 232-4 at 45.] The day after the 2019
legislative session ended, the topic was brought up again on "Indiana Lawmakers" by John
Schwantes, the host. [Filing No. 248-4 at 17.] Ms. McLemore also learned from either a coworker or her Chief of Staff that two senators were discussing what occurred at the Sine Die Event
and one stated that Plaintiffs got what they deserved because of how they were dressed. [Filing
No. 248-4 at 74-75.]
When Ms. McLemore attended an Indiana Senate Democratic Caucus meeting before
either the 2019 or 2020 legislative session, she overheard Senator Taylor taking issue with a
negative depiction of the men present at AJ's Lounge at the Sine Die Event. [Filing No. 248-4 at
77-80; Filing No. 232-4 at 18.] Senator Taylor quoted an article from the Indianapolis Star and
then stated that it was turning into an exposé on the men that were at the Sine Die Event who did
nothing about Attorney General Hill's behavior. [Filing No. 248-4 at 80-81.] Ms. McLemore
27

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 28 of 54 PageID #: 5889

limited her attendance at work-related social events because of the negative, uncomfortable, or
inappropriate reactions of legislators and staff following her complaints about Attorney General
Hill. [Filing No. 248-4 at 103-04.]
L.

Plaintiffs Initiate This Litigation

On June 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging claims for sexual harassment and
retaliation under Title VII, sexual harassment and discrimination under the Equal Protection
Clause, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Indiana, as well as various
claims against Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 1.]
M.

The House and the Senate Investigate Plaintiffs' Retaliation Claims
1.

The House and Ms. Lozano's Claims

On July 1, 2019, after becoming aware that Plaintiffs had filed their Complaint in this case,
House Democrat Chief of Staff Graham Fishell, Chief Counsel for the House Republicans Noelle
Sykes, and Director of Legislative Affairs Alexis Tucker met with Ms. Lozano about the Latino
Advocacy event that had occurred in January 2019. [Filing No. 248-5 at 86.] Ms. Lozano told
Mr. Fishell that she wanted her attorneys present during the conversation. [Filing No. 248-5 at
87.] The Minority Chief of Staff reiterated to Ms. Lozano that if she ever felt uncomfortable at a
required work event, she could leave. [Filing No. 231-1 at 44.] The Minority Chief of Staff also
asked Ms. Lozano to bring any issues to his attention if they occurred in the future. [Filing No.
231-10 at 19.] The Minority Chief of Staff and Majority Chief Counsel each asked Ms. Lozano if
there were any other incidents of which they should be aware, but Ms. Lozano refused to speak
about them on advice from her attorney. [Filing No. 231-1 at 44-45.]

28

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 29 of 54 PageID #: 5890

2.

The Senate and Ms. DaSilva's and Ms. McLemore's Claims

On June 28, 2019, Senate Republican Chief of Staff Jeff Papa and Senate Secretary Jennifer
Mertz met with Ms. McLemore to follow up on allegations contained in this lawsuit that she had
not previously disclosed to Senate leadership. [Filing No. 232-4 at 46.] More than once, Ms.
McLemore asked that one of her attorneys be present, and Mr. Papa told her that she did not need
an attorney. [Filing No. 248-4 at 88; Filing No. 248-4 at 95-96.] Ms. McLemore repeated her
request for one of her attorneys to be present many times until she felt like there was no way of
getting out of the conversation. [Filing No. 248-4 at 96.] Ms. McLemore felt that she had no
choice but to answer Mr. Papa's questions because of his position as Chief of Staff for the Senate
Republicans. [Filing No. 248-4 at 88.] Ms. McLemore answered questions regarding Senator
Taylor's comment, Representative GiaQuinta's comment, and the comment made by Mr.
Schwantes on "Indiana Lawmakers," and Ms. McLemore said she had nothing else to report at that
time. [Filing No. 232-4 at 46-48.]
The same day, Mr. Papa and Ms. Mertz met with Ms. DaSilva regarding allegations
contained in this lawsuit that she had not previously disclosed to Senate leadership. [Filing No.
232-3 at 68; Filing No. 232-12 at 14; Filing No. 232-24 at 1-2.] Ms. DaSilva stated that she did
not wish to discuss her allegations until she had spoken with her attorneys and, after speaking to
her attorneys, she refused to discuss the allegations in this lawsuit. [Filing No. 232-3 at 68; Filing
No. 232-24 at 1-2.] Ms. DaSilva felt intimidated and uncomfortable and was repeatedly asked to
talk about the allegations in the Complaint without her attorney being present. [Filing No. 248-1
at 71-73.]
Mr. Papa then interviewed the individuals involved in Ms. DaSilva's and Ms. McLemore's
allegations, advised them that retaliation was not tolerated, and, regardless of whether they
29

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 30 of 54 PageID #: 5891

admitted to the allegations, warned them that the alleged behavior was inappropriate. [Filing No.
232-12 at 13; Filing No. 232-12 at 21-25; Filing No. 232-12 at 27-37; Filing No. 232-12 at 40-44;
Filing No. 232-33.]
N.

Plaintiffs Continue Their Employment Without Incident

At the beginning of 2019 – approximately seven months after Ms. Lozano reported
Attorney General Hill's conduct at the Sine Die Event to House leadership – the House promoted
Ms. Lozano to Assistant to the House Democratic Caucus Chair, which resulted in a pay increase.
[Filing No. 231-1 at 16.] At the end of 2020, Ms. Lozano was promoted to Assistant to the House
Minority Leader, Representative GiaQuinta, resulting in another pay increase. [Filing No. 231-1
at 15-16.] Ms. Lozano resigned her employment, effective June 18, 2021, for a position with
Indiana American Water, which resulted in a significant increase in her annual earnings. [Filing
No. 231-1 at 17.] Upon her resignation, Ms. Lozano wrote that she would "miss working with the
[Democratic Chief of Staff] and many of [her] colleagues and members," as her "employment with
[the House] over the course of the last four years ha[d] been an opportunity to both learn and to
contribute," and she would "take many of the positive and character building experiences to [her]
new employment." [Filing No. 231-23 at 1.]
After the Sine Die Event, Ms. DaSilva's performance reviews remained positive and she
continued to receive raises. [Filing No. 232-3 at 65.] Ms. DaSilva resigned her employment in
August 2019 to work for the United States Chamber of Commerce Foundation and received a
salary increase. [Filing No. 232-3 at 20; Filing No. 232-3 at 29; Filing No. 232-19.] After her
resignation, Ms. DaSilva posted a LinkedIn endorsement for the Senate internship program in
which she stated: "Interning and then working for the #Indiana State Senate was one of the most
rewarding times in my professional and personal career. (Take my word for it, really, see video
30

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 31 of 54 PageID #: 5892

below)." [Filing No. 232-21.] Recently, Ms. DaSilva expressed interest in learning about a
position with the Senate as a fiscal analyst. [Filing No. 232-3 at 67.]
Approximately a month after the Sine Die Event, the Senate promoted Ms. McLemore to
Director of Communications for the Indiana Senate Democratic Caucus, and she continued to
receive periodic pay raises. [Filing No. 232-4 at 15-16.] Ms. McLemore continued to work for
the Senate and resigned effective February 7, 2020 to work for Tamm Capital Group. [Filing No.
232-4 at 16.] She resigned in part because her co-workers and legislators continued to bring up
Attorney General Hill's inappropriate conduct at the Sine Die Event. [Filing No. 232-4 at 16-17.]
O.

Attorney General Hill Is Disciplined and Loses His Re-Election Bid

Following a disciplinary proceeding, the Indiana Supreme Court found that Attorney
General Hill had committed criminal battery and behaved unethically and suspended his law
license for thirty days. [Filing No. 248-28.] He was not nominated to run for re-election, and his
term as Indiana Attorney General ended in January 2021.
P.

The Operative Complaint

After the Court ruled on Motions to Dismiss filed by the State of Indiana and Attorney
General Hill, [Filing No. 113], Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint, [Filing
No. 115]. In their Second Amended Complaint, they assert claims against the House and the
Senate for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. [Filing No. 115.] 5 The House
and the Senate have now moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims. [Filing No.
231; Filing No. 232.]

5

Plaintiffs also named Attorney General Hill as a Defendant in the Second Amended Complaint,
and set forth claims for battery, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy. [Filing No. 115.]
The Court dismissed the claims against Attorney General Hill without prejudice for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. [Filing No. 134.] Consequently, Attorney General Hill is no longer a party
to this lawsuit and Plaintiffs pursued those claims in state court.
31

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 32 of 54 PageID #: 5893

III.

DISCUSSION
At the outset, the Court finds – and the parties do not dispute – that Ms. Lozano only asserts
claims against the House, and that Ms. DaSilva and Ms. McLemore only assert claims against the
Senate. The Court addresses the two Motions for Summary Judgment in turn below, but notes that
there is a great deal of overlap with the parties' arguments so combines its discussion accordingly.
The Court also readily acknowledges the seriously inappropriate conduct of Attorney General Hill
– a point on which the parties agree as well. There is no dispute that Attorney General Hill's
conduct toward Plaintiffs was abhorrent and unwelcome. But his liability is not the question
in this litigation. Instead, the Court must consider whether Plaintiffs' employers are liable for their
actions in response to reports of that conduct. It is through the lens of liability for the House and
Senate as employers that the Court will view the pending motions.
A.

Hostile Work Environment Claims

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their gender.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Hostile or abusive work environments are forms of sex discrimination
actionable under Title VII. Paschall v. Tube Processing Corp., 28 F.4th 805, 812 (7th Cir. 2022)
(quoting Lapka v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 974, 982 (7th Cir. 2008)). Under Title VII, a work
environment is hostile "[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation,
ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's
employment and create an abusive working environment." Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S.
17, 21 (1993) (quotation and citation omitted). In order to prove a hostile work environment claim,
a plaintiff must show that: "(1) the work environment was both subjectively and objectively
offensive; (2) the harassment was based on membership in a protected class; (3) the conduct was
severe or pervasive; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability." Scaife v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans
32

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 33 of 54 PageID #: 5894

Affs., 49 F.4th 1109, 1115-16 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d
972, 982 (7th Cir. 2014)). The House and Senate argue that Attorney General Hill's conduct was
neither severe nor pervasive and that, even if it was, they responded appropriately so there is no
basis for their liability as Plaintiffs' employers. The Court addresses each argument in turn.
1.

Whether the Conduct Was Severe or Pervasive

In support of their Motions for Summary judgment, Defendants argue that the conduct
Plaintiffs rely upon for their hostile work environment claims "falls well short of the objectively
severe or pervasive standard required for a claim of harassment against [Defendants]." [Filing No.
233 at 21; Filing No. 236 at 25.] They argue that the conduct occurred outside the workplace at
"an informal social gathering and involved a harasser who is neither a supervisor nor a co-worker
of [Plaintiffs]." [Filing No. 233 at 21; Filing No. 236 at 25.] Defendants contend that Attorney
General Hill's conduct was not physically threatening and only happened once, and that Plaintiffs
did not interact with Attorney General Hill as part of their regular job duties and did not have any
other inappropriate contact with Attorney General Hill. [Filing No. 233 at 21; Filing No. 236 at
25-26.] Defendants argue that Attorney General Hill's conduct "did not unreasonably interfere
with [Plaintiffs'] work performance," and that the House promoted Ms. Lozano twice (including
once after she reported Attorney General Hill's conduct and once after this lawsuit was filed), Ms.
DaSilva's performance reviews continued to be positive, and Ms. McLemore was promoted to
Director of Communications for the Senate Democrats a month after the Sine Die Event. [Filing
No. 233 at 21; Filing No. 236 at 25-26.] Defendants rely upon cases where the Seventh Circuit
"rejected hostile work environment claims based on conduct more severe or pervasive than the
alleged conduct at issue," and contend that Attorney General Hill's conduct was not "severe enough

33

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 34 of 54 PageID #: 5895

to trigger liability for [Defendants] as [Plaintiffs'] employer[s]." [Filing No. 233 at 21-22; Filing
No. 236 at 26-27.]
In response, Plaintiffs argue that they do not need to demonstrate that Attorney General
Hill's conduct was both severe and pervasive, and that even one act of harassment can suffice if it
is egregious. [Filing No. 252 at 26-27; Filing No. 253 at 26-27.] They point to Attorney General
Hill's actions at the Sine Die Event, and assert that Ms. Lozano was "uncomfortable and disturbed"
by Attorney General Hill's conduct, that Ms. DaSilva was "shocked, uncomfortable, angry, [and]
embarrassed," and that Ms. McLemore "ran into the bathroom and cried and then left the event
and continued crying." [Filing No. 252 at 27-28; Filing No. 253 at 27-29.] They argue that
"[e]vidence of harassment of other women[] may be considered in evaluating a hostile work
environment claim," and note that: Ms. DaSilva witnessed Ms. Lozano "being visibly
uncomfortable next to the Attorney General and stepped in between them to help her"; "[f]rom the
moment [Ms.] Lozano arrived at the Sine Die Event, she was affronted by witnessing the Attorney
General touch and grope her boss, Representative Reardon, which was distressing"; Attorney
General Hill "acted inappropriately with several other females, including, but not limited to
Representative Reardon, Laura McCaffrey, Laura Johnson, and Laura Brown" at the Sine Die
Event; and Donna Smith "also observed [Attorney General Hill] rubbing against any females that
passed by." [Filing No. 252 at 28-29; Filing No. 253 at 29.]
In reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot rely on Attorney General Hill's conduct
toward others at the Sine Die Event because Ms. DaSilva and Ms. McLemore did not observe that
conduct, and Ms. Lozano only observed Attorney General Hill's interaction with Representative
Reardon. [Filing No. 258 at 9; Filing No. 259 at 6.] They assert that even if Plaintiffs could rely
upon that conduct, it still was not severe or pervasive, noting that the conduct took place
34

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 35 of 54 PageID #: 5896

"afterhours at a voluntary social event in a public bar," and distinguishing cases cited by Plaintiffs.
[Filing No. 258 at 10-11; Filing No. 259 at 7-8.]
In determining whether conduct is severe or pervasive, the Seventh Circuit directs the
Court to consider the totality of the circumstances, including: "(1) the frequency of the
discriminatory conduct; (2) how offensive a reasonable person would deem it to be; (3) whether it
is physically threatening or humiliating conduct as opposed to verbal abuse; (4) whether it
unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance; and (5) whether it is directed at the
victim." Scaife, 49 F.4th at 1116 (citing Lambert v. Peri Formworks Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 863, 868
(7th Cir. 2013)). "[E]mployers generally do not face liability for off-color comments, isolated
incidents, teasing, and other unpleasantries that are, unfortunately, not uncommon in the
workplace." Swyear v. Fare Foods Corp., 911 F.3d 874, 881 (7th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Additionally, "occasional vulgar banter, tinged with sexual innuendo of coarse or boorish workers
generally does not create a work environment that a reasonable person would find intolerable."
Hilt-Dyson v. City of Chicago, 282 F.3d 456, 463 (7th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted).
Plaintiffs rely on the following conduct, all of which occurred at the Sine Die Event, to
support their argument that Attorney General Hill's conduct was severe or pervasive:
•

Ms. Lozano
o Attorney General Hill told Ms. Lozano that she was hot;
o Attorney General Hill put his arm around Ms. Lozano's waist and pulled her
into him;
o Ms. Lozano witnessed Attorney General Hill touch and grope
Representative Reardon; and
o Attorney General Hill acted inappropriately with other women, but Ms.
Lozano did not witness that conduct.

35

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 36 of 54 PageID #: 5897

•

Ms. DaSilva
o Attorney General Hill put his arm around Ms. DaSilva and other females,
and told them that they had to show a little skin to get a drink;
o Attorney General Hill put his hand on Ms. DaSilva's back and when Ms.
DaSilva tried to move Attorney General Hill's hand, he grabbed it and
pulled her hand and arm down with his and touched her butt, and then stood
there staring at her and smirking;
o Ms. DaSilva witnessed Ms. Lozano being visibly uncomfortable next to
Attorney General Hill and stepped in between them to help Ms. Lozano;
and
o Attorney General Hill acted inappropriately with other women, but Ms.
DaSilva did not witness that conduct.

•

Ms. McLemore
o While sitting at the bar with a co-worker, Attorney General Hill pulled up a
bar stool and put his hand on Ms. McLemore's back and began rubbing her
entire back, up and down, slowly; and
o Attorney General Hill acted inappropriately with other women, but Ms.
McLemore did not witness that conduct.

[Filing No. 252 at 27-28; Filing No. 253 at 27-28.]
The Court considers the factors set forth by the Seventh Circuit in Scaife. First, the acts
upon which Plaintiffs base their hostile work environment claims all took place on one evening at
the Sine Die Event – an event that was an informal gathering, outside of the workplace, and after
working hours. The acts did not occur over a period of time and, indeed, there is no evidence that
any of the Plaintiffs had any one-on-one encounters with Attorney General Hill thereafter. While
Ms. Lozano saw Attorney General Hill at a Latino Advocacy Day event in early January 2019,
there is no evidence that Attorney General Hill acknowledged Ms. Lozano in any way, despite
standing beside her so that he could speak to someone nearby – indeed, the evidence shows that
they did not exchange words or touch. The frequency of the offensive conduct – which took place
36

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 37 of 54 PageID #: 5898

at one event, and not over a period of time – does not support a finding that the conduct was severe
or pervasive. See Ford v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 942 F.3d 839, 851 (7th Cir. 2019) ("A hostile
work environment occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete
acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable on its own.") (quotation and citation
omitted).
Second, while Attorney General Hill's conduct toward Plaintiffs was offensive to be sure,
Seventh Circuit precedent warrants the conclusion that it was not offensive enough to be actionable
under Title VII. See, e.g., Davis v. Papa John's USA, Inc., 2021 WL 5154105, at *2 (7th Cir.
2021) (holding that "an isolated touch on the shoulder and one crude insult are not objectively
severe or pervasive enough to be actionable under Title VII"). In fact, the Seventh Circuit has
found that conduct that was objectively more offensive than that displayed by Attorney General
Hill at the Sine Die Event was not actionable under Title VII. See, e.g., Swyear, 911 F.3d at 879
(co-worker touched plaintiff's arm and lower back, invited her to go skinny dipping, and climbed
into plaintiff's hotel bed and asked her to cuddle); McPherson v. City of Waukegan, 379 F.3d 430,
434-35 (7th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff's supervisor asked her what color bra she was wearing, asked if
he could "make a house call," and pulled back her tank top so he could see her bra); Hilt-Dyson,
282 F.3d at 463-64 (supervisor rubbed plaintiff's back, squeezed her shoulder and stared at her
chest, and told her to raise her arms and open her blazer during a uniform fitting).
Third, Attorney General Hill's conduct was both verbal (telling Ms. Lozano that she was
hot and telling Ms. DaSilva she needed to show a little skin to get a drink) and physical (touching
Ms. Lozano's waist and giving her a side hug; putting his arm around Ms. DaSilva and putting his
hand on her back and touching her butt; and putting his hand on Ms. McLemore's back and rubbing
her entire back). Further, after her interaction with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event,
37

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 38 of 54 PageID #: 5899

Ms. Lozano began locking her office door.

The Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs were

humiliated by Attorney General Hill's conduct, and that Ms. Lozano felt threatened.
Fourth, Attorney General Hill's conduct did not unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs' job
performance. While they all spent time discussing their interactions with Attorney General Hill
with House and Senate leadership, they ultimately did not complain about further contacts with
Attorney General Hill (other than Ms. Lozano complaining about seeing Attorney General Hill at
the Latino Advocacy Day event).
Ms. Lozano stated that she was satisfied with the outcome of the investigation and
appreciated how the situation was handled. She was also promoted twice after she reported
Attorney General Hill's misconduct – once after she filed this lawsuit. While she faced comments
from co-workers about the fact that there were no more Sine Die Events, received texts from a
House member inviting her to dinner, and perhaps was not invited to meetings she otherwise would
have attended, these incidents made her uncomfortable but did not affect her work performance.
Indeed, she voluntarily left her position in June 2021 for a higher paying job.
Ms. DaSilva received positive performance reviews after the Sine Die Event, continued to
receive raises, voluntarily resigned her employment for another position at which she received a
salary increase, posted a LinkedIn endorsement for the Senate internship program, and recently
expressed interest in learning about a position with the Senate as a fiscal analyst. As with Ms.
Lozano, while she felt uncomfortable after she came forward regarding Attorney General Hill's
misconduct, she has not presented any evidence that her work performance was affected.
Ms. McLemore was promoted to Director of Communications at the Senate approximately
one month after the Sine Die Event and continued to receive periodic pay raises. She worked for
the Senate until February 2020, when she voluntarily resigned to work for a private company.
38

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 39 of 54 PageID #: 5900

While Ms. McLemore claims that she resigned in part because her co-workers and legislators
continued to bring up Attorney General Hill's inappropriate conduct at the Sine Die Event, there
is no evidence that her work performance was affected.
Finally, Plaintiffs' own interactions with Attorney General Hill were limited to his
comments and isolated physical touching. While "there is no magic number of incidents required
to establish a hostile environment," Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781, 789 (7th
Cir. 2007), Plaintiffs' limited direct interactions with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event
are not severe or pervasive enough to support a hostile work environment claim. As for their
observation of Attorney General Hill's conduct toward other women at the Sine Die Event, the
impact of "second-hand" harassment is "obviously not as great as the impact of harassment
directed at the plaintiff." Russell v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. at Chi., 243 F.3d 336, 343 (7th
Cir. 2001) (quotation and citation omitted). And Plaintiffs cannot point to Attorney General Hill's
treatment of other women that they did not observe to bootstrap the impact of the treatment they
faced themselves. See Yuknis v. First Student, Inc., 481 F.3d 552, 555-56 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Offense
based purely on hearsay or rumor really is 'second hand'; it is less credible, and, for that reason and
also because it is less confrontational, it is less wounding than offense based on hearing or
seeing…. The American workplace would be a seething cauldron if workers could with impunity
pepper their employer and eventually the EEOC and the courts with complaints of being offended
by remarks and behaviors unrelated to the complainant except for his having overheard, or heard
of, them.").
In short, although there is no doubt that Plaintiffs were humiliated by Attorney General
Hill's "creepy" conduct and perhaps even felt threatened by it, Plaintiffs have not presented
evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Attorney General Hill's conduct was
39

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 40 of 54 PageID #: 5901

so severe or pervasive as to create a hostile work environment that is actionable under Title VII
and Circuit precedent. Even so, the Court considers whether even if Plaintiffs had shown that
Attorney General Hill's conduct was severe or pervasive, there is a basis for employer liability.
2.

Whether There Is a Basis for Employer Liability

In support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs
experienced actionable harassment, Defendants took prompt corrective action including
immediately launching an investigation, interviewing Plaintiffs, and engaging outside counsel.
[Filing No. 233 at 23; Filing No. 236 at 28.] Specifically, Defendants assert that they: warned
Attorney General Hill that his alleged conduct was unacceptable, instructed him to refrain from
any contact with legislative staff members, and prohibited him from attending legislative
gatherings; asked Plaintiffs to tell them if Attorney General Hill ever contacted them or made them
uncomfortable; and called on the Inspector General to conduct an investigation. [Filing No. 233
at 23; Filing No. 236 at 28.] The House notes that it confirmed that Ms. Lozano did not interact
with Attorney General Hill as part of her regular job duties. [Filing No. 233 at 23.] Defendants
argue that they "took prompt and appropriate corrective action that was reasonably likely under
the circumstances to (and, in fact, did) prevent any alleged sexual harassment from recurring," and
note that their ability to impose corrective action was limited by the fact that Attorney General Hill
was an elected official from a separate branch of government who, by statute, had to be present in
the Statehouse. [Filing No. 233 at 23-24; Filing No. 236 at 28-29.]
Plaintiffs argue in response that a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants did not
take reasonable corrective action because Defendants should have known of Attorney General
Hill's sexual harassment on March 15, 2018, in April 2018, and on May 14, 2018, but "responded
ineffectually." [Filing No. 252 at 30; Filing No. 253 at 30.] They argue that multiple legislators
40

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 41 of 54 PageID #: 5902

observed Attorney General Hill's inappropriate conduct towards Plaintiffs and other females at the
Sine Die Event, that even more House and Senate members became aware of that conduct at the
Black Caucus town hall meeting in April 2018, and that when Representative Reardon reported
Attorney General Hill's conduct on May 14, 2018, the only thing Defendants did was to speak with
Plaintiffs and two other House staffers to ask them what had occurred at the Sine Die Event.
[Filing No. 252 at 30-32; Filing No. 253 at 31-32.] Plaintiffs assert that Defendants only hired
outside counsel to provide an opinion as to Defendants' liability, and not to investigate Attorney
General Hill's conduct. [Filing No. 252 at 32; Filing No. 253 at 32.] Plaintiffs note that when
Defendants spoke to Attorney General Hill six weeks after speaking with Plaintiffs, it was to notify
him that Defendants had learned that the Indianapolis Star was writing a story about his conduct
at the Sine Die Event, so that he would not be blindsided. [Filing No. 252 at 32-33; Filing No.
253 at 33.] Plaintiffs assert that at the end of the July 2, 2018 meeting with Attorney General Hill,
Speaker Bosma apologized to Attorney General Hill and that the meeting "had nothing to do with
the Plaintiffs' complaints about [Attorney General Hill] and everything to do with minimizing any
fallout from the media coverage." [Filing No. 252 at 33; Filing No. 253 at 33-34.]
In reply, Defendants argue that they did not have constructive knowledge of Plaintiffs'
interaction with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event because it is undisputed that Ms.
Lozano did not disclose the interaction until April 14, 2018, when she had lunch with
Representative Reardon; there is no evidence that Senator Mishler saw or heard about Ms.
DaSilva's interactions with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event; and that any evidence that
Senator Taylor saw Ms. McLemore's interaction with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event
is either inadmissible or does not show that he knew she was being subjected to workplace
harassment. [Filing No. 258 at 11; Filing No. 259 at 9-10.] Defendants also assert that there is no
41

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 42 of 54 PageID #: 5903

evidence that various representatives or senators observed Plaintiffs' interactions with Attorney
General Hill and that, even if they had, Plaintiffs "provide[ ] no legal basis to impute [their]
knowledge to [Defendants, which are] constitutionally separate legislative chamber[s]." [Filing
No. 258 at 12; Filing No. 259 at 9.] Defendants argue that they responded appropriately to the
accusations, and that Representative Reardon attempted to find out if Ms. Lozano wanted to take
action on the allegations and to determine the best avenue for raising the issue, and Ms. Lozano
"cannot hold the House responsible for the time it took to respond, when she knowingly avoided
reporting her claims through the proper channel." [Filing No. 258 at 13.] They contend that once
Senator Breaux learned of Ms. McLemore's and others' allegations in April 2018, she offered to
assist Ms. McLemore but Ms. McLemore initially resisted, and that she also cannot hold the Senate
responsible for a delay when she avoided reporting her claims. [Filing No. 259 at 11.] Defendants
argue that there is no evidence that the Senate knew of Ms. DaSilva's allegations until she reported
them to Senator Mishler on May 14, 2018. [Filing No. 259 at 12.] They note that Plaintiffs and
Attorney General Hill interacted at an informal party at a public bar, that Attorney General Hill
was not a supervisor or co-worker of Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs did not interact with Attorney
General Hill in their jobs, and that no harm occurred during the time it took for Representative
Reardon to "assess the proper response" to Ms. Lozano's accusations or during the time it took
Senator Breaux to convince Ms. McLemore to participate in the investigation. [Filing No. 258 at
13; Filing No. 259 at 11.] Defendants argue further that Plaintiffs' assertions that Defendants'
investigation and actions were only a response to media fallout, and that Defendants engaged legal
counsel only to provide an opinion on liability, are not support by the evidence. [Filing No. 258
at 14-16; Filing No. 259 at 12-14.] Finally, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs did not face any
further harassment from Attorney General Hill after they reported their interactions at the Sine Die
42

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 43 of 54 PageID #: 5904

Event, and that Plaintiffs do not identify any other actions Defendants could or should have taken.
[Filing No. 258 at 15-16; Filing No. 259 at 14-15.]
An employer is not liable for harassment from a co-worker where it "takes prompt and
appropriate corrective action reasonably likely to prevent the harassment from recurring." Porter
v. Erie Foods Int'l, Inc., 576 F.3d 629, 636 (7th Cir. 2009). "Employers satisfy their obligation
under Title VII when they take steps reasonably calculated to prevent future harassment, even if
those steps fail to prevent all contact between the employees." Kemp v. Kickert School Bus Lines,
Inc., 2022 WL 1768842, at *2 (7th Cir. June 1, 2022). "To prove negligence, an employee usually
must make a concerted effort to inform the employer that a problem exists," such as "lodging a
complaint with human resources or telling high-level management about the harassment." Nischan
v. Stratosphere Quality, LLC, 865 F.3d 922, 931 (7th Cir. 2017) (quotations and citations omitted).
"[A]n employee's subjective fears of confrontation, unpleasantness or retaliation do not alleviate
the employee's duty…to alert the employer to the allegedly hostile environment." Porter v. Erie
Foods Int'l, Inc., 576 F.3d 629, 638 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation and citation omitted). "In assessing
the corrective action, [the] focus is not whether the perpetrator[ was] punished by the employer,
but whether the employer took reasonable steps to prevent future harm." Id. at 637.
The undisputed facts establish the following timeline of events:
•

Plaintiffs tell co-workers about their interactions with Attorney General Hill at
the Sine Die Event in the days after the event, but do not report it to leadership;

•

A few weeks after the Sine Die Event, Senator Taylor apologizes to Ms.
McLemore for not doing anything in response to Attorney General Hill's
conduct toward at the Sine Die Event, which he apparently observed;

•

In April 2018, the month after the Sine Die Celebration, Senator Breaux
questions Ms. McLemore about her interactions with Attorney General Hill at
the Sine Die Event and suggests that Ms. McLemore report it to Senate
leadership but Ms. McLemore resists and states that she will think about it. Ms.
43

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 44 of 54 PageID #: 5905

McLemore also tells her Chief of Staff about it, who offers to assist Ms.
McLemore in reporting it;
•

A week later, Ms. McLemore advises Senator Breaux that she is ready to report
Attorney General Hill's inappropriate conduct at the Sine Die Event, and meets
with Senate leadership shortly thereafter;

•

Also in April 2018, Ms. Lozano tells Representative Reardon about her
interactions with Attorney General Hill at the Sine Die Event, and
Representative Reardon tells Ms. Lozano that she wants to inform leadership;

•

On May 14, 2018, the General Assembly reconvenes for a special legislative
session and leadership, including Speaker Bosma, learn of Attorney General
Hill's inappropriate conduct at the Sine Die Event for the first time. Speaker
Bosma informs leadership, including Senators Long and Lanane and
Representative Goodin, and they collectively decide to launch an investigation.
Ms. DaSilva tells Senator Mishler about Attorney General Hill's misconduct
and Representative Reardon tells Representative Goodin and they meet with
Speaker Bosma;

•

On May 15, 2018, House and Senate leadership speak to Ms. Lozano and two
other House staffers, and the House Chief Counsel and Principal Clerk
interview Ms. Lozano. Ms. DaSilva and Ms. McLemore also meet with Senate
leadership regarding Attorney General Hill's misconduct;

•

Around this time, the House and Senate engage outside counsel;

•

On June 18, 2018, outside counsel advises in the Memorandum that the General
Assembly had conducted a prompt and effective investigation and that Attorney
General Hill's conduct did not constitute sexual harassment in violation of Title
VII;

•

On June 29, 2018, Speaker Bosma and Senator Long learn of the planned
Indianapolis Star article and arrange to speak with Attorney General Hill via
telephone that day, and during the conversation they admonish him that his
behavior was inappropriate and unacceptable, that he is to have no interaction
with any of the Senate's or House's employees, that he is not to retaliate, that he
is not to attempt to identify the individuals who reported his actions, and that
he is not permitted to attend any legislative gatherings;

•

On July 2, 2018, Speaker Bosma asks Ms. Lozano to let him or Representative
Goodin know if Attorney General Hill contacts her or makes her uncomfortable.
Senator Long asks the same of Ms. McLemore and Ms. DaSilva. Senator Long
also informs Ms. McLemore and Ms. DaSilva that Defendants had retained
outside counsel and that they would keep the Memorandum confidential.
Senator Long subsequently advises Ms. DaSilva that the Memorandum has
44

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 45 of 54 PageID #: 5906

been leaked. House and Senate leadership release a joint statement regarding
the investigation. Later that day, House and Senate leadership meet with
Attorney General Hill and reiterate their disapproval of his actions, advise that
they stand by their employees, and Speaker Bosma apologizes to Attorney
General Hill "about all of this." That evening, the Indianapolis Star releases
the Memorandum, which does not disclose Plaintiffs' names;
•

Subsequently, Attorney General Hill issues statements denying the allegations
and calling his accusers liars;

•

On July 5, 2018, Speaker Bosma and Senator Long issue a statement calling for
Attorney General Hill's resignation;

•

The Indiana Inspector General's Office conducts an investigation and
interviews Plaintiffs;

•

On July 6, 2018 and July 12, 2018, Ms. McLemore and Ms. DaSilva,
respectively, publish op-eds identifying themselves as victims of Attorney
General Hill's misconduct;

•

On July 18, 2018, Speaker Bosma and Senator Long issue another statement
standing by prior statements and stating that they are fully cooperating with the
Inspector General;

•

On October 23, 2018, the Inspector General concludes that Attorney General
Hill has not committed a crime or violated any ethical rules and a courtappointed Special Prosecutor determines not to bring criminal charges against
him. The same day, Senator Long issues a statement reiterating support for
Plaintiffs and again calling for Attorney General Hill's resignation but noting
that Attorney General Hill has no intention of resigning and that the people of
Indiana will have the final say.

This undisputed timeline of events establishes that Defendants reasonably responded to
Plaintiffs' complaints regarding Attorney General Hill's inappropriate conduct. Plaintiffs did not
report Attorney General Hill's conduct right away and even assuming that others observed that
conduct, Plaintiffs have not provided any legal authority that would impute those observations to
House or Senate leadership. Instead, the obligation to respond to the misconduct was triggered, at
the earliest, on May 14, 2018 – when Representative Reardon reported the misconduct to Speaker
Bosma and other House leadership and Speaker Bosma alerted Senate leadership. That report set
45

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 46 of 54 PageID #: 5907

in motion a prompt investigation, which included interviewing Plaintiffs, engaging outside
counsel, and confronting Attorney General Hill, admonishing him, and instructing him that he was
to have no interaction with House or Senate employees, was not to retaliate, and was not to try to
identify who his accusers were. Defendants also maintained the confidentiality of Plaintiffs'
identity, told Ms. Lozano she could leave work-related events if she felt uncomfortable, told
Plaintiffs to let leadership know if they had further contact with Attorney General Hill or felt
uncomfortable, and issued public statements in support of Plaintiffs when the Memorandum was
leaked and when Attorney General Hill declared his innocence and called his accusers liars. Less
than two months after learning of Attorney General Hill's misconduct, and just a few weeks after
outside counsel had issued the results of its investigation, Defendants called for Attorney General
Hill's resignation.
The Court is not sure what more Defendants could have done, and Plaintiffs do not suggest
any further action that Defendants should have taken. Significantly, Attorney General Hill was
not a House or Senate employee, and Defendants were powerless to remove him from the office
to which he was elected. 6 Further, and most tellingly, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs did not have

6

In affirming the Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' original claims against the State of Indiana and
Attorney General Hill in this case, the Seventh Circuit stated in dicta that the House and Senate
"had some potential control" over Attorney General Hill because "[t]he senior legislative officer
at the party could have ejected Hill, an interloper. And the legislature holds the impeachment
power, which could oust an Attorney General from office." DaSilva, 30 F.4th at 674-75. As for
ejecting Attorney General Hill from the Sine Die Event, there is no evidence regarding who the
most senior legislative officer at the event was, or whether he or she observed or was made aware
of Attorney General Hill's conduct. As for impeachment, the Court notes that Indiana Code § 58-1-1 provides that "all state officers other than justices of the supreme court or judges of the court
of appeals of Indiana or the Indiana tax court, all other judges, prosecuting attorneys, and all
county, city, town, and township officers are liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in
office..." (emphasis supplied). Given the Special Prosecutor's determination not to bring
criminal charges against Attorney General Hill, the Court is doubtful that Attorney
General Hill could have been impeached.
46

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 47 of 54 PageID #: 5908

any further contact with Attorney General Hill after the Sine Die Event, other than when Attorney
General Hill stood beside Ms. Lozano at the Latino Advocacy Day event, but did not say anything
to her or touch her. In determining whether an employer reasonably responded to a claim of
harassment, "[t]he emphasis is on the prevention of future harm," Lapka, 517 F.3d at 984 – here,
Defendants' response ensured that future harm did not occur, and it in fact did not occur. The
Court finds that no reasonable jury could find that Defendants were negligent in preventing future
harassment from occurring. 7
In sum, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could conclude that Attorney General
Hill's conduct at the Sine Die Event was sufficiently severe or pervasive or that Defendants
failed to reasonably respond to that conduct. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 231; Filing No. 232], as to Plaintiffs' hostile work
environment claims.

7

Plaintiffs make much of their contentions that: (1) Defendants retained outside counsel not to
investigate Attorney General Hill's conduct, but to give an opinion as to Defendants' liability as
employers; (2) Speaker Bosma and Senator Long moved their initial meeting with Attorney
General Hill up to June 29, 2018 to give him a "heads up" about the planned Indianapolis Star
article; and (3) Speaker Bosma apologized to Attorney General Hill at the July 2, 2018 meeting.
First, the Court does not find Defendants' motivation for hiring outside counsel significant. Even
if Defendants' goal was to ensure that they did not face liability, that would mean that they were
acting in accordance with the law – which is what Plaintiffs should have wanted them to do.
Second, the reason for moving the meeting up because of the planned Indianapolis Star article is
irrelevant to the Court's analysis, but the Court notes that other evidence shows that leadership
admonished Attorney General Hill during the meeting, instructed him to have no contact with
House or Senate employees, and ordered him not to attend legislative events – a valid reason to
have the meeting as soon as possible. Finally, Speaker Bosma testified that he apologized to
Attorney General Hill at the end of the July 2, 2018 meeting because Attorney General Hill is
married with children, and the news of his misconduct was about to be made public. [Filing No.
248-17 at 29.] The apology does not undermine the reasonableness of Defendants' response.
47

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 48 of 54 PageID #: 5909

B.

Retaliation Claims

In support of their Motions for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs'
retaliation claims fail because they reasonably responded to Attorney General Hill's misconduct.
[Filing No. 233 at 25; Filing No. 236 at 30.] They characterize Plaintiffs' retaliation claims as ones
for retaliatory harassment, and argue that Attorney General Hill's conduct did not result in a
significant change to Plaintiffs' employment status and that all continued in their positions, worked
without incident, and eventually left for other opportunities [Filing No. 233 at 26; Filing No. 236
at 31.] Defendants assert that Attorney General Hill standing next to Ms. Lozano at the Latino
Advocacy Day event did not constitute harassing behavior and had no causal connection to Ms.
Lozano's protected activity. [Filing No. 233 at 27.] They note that Ms. Lozano had been given
permission to leave any work-related event if she ever felt uncomfortable and reiterate many of
their arguments as to why their response to Attorney General Hill's misconduct was reasonable.
[Filing No. 233 at 27-28; Filing No. 236 at 31-32.] Defendants contend that no reasonable jury
could find that the events upon which Plaintiffs rely for their retaliation claims were done out of
retaliatory animus. [Filing No. 233 at 28-30; Filing No. 236 at 33-36.] Defendants argue further
that Plaintiffs never complained of Attorney General's behavior after the Sine Die Event, other
than Ms. Lozano complaining that Attorney General Hill had stood next to her at the Latino
Advocacy Day event, and that Ms. Lozano and Ms. DaSilva praised their jobs when they resigned.
[Filing No. 233 at 31; Filing No. 236 at 36-37.]
In response, Plaintiffs argue that they suffered from an adverse employment action – a
retaliatory hostile work environment. [Filing No. 252 at 35; Filing No. 253 at 35.] Plaintiffs argue
that: they were subjected to Attorney General Hill calling his accusers liars and stating that he was
falsely accused; they were treated differently by legislators and staff once they were identified as
48

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 49 of 54 PageID #: 5910

Attorney General Hill's accusers; the Attorney General refused to comply with instructions to
refrain from attending legislative functions or having contact with them; Ms. Lozano overheard
negative comments regarding Plaintiffs and the Sine Die Event; Ms. DaSilva and Ms. McLemore
were interviewed regarding this lawsuit without their attorneys present; Ms. DaSilva had to
continue interacting with Attorney General Hill as part of her job duties, and feared for her safety;
Ms. Lozano had to stand next to Attorney General Hill at the Latino Advocacy Day event and
thought he was trying to intimidate her; and co-workers and legislators blamed Ms. Lozano for the
fact that there were no more Sine Die events. [Filing No. 252 at 35-37; Filing No. 253 at 35-37.]
Plaintiffs argue that a reasonable jury could find that Defendants are liable for the retaliatory
hostile work environment because Defendants took no action to stop "the Attorney General's media
frenzy," Ms. Lozano's supervisor told Ms. Lozano that there was nothing that could be done about
Attorney General Hill attending the Latino Advocacy Day event, the House was on notice of Ms.
Lozano being treated in a hostile manner by two legislators and of the fact that a representative
had asked Ms. Lozano out, and the Senate was on notice of retaliatory comments made by senators
to Ms. McLemore and Ms. DaSilva. [Filing No. 252 at 37-39; Filing No. 253 at 37-38.]
In reply, Defendants reiterate their arguments that no reasonable jury could conclude that
Plaintiffs were subjected to a retaliatory hostile work environment, or that Defendants did not take
reasonable corrective action. [Filing No. 258 at 18-22; Filing No. 259 at 16-21.] They also argue
that some of the evidence upon which Plaintiffs rely is inadmissible. [Filing No. 258 at 17-18;
Filing No. 259 at 15-16.]
In order to succeed on a retaliation claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must show: "(1) she
engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse action by her employer;
and (3) there is a causal link between her protected expression and the adverse action." Scaife, 49
49

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 50 of 54 PageID #: 5911

F.4th at 1118. The Seventh Circuit has also recognized a retaliatory hostile work environment
claim, which requires a plaintiff to show that: "(1) her work environment was both objectively and
subjectively offensive; (2) the harassment was in retaliation for protected behavior; (3) the conduct
was severe or pervasive; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability." Flanagan v. Office of
Chief Judge of Cir. Ct. of Cook Cnty., Ill., 893 F.3d 372, 375 (7th Cir. 2018). Here, Plaintiffs label
their claim as one for retaliation, but then refer to a "retaliatory hostile work environment" in their
responses to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. 252 at 34; Filing No. 253 at
34.] In this case, though, this is really a distinction without a difference. An adverse employment
action for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim "simply means an employer's action that would
dissuade a reasonable worker from participating in protected activity." Huri v. Office of the Chief
Judge of the Cir. Ct. of Cook Cnty., 804 F.3d 826, 833 (7th Cir. 2015). Here, Plaintiffs do not
allege an adverse employment action other than that they were subjected to a hostile work
environment. Even so, Plaintiffs' retaliation claims fail on several fronts.
First, Plaintiffs have not shown that their work environment was objectively and
subjectively offensive. They rely upon the following events to support their retaliation claims:
•

Ms. Lozano
o Attended Latino Advocacy Day Event in January 2019, where Attorney
General Hill stood right behind her and made her feel uncomfortable and
intimidated, but did not speak to her or touch her;
o Co-workers blamed her for the fact that there were no more Sine Die events;
o One co-worker blamed her for the release of the Memorandum;
o A House member invited Ms. Lozano to dinner, which made her
uncomfortable;
o Some co-workers were antagonistic toward her;
o She was not included in meetings she should have attended; and
50

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 51 of 54 PageID #: 5912

o House leadership met with her after Plaintiffs initiated this litigation to
discuss the Latino Advocacy Day event;
•

Ms. DaSilva
o Senator Tallian put her hand on Ms. DaSilva's back, asked her whether she
should ask for permission to do so, and said that she did not want to be
accused of anything;
o Heard that senators had commented that Plaintiffs got what they deserved
due to the manner in which they dressed at the Sine Die Event; and
o Jeff Papa and Jennifer Mertz questioned Ms. DaSilva about the allegations
in this case and she felt uncomfortable;

•

Ms. McLemore
o Representative GiaQuinta joked to senators that he wanted to go to AJ's
Lounge and a senator responded that he only wanted to go if Attorney
General Hill was going to be there;
o Heard that senators had commented that Plaintiffs got what they deserved
due to the manner in which they dressed;
o Overheard a senator complaining about a negative depiction of the men
present at AJ's Lounge for the Sine Die Event; and
o Mr. Papa and Ms. Mertz spoke to Ms. McLemore after this lawsuit was filed
and she felt she had to answer questions even though her attorney was not
present.

The Court has no doubt that Plaintiffs felt uncomfortable at work as their identities as
Attorney General Hill's accusers emerged. But the treatment they faced after reporting Attorney
General Hill's misconduct – which must be viewed separately as to each Plaintiff, and not
collectively – simply does not rise to the level of hostile for purposes of a claim of retaliation.
Each Plaintiff experienced one isolated incident directed specifically at them: Attorney General
Hill stood next to Ms. Lozano at the Latino Advocacy Day Event but he did not speak to her or
touch her; Senator Tallian put her hand on Ms. DaSilva's back and joked about not wanting to be
accused of anything; and Representative GiaQuinta and Senator Lanane joked in front of Ms.
51

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 52 of 54 PageID #: 5913

McLemore about going to AJ's Lounge. These are isolated incidents, and are neither severe nor
pervasive. Swyear, 911 F.3d at 881 ("[E]mployers generally do not face liability for off-color
comments, isolated incidents, teasing, and other unpleasantries that are, unfortunately, not
uncommon in the workplace.").
Additionally, Plaintiffs' more general complaints regarding their treatment after reporting
Attorney General Hill's misconduct do not support their argument that they were subjected to a
retaliatory hostile work environment. Co-workers commenting that there would no longer be Sine
Die events, again while perhaps making Plaintiffs uncomfortable, do not rise to the level of a
hostile work environment.

See Swyear, 911 F.3d at 881 (overhearing co-workers making

comments that were inappropriate and in poor taste did not support finding of hostile work
environment). Indeed, these comments could just as easily have been made to criticize Attorney
General Hill's conduct at the Sine Die Event rather than Plaintiffs' reporting of that conduct. There
is no evidence that a House member inviting Ms. Lozano out to dinner had anything to do with her
reporting of Attorney General Hill's misconduct at the Sine Die Event. Hearing second-hand that
two senators commented that Plaintiffs got what they deserved because of the way that they were
dressed does not carry much weight, and they were comments made to others and of which
Plaintiffs heard through the grapevine. See Johnson v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., 892
F.3d 887, 903 (7th Cir. 2018) ("We would caution against elevating workplace rumors to evidence
of a hostile work environment."). Additionally, Plaintiffs' vague allegations that things were not
the same at work after they reported the misconduct, or that they were not invited to meetings they
otherwise should have attended, carry less weight when viewed in the context of their continued,
successful employment.

All received positive performance reviews and promotions, and

voluntarily left for objectively better opportunities. And, tellingly, Ms. Lozano and Ms. DaSilva
52

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 53 of 54 PageID #: 5914

praised their experiences working for the House and the Senate, respectively, after their
resignations, and Ms. DaSilva recently expressed interest in learning about a job vacancy at the
Senate. Finally, the Court fails to see how questioning Plaintiffs about their claims that they were
being retaliated against can be considered evidence of that retaliation.
And even if Plaintiffs were subjected to a retaliatory hostile work environment after they
reported Attorney General Hill's misconduct, Defendants investigated Plaintiffs' complaints of
retaliation after learning of them when Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit. Specifically, House
leadership spoke to Ms. Lozano about the Latino Advocacy Day incident, reiterated to her that she
could leave any work events at which she felt uncomfortable, and asked her to bring any issues to
their attention if they occurred in the future, and Ms. Lozano refused to speak to them about any
other incidents on the advice of her counsel. Senate leadership met with Ms. McLemore and Ms.
DaSilva regarding their allegations of retaliation, Ms. McLemore stated that she had nothing to
report, and Ms. DaSilva did not want to discuss the allegations until she spoke with her attorney.
Mr. Papa interviewed the individuals involved in Ms. DaSilva's and Ms. McLemore's allegations,
advised them that retaliation was not tolerated, and warned them that the alleged behavior was
inappropriate. And while Plaintiffs argue that Defendants did not take action to stop Attorney
General Hill from publicly defending himself and calling his accusers liars, it is unclear what
Defendants could have done other than to reiterate their support for Plaintiffs and continue their
investigation – which they did. It is also unclear what more Defendants could have done to prevent
Attorney General Hill from attending legislative events other than telling him not to attend – which
they did. Attorney General Hill was not Defendants' employee, and his actions were not otherwise
within Defendants' control.

53

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JMS-DLP Document 265 Filed 11/17/22 Page 54 of 54 PageID #: 5915

Because Plaintiffs have not shown that they were subjected to a hostile work environment
in retaliation for reporting Attorney General Hill's misconduct at the Sine Die Event, nor that there
is a basis for holding Defendants' liable for that alleged retaliation, the Court GRANTS
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 231; Filing No. 232], as to Plaintiffs'
retaliation claims under Title VII.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The Court's decision should in no way be read to condone the reprehensible behavior of
Attorney General Hill – behavior that no woman should have to face, especially at the hands of
one of the state's highest elected officials. Although this litigation started out targeting that
behavior, it now focuses only on the House's and the Senate's actions in response to that behavior.
"Title VII 'does not guarantee a utopian workplace, or even a pleasant one,'" Patton v. Indianapolis
Pub. Sch. Bd., 276 F.3d 334, 339 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Vore v. Ind. Bell Tel. Co., 32 F.3d 1161,
1162 (7th Cir. 1994)), and it "is not a code of civility," Yuknis, 481 F.3d at 556. Because Attorney
General Hill's misconduct does not rise to the level that the Seventh Circuit has determined is
actionable under Title VII, and because no reasonable jury could conclude that the House and the
Senate failed to take reasonable action in response to that misconduct or that Plaintiffs faced
actionable retaliation for reporting that misconduct, there is no basis on which to hold the House
or the Senate liable.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the House's Motion for Summary

Judgment, [231], and the Senate's Motion for Summary Judgment, [232]. Final judgment shall
enter accordingly.
Date: 11/17/2022

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

54