California Senate employee sues Capitol sexual harassment unit, alleges slow response

A former California Senate employee who claims a lawmaker sexually harassed her is suing the independent unit the Legislature created in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement to investigate allegations of discrimination and misconduct in the Capitol.

The Senate employee recently amended her lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against her former boss, Sen. Bob Archuleta, to also sue the Legislature’s so-called Workplace Conduct Unit.

The lawsuit, initially filed on March 18, alleges the unit failed to independently investigate her complaints in a “timely manner,” and instead did “nothing” in response to her complaints.

That hasn’t changed in the new filing. The new complaint includes additional details, such as emails among Senate staff regarding the employee. She is identified as Jane Doe in the lawsuit.

Doe’s attorney Will Reed said she decided to sue the Workplace Conduct Unit as more information became available about how the Legislature’s investigative team handled her case.

“We are reviewing the facts, adding entities that we think have culpability, and facts that we believe bolster the allegations made by Jane Doe,” Reed said in a phone interview.

Doe alleges Archuleta made inappropriate comments about her breasts and detailed his love affairs during a July 2019 outing, and that she was publicly embarrassed, repudiated and retaliated against after she “rebuffed” Archuleta’s advances on multiple occasions.

Archuleta has previously called her claims “categorically false.”

Doe first reported her concerns about the lawmaker’s behavior to Archuleta’ chief of staff, Don Wilcox, in the fall of 2019, the lawsuit says. She followed up with Senate human resources personnel by that December.

The Workplace Conduct Unit did not officially get involved until six months later, the lawsuit says.

Launched after ‘We Said Enough’ letter

Workplace Conduct Unit investigators are charged with enforcing employment rules by completing “prompt, independent, and objective investigations of allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct,” according to its website.

The Legislature created the team in 2018 after dozens of women signed a letter calling attention to sexual harassment in the Capitol. The unit began operations in 2019 under the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Counsel.

The lawsuit does not say whether Doe initiated a complaint with the Workplace Conduct Unity, or if someone else filed one on her behalf.

According to the lawsuit, the Workplace Conduct Unit reached out to Doe about Archuleta in June 2020. She expressed an interest in cooperating with its review and hiring a lawyer by July.

She did not hear back from the panel until “the day she reached her breaking point” and resigned on Sept. 10, the lawsuit says.

Two lobbyists who signed the so-called We Said Enough letter that led to the creation of the Workplace Conduct Unit said the lawsuit underscores concerns activists raised about the unit when the Legislature created it.

“They were never structured to be accessible, transparent or responsive,” said Alicia Lewis,

“It’s unclear whether this is a functioning quasi-independent entity, or if we just put lipstick on a pig,” said Sam Corbin, another coalition leader. “Because the transparency is not there, and anecdotally what we are hearing and seeing and is evidenced by this lawsuit, would indicate there are still some of the same structural flaws to this accountability system that predated and in fact led to the creation of the (Workplace Conduct Unit).”

California Senate leaders knew about complaint

Emails included in new court documents show high-level Senate employees were aware of and concerned about Doe’s situation well before it reached the Workplace Conduct Unit.

The amended filing includes a December 2019 email thread between Sherry Greenberg, senior adviser to Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, and Secretary of the Senate Erika Contreras regarding the former aide’s struggles. Contreras is head of Senate Rules, the house’s official administrative body.

During a phone call that month, the complaint says, Doe told Greenberg about her concerns. Greenberg was acting as a mentor to Doe.

Greenberg then told Contreras in a Dec. 16, 2019 email that Doe’s complaints “could become a potential legal matter for the Senate.”

Greenberg wrote that the allegations made during the phone call demonstrated a “problem that needs to be officially addressed, and is well beyond mere mentoring.”

Contreras replied that she “reported the new allegations,” and wanted to address “(Jane’s) discomfort and her concerns about mental health and stress.”

Contreras then said she scheduled a call with Doe. The filing states the former aide requested Contreras’ help as a mediator and that their conversations continued into 2020.

Complaint referred to Workplace Conduct Unit

The filing also alleges that Wilcox, who was Doe’s supervisor, “repeatedly dismissed” her concerns and “took no action.”

The email thread states that the chief of staff reported at least a portion of her complaints to Senate Rules personnel.

Wilcox declined to comment. Greenberg did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, Contreras said that “Senate Rules was aware of some of the allegations in this case, which were immediately and properly referred to the independent Workplace Conduct Unit for investigation.”

The initial list of defendants included the state of California, the state Senate, the Senate Rules Committee, Archuleta and chief of staff Wilcox. Doe alleged they allowed or failed to prevent misconduct.

The Senate, Archuleta and Wilcox are contesting Doe’s allegations. In a recent court filing, the Senate sought to strike Wilcox from the lawsuit.

“Plaintiff has failed to allege any truly harassing conduct allegedly committed by Defendant Wilcox,” court documents filed by the attorneys state. “All of the acts attributed to Mr. Wilcox fall squarely within the category of commonly necessary personnel actions and thus are beyond the reach of harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.”

This story was originally published August 13, 2021 at 5:00 AM.