Taft/ "mm gun 'rMna. w/'I kuw 'm mum mum, muvll l'mr: V6 LWIK run"- '1 much/m, 1mm 1mm" ,JduwSumaw, my 20mum {le11!de hy I 'gi'ylalivv.' Services Agmy "1:"th 11. um Iw am: Home "mam msm- .and Indiana new; w. mwxliylwn mw umducl by a third puny. 1m} mumorandnm allcgulians and the rcauhs n] 1w include uur lug rugm'diny 1m situation. 'I'hys memorandum by anomcyumm and r, nut bu mama Wm any IIHM In HUM I. limkgruund A. --s ".mpmm m1; mming huurs n1 March 15' 2011s, Icginlaum (:ml 1:"de 'parl} at bar (Jn ur around V721) M, NH a wuh the Brian "mum In xr Hmma Majonlyl lum Leader Mallhuw Lehman, (Ihicl 01' an": mm Kup. 'Iuny (mndih wnh-- Wu ivrlinwmy, the 3m WHY mum (mm Him"), who was vury mumc Manda rm hm hack, slid mam down In hul bulimia, pul [hum undur dulhw handful "1 m3 mm M. Hill u, "back an" and she walkcd uw Ar, Hm approachcd mm" and again put hm hands "we, huumkx. Agam to hm] to "hack um \su nuxcd lhul ~hc had AG Hill . - . . ., and m" ,Mudmg a yum ut'mufrer llnuw "how a Inna skin" in gel \huu drum faster lxu ""Puncd [th Id! Igy In Hill make} h: udvunucsund . ouchlhe Slum.m in "run AU around one tumulc A Lr way "Ml '"flt'c "'th for her to gel-,W,b "f hit: an" undurslunding [hut--has nucnmucl . uy 1mm humfirst lime AU mu has gugcd Lunducl wuth-r "g h" wu'kd'W lhut Illis ia' mud, [ml am] "){Iuhhml a lnlm, huwrvcu lehcu um! I, .hml George T. Angelone, Executive Director lune lsi 2018 Page 2 in a conversation later that day,--informed Speaker Home that a Senate legislative nssistunt was involved in the situation, Upon hearing this information, and after discussing it With Sen. David Long, Speaker Bosma and Sen. Long determined that there would be an mvestigntion ot'the allegations, including interviews of employees of the House and Senate. B. The Investigation Results 1. Legislative Employee A On May 15, 2018. Sen. Long, Chiefof StaffSkip Brown, and Majority Attorney Mitchell Osterday interviewed Legislative Employee A. She reported that while she was ordering a drink at the sine die party, AG Hill came behind hera group offemales and said, "Don't you know how to get drinks? You have to show a little skin!" Legislative Employee A was shocked by the statement and noticed that the other females looked unsettled by the remark, Legislative Employee A walked away from the group but retumed when she noticed the other females looked uncomfortable. At that time, AG Hill put his arm around her and began sliding his hand down her back. When Legislative Employee A tried to remove his hand, AG Hill grabbed her hand and groped her on the buttocks. Legislative Employee A noted that she witnessed AG Hill. who appeared to be intoxicated. making advances toward other females throughout the bar. Legislative Employee A has never had any previous issues with AG Hill and there is no reason for her to have contact with him as part of performing her-job. 2. Legislative Employee On May 15, 20] B, Sen. Long, Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, Majority Chiefof Staff Brown, and Minority Chief of Staff Lenee Carroll met with Legislative Employee B, who shared that she was at Al's in the early morning of March 15, 2018. She was seated at a stool when AG Hill sat down next to her and appeared to be intoxicated. He asked her if she knew who he was, and then plaooddiis hand on her back and began rubbing it up and down her back for apmpximately two minutes. She was very uncomfortable and gave nun-verbal cues expressing her discomfort to her intcm who was tting with her at the bar. l'he intern asked Legislative Employee ifshe wanted to go it: the restroom and they both 180- Employee no futher contact with AG llill evening Legislative Employce "35 never had any Previous issues with AG Hill and there is no reason for her to have contact WIth him as part of performing herjob_ 3. Legislative Employee 18. House Jill Carnal] - 0n Mdy 15>> 20 InliVC Employee L, who reported that upo and Clerk - (*rvicwcd chis . nenter' . In": 3322:; 15 2018,5116 witnessed AG Hill an:I . - . - ulluru ting Iats cdid notu dcr'd it it was some . mom, and won :he same conduc' a second time, -n a cdi to avior Wh - eEmtalo en AG :hzfi i0 Hill was engaging in ina "Pill: order a drink Employeeyeb realized me bar WM, 5, group of females wat i "1 approached her and WES later at as Ed if sh m. sinitiniuss LLP Uwrge n.1u15vlvuyt June 18. 2018 Page 3 knew who he was. She said that she did and that she had attended college with his daughter AG Hilltlate'ratinounced to lhe group of females at the bar that they would gel tree drinks or i'aster schiee it they showed more knee or more leg. AG Hill later put his arm around LCElSlaliVe Employee C's waist and somewhat "hugged" her to him. She was standing by a bar stool, so she tried to move away from him and sit up on the stool (which had a back) so that he was no longer able to hug her. She sat there until she was served her drink and then moved away from the bar area. Legislative Employee has never had any previous issues with AG Hill and there is no reason for her to have contact with him as part of performing herjob. 4. Legislative Employee On May 16, 2018, Chief Counsel Cornell and Principal Clerk Spotts interviewed Legislative Employee D, who reported being with the group of females at Al's in the early morning ofMarch 15, 2013, waiting on drinks when she heard AG Hill's comment about getting fi'ee drinks or faster service ifthey showed more leg or knees. She interpreted AG Hill as a really drunk guy as opposed to someone who was trying to harass her or the other females, but she thought because ofhis position he should be held to a higher standard. Legislative Employee has never had any previous issues with AG Hill and there is no reason for her to have contact with him as part of performing hei'job. 5. Legislative Employee On May 17. 20l8, Chief Counsel Cornell and Principal Clel'k Spoils interviewed Legislulive Employee E. who reported that she was also at AJ's in the earl morning of March 15, 2013, Although she heard about the alleged event between AG Hill and? she did not witness it. AG l1ill did approach her and asked if she knew who he was. Vhen-she told him that she did, he abruptly left her she believed AG Hill Was very intoxicated and acted . - d, Legislative Employee has never rialel . she did not teel that she had been harasse issues with AG Hill and there IS no reason fer liar L0 have Contact With him as part of performing herjob. 11. Legal Analysis kE Yironme A. Title Vll's Prohibition ni'a Hostile Wor 1 Conduct Musl Be Severe and Pervasive . -k are forms of sex disc . ostilc or abugvc w0| limination 1' '5 5.3.91"! 'hathihe liglils Act oi 1954' mersav- Dank, FSB v. Vinson 477 actionable under title ima facie case. an Show that . 'She Was US. 57 (1986) To estasblisli a duel, of her sex; (3) title: subjected to unwelc?i": enough to create has;5 tr 4 69 133'; (4) that there is a basi were Styiere Fi'lcksanv. mime>> er 604(7th Cir. for em)? oyer - . George Augelone. uccutlvc Director June is. Paged Whether conduct is severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment involves the analysis of several factor. Including. the li'cqucncy ofthc conduct: its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a more offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Hostel/er Quality Dining. Inc . 2l8 F.3d 798. 806-07 (7th Cir. 2000). Additionally. an employee must subjectively believe that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to have altered the working environment, and the harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive, from the standpoint of a reasonable person, to create a hostile work environment, While AG l'lill's alleged conduct toward the legislative employees was inappropriate. it was likely not severe or pervasive enough to result in a hostile work environment. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has rejected sexunl harassment claims involving conduct by superman that was more egregious, For example. in McPherson City umei/regun. 379 F. 3d 430. 439 (7th Cirt 2004), the Seventh Circuit found conduct not severe enough where the plainlist supervisor made inquiries about what color she was wearing. usked plaintiff whether he could "make a house call" in is suggestive tone of voice when she milled in sick. and once pulled brick her tank top with his fingers to see what color bro she was wearing. While this conduct was "lamentably inappropriate. we agree with the district court that. due to the limited nature and frequency of the objectionable conduct. a hostile work envrrunlnent did not exist . Id, See nlxo, Borkervl'l/c Culligan International Co 50 F. 3d 428, 430-31 (7th Cir. 1995) (supervisor had not engaged in actionable harassment even though over a swan-month period he had: called the plaintiffa "pretty girl." (2) made grunting sounds when the plointii'fwore a leather skirt, (3) said to the plaintiff that his office was not hot "until you walked in here," (4) stated that a public address announcun-ient asking for :utuntion meant that "all pretty girls [should] run around linked." and (5) allotted to his Wife's from town and his loneliness. stating thut he had onlv his lin- company while Itiillting an obscene gesture); Hill Dyson Ciry ofChicago 28'2 l~ id 456. 463--04 (7th Cir 2002) (holding that plaintil'l's allegations that supervisor nibbed her squeeLed her shoulder and sun-ed at her chesl during it unll'orni inspection while telling her It) nn her arms and open her blazer were isolated incidents that. even when taken together did not crcutz: i stiflicmnt inference art hostile Work environment); Wm Coca--Cola lion/m 5c 990 F. 2d 333. 33647 (7th Cir. l093) (no actionable harassment nliliongli plaintiffs su es Jolungly called her a "dumb blonde." placed his hand on her shoulder several times plate: I'Vlsor you" signs in her \tUl'it area. attempted to kiss her. and asked licroul on dates). AG Hill's conduct tot likcly was i - A .. i grngicus enou-vht ll'lC threshold ol sevcrc, epol AG Hill twice placed his handgun: meet clothing mid grabbed her balk. tuck: "lhi: he placed his hand under her ex her intimate itutiy part is likely suflicientiy severe meet that clement uizl puma thcie 0" a" Wm'l/ltl. Iy/cr 276lr3d249, 268 (7m cn ilie "new near the nip igf' w' e'g' seconds" is severe enough to constitute a hostile cnvnonnlelit by iiscll); Purim? of 455 F.3d 2. nnuci shons in 10:33": ier underwear "might be sufficient alone to create an abusive working environment") "1 love 'ertinius A Hamster (mayo 1 Clnunnall (Cleveland I liluianamin June 18, 2015 Page 5 2. The Conduct Must Have Some Impact on the Workplace Even assuming AG Hill's alleged conduct were sufficiently severe and/or pervasive. l' "Wk 131305 OU'Side "19 cmployees' workplacer ludeed, it happened during the early morning hours 5' an informal social event (which was not officially scheduled or sanctioned by the Legislature) at a bar in downtown lndianapolisi While harassment does not have to take place within the workplace to be actionable, it must have consequences in the workplace Lapka vi Chertafl, 517 F,3d 974, 983 (7th Cir. 2008) That is because "Title V11 is limited to emPIOYment discrimination, and therefore sexual harassment is actionable under the statute only when it affects the plaintiff's conditions of employment" Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, 715 (7th Cir. 2006). The harassment does not have to occur in the workplace to have consequences there. "But at the very least the harassment must 1 . 1 be an episode in a relationship that began and grew in the workplace- Had [the harasser] met [plaintiff] on the last day of his or her employment at the ice cream parlor and later asked her for a date that eventually culminated in sexual intercourse, the connection to the workplace would have been too attenuated to constitute workplace harassment. it would have been no different from his asking a customer for a date," 111. at 716 (citations omitted). Here, AG Hill does not work for LSA, the House. or the Senate. He is employed in another branch of government and has no authority over--0r the legiSlB'lVe emeyeesr The conduct of which he is accused did not take place in the workplace, and there is no reason to believe that any of these employees will have any contact with him at work. As a result, even AG Hill's conduct was severe enough to establish a claim, it could not have created a hostile work environment under Title Vii because it had no consequences in the workplace 3. There Must Be a Basis for Employer Liability Even ifthere were a hostile work environment, there must be a basis for employer liability. For purpose of harassment by a third party, an employercan be liable ifit is negligent in preventing harassment li'iseman v. AumZane, Inc, 819 F.Supp.2d 804, 814 (ND. Ind. 201 lnother words, an employer can be liable for a third party's harassment ofone ofits employees if it "unreasonably fail[cd] to take appropriate corrective actions 1 . reasonably likely to prevent the misconduct from occurring. The emphasis is on the prevention of future harassment? Chertofl 517 F,3d at 984 (citing McKenzie v. Illinois Dep of Tramp-~32 473' 480 (7th Cir- The "'hallmark of a reasonable corrective action' is a promPl (Citations omitted). - immediately onl Here, the investigation was initiate pr gamma "the allegcd co Although the incidents allegedly occurred on Marchf 15, 2018. it was not reported and neithe the liouse, nor the Senate had any reason to know 0 such conduct until a I A, . PProximatel 1 - - lets, the next step is! - omonth i [hit lS comp 0 . later, Now tho 0 hat remedial action, if any should be taken under the circumstances to prevent similar conduct from recurrin g. June Ht. 201:: Page 6 ll. tut l'titentiul Liuhiilty If any of the employees were in initiute nu uetiun. we helieve the ii-.k nl linlulit< it my low. First. we believe that the conduct til the ellttiioyefl nther th 'wlulz: certainly inappropriate, simply was not sufficiently severe nr tn ti vulnl limit And while the conduct toward*wns inure egregious, mute Hi All llill'a eunduet took place in the or tit any impact on the wurkpluce An in result, ll very little risk of linbilitye Additionally. LSA. the Home. iutd the Senate nre turtlier prntetJed l'rnm ltuhility duc tu the prompt and thorough investigt tin. 'l'he linnl step is tuke timt I'etfltinaltl)' calculated to prevent future Ill. Resptinse to Specific Questions I: Whether the employer's investigation Iitects' the nrbeing a pt'Umpl hurl etl'eetive ilities'llgtilittn, including t-ceuintneiuliuiims reluted to lht: neeil tti interVicw the uuh'viiluul who is the subiect of the eumphiint und tiny othei needed or desirable additional investigative steps viee concerning keeping the inllitmed about the progress and muclusnutst to tile iitvestigutiun, the pros and eons of employing outside cottnsE'J (0 riintml tit'tht- investigation. ln tuir npinion, LSA, the "(lust and [he Senate's iIchsilgultont which was with the House's untl the policies. was sufficiently . live. All with; were and guys detailed statements. Going i I\\.ttll. we iemntnientl the ltilluwhig: prunipi ""1"ka nu y'all'l'f'y'ilil'l Hill is not an employee and the conduct did not occur recommend tlttit the allegations be brought to his lvui "r legislutnu that such conduct Will not be tolerated in the future with any "Mm "my ("Wily .WU recommend requesting a meeting with his counsel to "m "Wm" "ls" lit>>. ililt>>. We believe that while such contact with AG Hill may mm, will <George LAngetone, executive Utrector lune l3, 20m Page 7 3. We also recommend that you thank the legislative employees for bringing the, ,s'sue-'to-your attention and that you assure them that no work-related retaliation Will be located. We recommend that you encourage them to immediately report any additional concerns. ou should-document your conversations with the legislative employees and note their responses. 4, Finally, we see no reason to employ outside counsel to continue the investig'a'tion.'Weiare ofthe opinion that the investigation was sufficient and prompt and that you should simply take the additional recommended steps that we believe are reasonably likely to prevent the misconduct from occurring. W: Whether the circumstances amounl to unlawful sexual harassment under Title VII or whether any combination of the location and nature of the event, the isolated nature of the unwelcome conduct, or the limited impact on the workplace ofthe offending individualjustify a conclusion that the conduct does not amount to unlawful harassment. Answer: As described in more detail above. we do not believe the conduct amounted lo a hostile work environment. with respect to everyone except" the alleged conduct :2 \v not severe or pervasive enough to be actionable. a aged conduct Ioward *ifrrue. is more egregious and likely would be sufficiently severe enough But all the a cge conduct occurred outside the workplace; AG Hill was a third party and not an employee of LSA, the House orthc Senate; AG Hill has no supervisory authority over any oi'thc legislative employees or* and conduct had no impact on the workplace. As a result. - should be no Vm osu work environment claim. Finally. because there was an im. investigation and there will be reasonable measures taken to prevent similar conduct in :2 lime should be no employer liability. Question 3: Whether the General Assembly is legally obligated to take an action to protect legislative employees against speculative future unwelcome sexual . conduct by the same individual. Ans" Because there was no conduct that had an impact on lire Work not believe there is any legal obligation to protect employees from future inappropri co. duct by Ilill. liven if not legally obligated to do so. however, we recommend that add: At; Hill in the manner above. This will let your employees know that you [aka mt mm" seriously and that you nil.- [liking to protect them lroni hln'llifll' conduct in the "run; Question 4: Does Rules nl l'ruless-iunal ICOuduCt, Rule 8.3 (Reporting Prulessional Misconduct) mum, a lawyc, ll] the investigation to submit a complaint It) the Allumev . Uigc'lmnaxy any oi the offending conduct? We do not believe so The Rule requires that a lawyer - Answer: . . 'Who know; um anothch has committed a vmldunn 0r Rm" 0f meessmnal Conduct that raises a i --ty trustworthiness l' i ,1 "Myer In;an . or liness as . . uestlon as 10 [ha . - . substanua "?113" inform me Commission of such conduct, respects - I a lawyer in other l-lrst, while several wounuic 229897?" cluugu Cmtumatr A. a umsnr Dayton Indianannlu i?asit? 5 hm? about we are unaware of a antuall} town-t that he indeed engaged in sneh eonduet. Moreover eveit ilan atllort .. \li eupnued l? sueh conduct, we do not believe that such conduct on an a question as to his honesty. trustworthiness or litness as a lawyer in other respeZIlsmgi: at that point he do not believe there is any obligation to report A0 Hill to disciplinary authorities. attorney who . Uptious. required or otherwise, that might be desirable to prevent further sexual hatasstnent tn the ordinary and usual social events that legislators and staff attend during the tune ot year that the tleueral Assembly is in session. 11353331: While it is difficult to police off-duty conduct, we recommend that you eonduet regular tat least yearly) lnu'usstneut training for your employees so they know that any inappropriate harassment is strietly prohibited. You should explain to employees that they should ?Cl?t?l?l any inappropriate eotnluet immediately without fear of retaliation. As you have done here, too should tnlxe all eotnplaints seriously and investigate immediately. By creating a culture of tespeet. sou \t ill hopel?ully avoid harassment by eo-workers or supervisors both at work and at soeinl Adviee concerning the best practice on how to relate the conclusions of the int estia?atiou to the eotnpluinaut and other al?l?eetod legislative employees, assure them that no aetion will he allowed as a result of bringing the complaint, and assuring them that the tieoeral Assembly has heard their concerns and is acting to protect them. stat-sass: Again. we believe it is important. to communicate to the atl?ected employees that \on eousider their allegations to he very serious. that you fully investigated their claims, and that you their bringing them to attention. we recommend that you notify them that oldie ton do not helieve there is an)? lit-till ?lint-Wm)" to do 30' you are going to address the eoneet?us with Atl llill so that no future eonduet will take place. You can them that their ?an be. kept Finally. you should remind them that retaliation is strictly prohibited and that it' they have any additional eonecrns tn the future they are encouraged to nntnediatel) report them. I llt?t?i? this addresses all ol? yuul? questions. it you would like to turther discuss, please let the totem Sineerely. Whig PW n] gill] . . rnlumhnu In- -