The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, District Judge:
An allegation of sexual harassment.
Plaintiff: Michelle Dirksen, a secretary with the City of
Springfield Police Department.
Defendants: The City of Springfield, former Springfield
Police Chief Robinson, Mayor Langfelder, and Springfield Police
supervisors Judd, Murphy, and Cimarossa.
This cause is before the Court on Defendants' motion to
dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
The Court assumes for this ruling the truth of the following
allegations: Plaintiff was hired as a secretary with the City
of Springfield Police Department on June 8, 1987. Defendant
Robinson joined the Springfield Police Department as an officer
on August 21, 1978. Prior to Defendant Robinson's employment
with the Springfield Police Department, Plaintiff alleges
Robinson had been disciplined at a previous job "for sexual
discrimination and harassment." He was appointed Assistant
Commander of the Springfield Police Department in March 1988,
Commander in August of 1990, Assistant Chief of Police in
October of 1991, and Chief of Police in November of 1992. In
all of these positions, Defendant Robinson had supervisory
authority over female employees of the Springfield Police
During the time Plaintiff was employed by the Springfield
Police Department, she alleges that Robinson made numerous
nonconsensual sexual advances toward her which included:
attempts to kiss and touch her body, offensive placement of his
hands on her body, forcing the placement of her hands on his
body, and attempted sexual assault. These sexual advances
occurred during work hours.
The last alleged sexual assault occurred on December 17,
1992. At this time, Plaintiff claims that Chief Robinson
"forcibly attempted to have sexual intercourse with the
Plaintiff." Plaintiff also alleges that Chief Robinson stated
that if Plaintiff wanted to be promoted to his personal
secretary, she must submit to sexual intercourse with him.
On January 6, 1993, Plaintiff reported Robinson's alleged
sexual harassment to Defendant Jim Cimarossa. Cimarossa was the
Assistant Deputy Chief of the Springfield Police Department.
Although Springfield Police Department regulations required
Cimarossa to report the sexual harassment to Mayor Langfelder,
Plaintiff alleges that Cimarossa failed to file such a report
with Mayor Langfelder. Instead, on January 14, 1993, Cimarossa
advised Plaintiff not to report the harassment to internal
affairs and to "work it out" with Defendant Robinson.
On January 19, 1993, Plaintiff reported the incident of
sexual assault and harassment to her supervisor, Deputy Chief
George Murphy and Assistant Deputy Chief Harvey Davis. Again,
although Springfield Police Department regulations required
Murphy and Davis to report the sexual harassment to Mayor
Langfelder, Murphy allegedly refused to report the harassment
and instead told Robinson of Plaintiff's allegations.
On January 21, 1993, Plaintiff went to the Springfield Police
Department of Internal Affairs ("internal affairs") and filed
a complaint regarding Robinson's harassment and the treatment
she received from Murphy and Cimarossa.
Also on January 21, 1993, Plaintiff applied for a position
with the City of Springfield Department of Tourism. Plaintiff
submitted her application to the City of Springfield Personnel
Department and the personnel department forwarded her
application to the Mayor's office.
On January 22, 1993, Mayor Langfelder learned of Plaintiff's
complaint. Further, Plaintiff alleges that despite the
recommendations made by internal affairs to place Chief
Robinson on limited duty, Mayor Langfelder refused to take any
remedial action against Robinson. Mayor Langfelder also refused
to take any remedial action against Defendants Murphy and
Cimarossa. In addition, it is alleged that when Mayor
Langfelder became aware of Plaintiff's harassment Complaint, he
failed to forward Plaintiff's job application to the
Springfield Department of Tourism.
On January 25, 1993, Mayor Langfelder asked the Illinois
State Police to do an internal investigation regarding
Plaintiff's sexual harassment complaint. During the
investigation conducted by the Illinois State Police, Plaintiff
alleges that other female subordinates of Defendant Robinson
reported that they had also been harassed by Robinson. However,
no action was taken against Robinson as a result of the
investigation conducted by the Illinois State Police.
Later, at some unspecified date, Robinson appointed Defendant
George Judd to the new Deputy Chief of Operations for the
Springfield Police Department. Plaintiff was assigned as Judd's
Judd allegedly began to change the "conditions of Plaintiff's
employment" in an unspecified way. He also allegedly advised
other unspecified members of the Springfield Police Department
of his intent to hire a new secretary.
Chief Robinson was placed on administrative leave on April 1,
On April 2, 1993, Judd engaged in a "verbal confrontation"
with Plaintiff and indicated an "intention to change her
working conditions." On that same day, it is alleged that a
legal representative of Mayor Langfelder advised internal
affairs to remove Plaintiff from her work area because of
Plaintiff's hostile work environment. No action was taken
against Defendant Judd.
On April 2, 1993, Plaintiff took a medical leave of absence.
On April 8, 1993, Plaintiff filed a complaint of sexual
harassment against the City of Springfield, Mayor Langfelder,
Kirk Robinson, and George Judd with the Illinois Department of
Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
On May 17, 1993, after returning to work after a medical
leave of absence, Plaintiff was given a temporary position as
a receptionist for the Springfield Police Department. This
position has adversely affected Plaintiff's chances for
promotion and advancement.
On May 26, 1993, Defendant Robinson resigned as Chief of
Police. Since his resignation, Robinson has been appointed to
the position of "Commander" and continues to supervise female
On June 25, 1993, Plaintiff requested a return to her
original position as a secretary. That request was denied.
On December 6, 1993, Plaintiff filed the instant ten Count
Complaint. Count I alleges a cause of action for "quid pro quo"
harassment against all Defendants "individually" under Title
VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e). Count II alleges a cause of action for
"hostile work environment harassment" against all Defendants
"individually" under Title VII. Count III alleges a cause of
action for reverse discrimination against Defendants City of
Springfield, Mayor Langfelder, Kirk Robinson, and George Murphy
under Title VII. Count IV alleges a cause of action for
"retaliation" under Title VII against all Defendants
"individually" under Title VII. Count V alleges a cause of
action against all Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count VI
alleges a state law claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress against all Defendants. Count VII alleges a
state law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress
against all Defendants. Count VIII alleges a state law cause of
action for negligent retention against the City of Springfield
and Mayor Langfelder. Count IX alleges a state law claim for
negligent hiring against the City of Springfield and Mayor
Langfelder. Count X alleges a state law claim for battery
against Defendant Robinson for entering Plaintiff's home on
December 12, 1992 and indecently soliciting her to have sexual
intercourse with him.
Plaintiff prays for: (1) an injunction to restrain Defendants
from committing future Title VII violations and directing
Defendants to take affirmative steps to stop all Title VII
violations; (2) compensatory and punitive damages; (3) costs
and attorney fees.
(A). Claims arising under Title VII
1. Timeliness of the Complaint
In order to maintain a Title VII action, a plaintiff who
initially files a complaint with a state agency must file a
complaint with the EEOC within 300-days after the alleged
unlawful employment practice occurred.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (1992).
In this case, Plaintiff filed her Title VII charge with the
EEOC on April 8, 1993. Accordingly, the Defendants argue that
any claims against the Defendants which occurred prior to June
12, 1992 (June 12, 1992 is 300-days before April 8, 1993)
should be time-barred.
However, the 300-day limit may be expanded. In Stewart v. CPC
Intern., Inc., 679 F.2d 117, 121 (7th Cir. 1982), the court
stated that an:
employer may be held liable for a continuing
practice of discrimination if the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the practice has actually
continued into the `present'-that is, into the
time period relevant to the date the charge of
discrimination was filed. At least one
discriminatory act must have occurred within the
charge-filing period. Discriminatory acts that
occurred prior to this period constitute relevant
evidence of a continuing practice, and may help to
demonstrate the ...