IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT couRT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA / MONICA H. ESTES 115 Interlachen Court Avondale, PA 19311-9747 Plaintiff, ve GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, President and Directors of Georgetown University 37th and O Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20057 Civil Action No. 97-0292(TPI) Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson SERVE: REV. LEO O'DONOVAN, S.J. President Georgetown University 204 Healy Building 37th and 0 Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20057 EARNEST W. PORTA, JR. Unit 167 5891 First Landing way Burke, VA 22015 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INIUNCTIVE AND MONETARY RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND Preliminary statement 1. This is a civil action against Georgetown university ("Georgetown") for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relier for injuries plaintiff Monica Estes has sustained as a result of Georgetown's discrimination against her on the basis of sex and pregnancy, its creation and maintenance of a sexually hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title vir of the civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 1-2501 et seq. This is also an action against defendant Georgetown for violation MR: 9 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seqg., and the District of Columbia Family and Medical Leave Act of 1990, D.C. Code § 36-1301 et seq., and an action against Earnest W. Porta, Jr., in his individual capacity, for unlawfully aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation against Ms. Estes in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 1-2501 et seq. This is also an action against Georgetown and Earnest W. Porta, Jr., for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.c. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(£) (3). Parties 4. Plaintiff Monica Estes is a citizen of the United States who resides at 115 Interlachen Court, Avondale, Pennsylvania 19311-9747. From January 6, 1993, until her unlawful termination on December 20, 1996, Ms. Estes was the Cash Manager in Georgetown's Office of Treasury Services. Ms. Estes is an employee protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the D.C. Human Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act. 5. Defendant Georgetown University is a nonprofit corporation, incorporated by a specific Act of Congress, Act ofa @ June 10, 1844, 6 Stat. 912. Georgetown University is a private institution of higher learning, which is located at 37th and o Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. Georgetown University is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the D.C, Human Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act. 6. Defendant Earnest W. Porta, Jr., is a citizen of the United States who resides at Unit 167, 5891 First Landing Way, Burke, Virginia 22015. From June 1, 1995 to July 1, 1998, defendant Porta was the Director of the office of Treasury Services (Financial Affairs Division), and was Ms. Estes! immediate supervisor. Defendant Porta is now the Director of Finance and Investments (Financial Affairs Division). 7. At all times relevant to this complaint, defendant Porta was Georgetown's agent, and was acting within the scope of that agency. Factual Allegations 8. Ms. Estes was hired by Georgetown in November 1991 as Executive Assistant I, reporting to the Controller. 9. Prom about June 1992 until September 1992, Ms. Estes assumed the duties of the Director of Mortgages, while the Director was on extended medical leave. In this capacity, she managed a mortgage portfolio valued at nearly $30 million and received a Special Recognition Award from the University. 10, In January of 1993, Ms. Estes assumed the duties of the newly created Cash Manager position. Her responsibilities in: a ll 2 that position included managing the University's working capital assets, which then averaged from $50 million to $60 million daily: overseeing the University's banking relationships; making @aily investment recommendations for excess capital; executing and monitoring these investments; and preparing monthly transaction reports for management. 11. In the Fall of 1992, Sandra Simpson, the Assistant vice President for Financial Affairs and Assistant Treasurer, started the process to promote Ms. Estes to the position of Cash Manager, which was at Grade 11. In order for Ms. Estes! promotion to be approved by the Human Resources Department, she was put on training status for one year. The stated reason for this decision was that Ms. Estes was "too young" to be a Grade 11. 12. Because of Ms. Estes' trainee status, her salary was set at only 60 to 65 percent of the midpoint for the Grade 11 pay scale from December 30, 1992, to January 1994. 13. In January 1994, Ms. Simpson gave Ms. Estes an excellent performance evaluation and removed her trainee status. Ms. Estes’ salary was then adjusted to 85 percent of the midpoint of the Grade 11 pay scale. 14, In March 1995, Ms. Simpson left the University. Therefore, Ms. Estes reported to Nicole Mandeville, Vice President and Treasurer. 15. In or around May of 1995, Ms. Estes informed Ms. Mandeville that she was pregnant.16. shortly after Ms. Estes informed Ms. Mandeville of ner pregnancy, Ms. Mandeville told Ms. Estes that she planned to create an Office of Treasury Services within the Division, which would perform a corporate treasury function for the University by managing its banking services and being responsible for cash management, debt management and investment management. Ms. Mandeville indicated clearly to Ms. Estes that she would not consider Ms. Estes for the position of Director of this new office. 17. On June 1, 1995, Ms. Mandeville appointed defendant Earnest W. Porta, Jr., as Director of Treasury Services. Unlike Ms. Estes, Mr. Porta had no previous experience in treasury management. As Director of Treasury Services, Mr. Porta became Ms. Estes’ immediate supervisor. 18. Shortly after Mr. Porta's promotion was announced, Ms. Estes personally congratulated hin. Mr. Porta responded by accusing her of being jealous of him, and admitted that he lacked the relevant experience that Ms. Estes had acquired as Cash Manager over the prior three years. 19. Mr. Porta also insisted that Ms. Estes state whatever reservations she had about him becoming Director of Treasury Services. Ms. Estes told him that she was uncomfortable with his treatment of female staff members, particularly female work-study students, because he often made inappropriate sexual comments about them. She told Mr. Porta that he should be sensitive to his sexist comments and other unprofessional behavior directed now saclnena e toward women on hie staff. In response, Mr. Porta threatened ms. Estes that she should never mention this topic again and statea that he would "determine where the line is drawn." 20. In June of 1995, Ms. Estes received her performance evaluation from Ms. Mandeville, who rated her performance as Under the University's salary structure, Ms. “commendable. Estes should have beén receiving a salary at 104 to 112 percent of the midpoint for her pay grade, which would have been between $52,717 and $56,771. Instead, she was given the standard three- percent increase, which put her salary at $44,593.62. 21, In June and July 1995, Ms. Estes began briefing Mr. Porta about the Office's cash management functions. During these briefing sessions, Mr. Porta consistently insulted her by calling her "imperious" and "haughty." These remarks constituted retaliation for reporting concerns about nis inappropriate, sexist conments. 22. In duly 1995, Mr. Porta urged Ms. Estes to consider telecommuting instead of returning to the office after her maternity leave ended. Although Ms. Estes had never expressed any interest in telecommuting, and fully intended to return to her job after her maternity leave, Mr. Porta directed her to draft a proposal for a telecommuting working arrangenent. 23. In August 1995, Mr. Porta hired two male treasury analysts, Colin Duffy and Michael Murphy, and promoted them from other positions in the Division of Financial Affairs. Mr. Porta hired Mr. Duffy even though Ms. Estes had told him that wr. DuffyeC posted pictures of semi-clad women around his work area in the puaget office, and that this offended her and was demeaning to wonen. 24. The male treasury analysts! starting salaries in the Office of Treasury Services were between 92 percent to 95 percent of the midpoint of the Grade Nine pay scale and were comparable to Ms. Estes' salary, even though she was two grades higher than them and had been working at Georgetown more than two years longer than they had. 25. When Ms. Estes protested the pay inequity between her and the male treasury analysts, Mr. Porta threatened to demote her to a Grade 10. When Ms. Estes responded that her current @ grade level was in line with compensation for cash managers at similarly sized organizations, and that she had been offered a cash manager position a year earlier at a salary well over $50,000, Mr. Porta told her she would regret not taking that offer. 26. In September 1995, shortly after Mr. Porta threatened her, Ms. Estes began having pregnancy-related health problens, which her doctor said were stress-related. Her medical problens included high blood pressure, which caused her to experience frequent and extremely painful headaches, extreme heartburn, and fatigue. 27. Because of her medical problems, Ms. Estes' doctor recommended that she take early maternity leave. Ms. Estes 4 declined to do so because she felt that Mr. Porta was trying to_ a ——@ @ push her out of her job. When Ms. Estes‘ high blood pressure aia not decrease, her doctor ordered her to undergo weekly fetal monitoring. 28. On or, about October 17, 1995, Mr. Porta accelerated his harassment of Ms. Estes. After Ms. Estes made an innocuous comment about interest rates of mortgages, Mr. Porta stormed into her cubicle and screaned at her that he was "sick and fucking tired" of her attitude. Mr. Porta publicly berated her in this manner for several minutes, until she started crying. 29. Shortly after Mr. Porta publicly berated Ms. Estes, he ordered her to work out of her home, starting on October 24, 1995, until the time she began her maternity leave. Although Ms. Estes had planned to work at the office until her November 10, 1995, due-date, she acquiesced to Mr. Porta's order because she was concerned that the extreme stress to which Mr. Porta subjected her in the workplace might adversely affect her baby's health. 30. On or about october 19, 1995, Ms. Estes conducted a training session for Mr. Porta, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Duffy. when she opened a window and complained that she was warm, Mr. Murphy stated, "Since you are doing such a good job teaching, and since you seem to know how to get hot, maybe you can teach us how to get a girl hot." Mr. Murphy's comment embarrassed and humiliated Ms. Estes. 31. Mr. Porta did nothing to censure Mr. Murphy when he made this inappropriate, sexist comment. Ms. Estes later toldMr. Porta that Mr. Murphy's comment was inappropriate and made her uncomfortable. 32. In accordance with Mr. Porta's order that she leave the office before her due-date, Ms. Estes worked out of her home from October 24, 1995, until November 6, 1995, when she went into labor. From November 6, 1995, through January 9, 1996, she was on full-time maternity leave, and from January 10, 1996, to March 12, 1996, she worked half-time out of her hone. 33. In December 1995, Mr. Porta promised Ms. Estes that, upon return from her maternity leave, she would have an increased amount of authority in the office, including the opportunity to provide training to his staff. 34. In December 1995, Ms. Estes accessed her work computer from her home, and noticed that several weeks’ worth of information had not been inputted into her daily cashflow spreadsheet. She then contacted Mr. Duffy, who was responsible for these spreadsheets during her maternity leave. He informed her that he had created a new cashflow spreadsheet with another software package and was inputting the data in this new format. 35. Ms. Estes had accumulated several years' worth of information on the old spreadsheets, which were now incompatible with the new spreadsheets. Since it would be extremely difficult for her to calculate cash flow projections when she returned from her maternity leave, Ms. Estes contacted Mr. Porta about these problems with Mr. Duffy's newly formatted spreadsheets. Although Mr, Porta admitted that Mr. Duffy's spreadsheets were redundantand unnecessary, he refused to instruct Mr. Duffy to use Ms. Estes' spreadsheet format. Instead, Mr. Porta ordered Ms. Esti to stop checking the status of her work during her maternity leave. 36. While ‘she was working part-time at home, Ms. Estes, at Mr. Porta's direction, wrote an updated job description ("Position Questionnaire”) for her position, which described her duties as, inter alia, being responsible for the University's working capital investment portfolio; monitoring and projecting cash flow and liquidity; serving as the primary contact for the University's banking relationships and managing these relationships; and serving as a back-up for the Director in his absence. The job description was approved by Mr. Porta and Ms. Mandeville. 37. Ms. Estes' maternity leave ended on March 12, 1996. Instead of having her return to her old office, which was near his office, Mr. Porta moved her to a different office across the hall, at some distance from his office. 38. Upon Ms. Estes’ return from maternity leave, Mr. Porta took away her major duties. He assigned her several loosely defined long-term projects, one of which required her to obtain data from outside the Office of Treasury Services. However, Mr. Porta forbade Ms. Estes from obtaining the information from these outside sources on her own. It therefore became unnecessarily difficult for Ms. Estes to carry out Mr. Porta's assignment. 1039. In contrast to his treatment of Ms. Estes, Mr. Porta gave Mr. Duffy increased responsibility and support for his vork. Mr. Porta allowed Mr. Duffy to remain in charge of the daily cach management spreadsheet through the end of the fiscal year, evon though this had been one of Ms. Estes’ main responsibilities prior to her maternity leave and was included in her job description. 40. Mr. Porta also put Mr. Duffy in charge of the office's largest project, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for banking services. This project should have been assigned to Ms. Estes, since negotiating new banking services was included within her jeb description, and managing the University's banking relationships had previously been part of her responsibility as Cash Manager. 41. By assigning Mr. Duffy to be the primary contact for the RFP project, Mr. Porta damaged Ms. Estes' professional reputation, since she had previously been the primary contact for the University's banking representatives. 42. Ms. Estes complained to Mr. Porta when he refused to return her cash management responsibilities to her and put mr. Duffy in charge of the RFP project. In response, Mr. Porta became angry and refused to discuss these matters with her. 43. When Ms. Estes returned from her maternity leave, Mr. Porta increased the hostility that he publicly expressed toward women. qaa 44. During a business trip to Boston that occurred during the week of March 18, 1996, Mr. Porta punched Ns. Estes in the arm in the presence of a banking representative. 45. After Ms. Estes returned from her maternity leave, Mr. Porta often made comments that Mr. Duffy and he had a mutual inside connection to the University President's office, and that "Leo," is@., Georgetown President Leo O'Donovan, was sending then cigars. Mr. Porta's behavior was belittling to Ms. Estes and constituted favoritism towards the male employees whom he supervised. 46. On or around May 1, 1996, Ms. Estes and Messrs. Porta and Duffy had a meeting about the RFP project. At the end of this meeting, Mr. Porta gave Mr. Duffy and Ms. Estes a handout and said that he wanted to discuss it with them at 9:00 a.m. the following morning. Mr. Duffy responded by saying, "Sure, boss. I can be ready even earlier than that if you need me to. I don't have a baby to drop off at daycare." Mr. Porta failed to tell Mr. Duffy that his comments were inappropriate. 47. Immediately after Mr. Duffy made the "daycare" comment, Ns. Estes sent Mr. Porta an e-mail stating that Mr. Duffy's yemarks had made her uncomfortable because they created the impression that her parental responsibilities interfered with her work. 48. Innediately after Mr. Porta received Ns. Estes' e-mail concerning Mr. Duffy, he called her into a meeting to outline what he perceived to be her performance deficiencies, including 12Ye eo oo w for any of the alleged criticisms and the complaints, which were raised by Mr. Porta in order to retaliate against Ms. Estes for criticizing Mr. Duffy's sexist behavior. 49. On or around May 2, 1996, Mr. Porta told Messrs. Duffy and Murphy, in regard to their inappropriate sexist comments and innuendo, that “I thought it was possible that Monica was waiting for someone to slip.” 50. On June 25, 1996, Mr. Porta reviewed Ms. Estes! performance for the first time and gave her a negative performance review. Until this time, she had received consistently strong performance evaluations. 51. For nine weeks of the time covered by Mr. Porta's June c 25, 1996 review, Ms. Estes had been on maternity leave. For another nine weeks of the review period, she had been working part-time out of her home. Mr. Porta's criticisms of Ms. Estes in his June 1996 were untrue and constituted sex stereotyped evaluations of her performance. 52. In his June 25, 1996 review, Mr. Porta claimed that Ms. Estes had experienced “hesitancy in using a new daily cash spreadsheet.” In fact, Ns. Estes had carefully prepared the daily cash spreadsheets up until the time of her maternity leave. As discussed in J] 34-35, supra, Mr. Duffy created a new and incompatible spreadsheet, instead of entering the daily data into the pre-existing spreadsheet. Mr. Porta forced Ms. Estes, upon her return from maternity leave, to use this new spreadsheet, 13m_— +" notwithstanding its incompatibility, the need to re-enter innumerable data from the old spreadsheet into the new, and the numerous errors made by Mr. Duffy in his own data entry and spreadsheet structuring. Ms. Estes protested these unwarranted changes and the extra time that it would take to make the requisite corrections to Mr. Duffy's mistakes. Mr. Porta recast Ms. Estes! concerns into a “hesitancy’ which he used as a pretextual excuse for downgrading her work product skill level. 53. In his June 25, 1996 performance review, Mr. Porta also clained that Ms. Estes showed ‘lack of appropriate initiative in dealing with sone depository services deficiencies.” This incident involved unexpected difficulties in arranging for the @ daily cash pickup by Wells Fargo during a campus visit by the Procidont on May 16, 1996. In fact, Mr. Porta had assigned the responsibility for the daily cash pickup to Mr. Duffy while Ms. Betes vac on maternity leave. Mr. Porta did not return thie duty to Ms. Estes until July 1996, two months after this incident occurred. During that time, Messrs. Duffy and/or Porta nad proposed using a bonded courier as a substitute for Wells Fargo uring emergency situations. However, this alternative means was never communicated to Ms. Estes; thus Mr. Porta's attempts to blame Ns. Estes for not using this method are baseless. Ms. Estes properly expressed concern at using a ‘bonded courier,” who is just a glorified messenger with a bond, in lieu of an armored car for a $20 million deposit. 454. In his June 25, 1996 performance review, Mr. Porta also claimed that Ms. Estes had incurred “significant delays in developing a cash forecast for fiscal year 1997.” As Mr. Porta well knew, Ms. Estes had made significant progress in developing the cash flow summary in June of 1994. ‘The only complaints came from the outside auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, who were more interested in having Georgetown purchase their own system. The system developed by Ms. Estes continued to be successfully used after Mr. Porta's promotion. However, mr. Porta insisted that a new system be implemented, which entailed extensive and repeated contacts with various University departments to obtain new data and to resolve discrepancies in the departmental data. Furthermore, Mr. Porta refused to allow Ms. Estes to contact the departments directly, instead requiring that all such communications go through himself. Also, the changes and errors made by Nr. Duffy in the spreadsheets made Ms. Estes’ task even more difficult. 55. Regarding the delays in implementing the new system referenced in the previous paragraph, Mr. Porta hinself, by memorandum to Ns. Mandeville, took the responsibility for not naving this new system in place. 56. AS @ result of this negative performance appraisal, Mr. porta gave Ms. Estes only a two-percent pay increase, after threatening not to give her any increase at all. 57. on dune 28, 1996, when Ms. Estes gave Mr. Porta her response to his performance evaluation, he gave her thirty days* 15pecause her response to the performance appraisal indicated that she was "planning to be insubordinate." 58. Mr. Porta then said that Ms. Estes could keep her job if she rewrote her response to agree with his assessment of her performance. In order to keep her job, Ms. Estes acquiesced to nis demand. 59. In August 1996, Mr. Porta took avay Ms. Estes! duties of monitoring the external managers of the University's working capital portfolio, and gave these duties to Mr. Murphy. Ms. Estes complained to Mr. Porta about this unexplained and unwarranted reduction of her duties, but he refused to discuss the issue with her. 60. In September 1996, Mr. Porta told Ms. Estes that he was now very pleased with her performance, and that he planned to write a positive evaluation for her. He also spoke favorably of her performance to Ms. Mandeville, Jane Kelsey, then-Controller, and Guilbert Brown, then-Director of Budgeting and Financial Analysis. 61. On September 15, 1996, Mr. Porta sent an e-nail message to Ms. Mandeville, regarding the status of the Cash Forecast project and the Coopers & Lybrand (‘C&L") managenent report on this area, which clearly demonstrated retaliatory intent end action by Mr. Porta and Ms. Mandeville. Mr. Porta stated that he had discussed the C&L comment with the other Financial Affairs managers, and learned through Jane Kelsey that Ms. Mandeville 16feaally wanted the comment in the management letter so I could use it as leverage with monica on her performance.” Mr. Porta wrote that he “appreciate(d] that you were trying to give me leverage" but admitted that ne did not need this “leverage” since Ms. Estes “has worked hard" on this project and he has “on the whole, been very pleased with her performance." Mr. Porta then went on to state explicitly that “I have been giving Monica a hard time since her return fron maternity leave" to which she was “starting to respond." 62. Ten days after the e-mail referenced in the previous paragraph, Mr. Porta, by e-mail to Ms. Mandeville dated September 25, 1996, candidly admitted that even after he and Ms. Estes had resolved certain problems with the cash forecast spreadsheets and the underlying source documentation, the revised forecast shows ‘a net cash flow drain for the year of over $30 million projected.’ Mr. Porta explicitly took full responsibility for any shortcomings with the cash flow project, expressly stating that ‘I'm embarrassed at not having a better product and am willing to accept the responsibility for the [C&L] management letter comment remaining in if you feel it warranted.” Ms. Mandeville, rather than allowing Mr. Porta to accept the responsibility for his shortcomings in planning this project, downplayed its significance, blandly telling Mr. Porta, ‘Don't worry about the mistakes, we'll work through them.” 63. In October 1996, Ms. Estes noticed that Mr. Duffy had started using her computer on weekends and during the evenings. 7fously, Ms. Estes had seen evidence that Mr. Duffy accessed pornographic (adult) sites on the Internet at work when she walked by Mr. Duffy's computer. Ms. Estes found Mr. Duffy's viewing of pornography in the workplace to be offensive and demeaning to women. 64. Because Mr. Duffy had used her computer, Ms. Estes became concerned that Mr. Duffy was accessing adult Internet sites from her terminal, and that she might be blamed for his unauthorized and inappropriate conduct. Therefore, on or about October 10, 1996, Ms. Estes contacted the LAN [Local Area Network] Administrator, Omar Chacon, to check her computer to ascertain the Internet web sites that had been recently accessed. When Mr. Chacon asked her why she was inquiring, she told him about the problems with Mr. Duffy. Mr. Chacon, acting on his own initiative, on or around October 23, 1996, checked the Internet usage on Mr. Duffy's computer, verified that Mr. Duffy was accessing inappropriate adult sites and had downloaded at least one pornographic file to the hard drive of his computer. Nr. Chacon informed Mr. Porta about Mr. Duffy's improper use of his computer. 65. On or around October 23, 1996, shortly after Mr. Chacon told Mr. Porta about Mr. Duffy's improper Internet usage, Mr. Porta stormed into the area where Mr. Duffy and Ms. Estes have their offices. In front of Ms. Estes, Mr. Porta yelled at Mr. Dufty. 1s66. When Ms. Estes told Mr. Porta that the exchange had made her uncomfortable, he said that he had purposefully 3 z 3 reprimanded Mr. Duffy in front of her so that if she were engaged in similar activities, she would know that she too was in trouble. Mr. Porta's baseless suggestion that Ms. Estes was accessing pornography on the Internet was offensive and demeaning, and his conduct towards her constituted retaliation for her having reported Mr. Duffy's inappropriate and unauthorized use of his computer at work. 67. In or around November 1996, Mr. Porta promulgated the “Office of Treasury Services Layoff Plan” as a pretextual attempt to justify the termination of Ms. Estes while retaining the other three staff members of this Office. Mr. Porta's plan claimed that the office Administrator (Leigh Freund) and the Treasury Analysts (Messrs. Duffy and Murphy) were able to perform all of Ms. Estes' tasks. In fact, while they had performed sone of them during Ms. Estes’ maternity leave, they nade mistakes, implemented new and incompatible spreadsheet programs, and otherwise failed to perform at Ns. Estes' professional level. Mr. Porta claimed that the cash management accountabilities ‘functioned adequately for a period of approximately five months (November 1995 through March 1996) during the absence of the Cash Manager (Ms. Estes}. 68. On or around November 7, 1996, shortly after Ms. Estes had complained about Mr. Duffy's Internet usage, Mr. Porta gave Ms. Estes an "Interim Performance appraisal," in which he nade 19Rpstantiated criticisms of her performance. Although Mr. Porta had not previously conveyed his dissatisfaction with Ms. Estes' performance since her June 1996 Performance Review, Mr. porta threatened her with dismissal in this interim performance evaluation. 69. In conjunction with the "Interim Performance Appraisal," Mr. Porta also gave Ms. Estes, on or around November 7, 1996, a written "Formal Disciplinary Warning," in which he reprimanded her for two minor incidents, one of which equally involved Mr. Duffy, and threatened her with dismissal. 70. Mr, Porta, as the first incident referenced in the November 7, 1996 Formal Disciplinary Warning, claimed that Ms. Estes had informed a third party of the inappropriate and Duffy). In fact, Mr. Porta never told Ms. Estes that this incident was confidential, and he himself breached any such confidentiality by asking Ms. Estes, in front of her husband, whether she had told another person about this incident. mr. Porta then stated that ‘I don't care [whether she had told others} but I don't think Colin [Duffy] would appreciate it.” Not until Mr. Porta needed an incident to justify his formal disciplinary warning did he recast this incident into a spurious and wholly pretextual "breach of confidentiality." 71. After Mr. Porta gave Ms. Estes the “Interim Performance Appraisal" and "Formal Disciplinary Warning," he told her that if .she spoke to anyone about the documents, she would be fired. He & 20faiso said, "If you seek counsel regarding this evaluation, you will be fired. I£ you do anything but cone to work with a smile on your face, you will be fired. 72. On or around November 15, 1996, Mr. Porta called Ms. Estes into a meeting with himself and Susan Mullens, Human Resources Specialist. .Without giving any specifics, Mr. Porta said that Ms. Estes was "no longer trustworthy" in her job and that he "cannot fulfill the mission of the Office with her present." 73. At the November 15, 1996, meeting, Ms. Mullens admitted that Mr. Porta was holding Ms. Estes to a higher standard than the male treasury analysts, but stated that it was his right to do so. Ms. Mullens also told Ms. Estes that her poor performance evaluation for fiscal year 1996 and her minimal pay increase were due to the fact that she had been on maternity leave, and therefore, "did not contribute" as much as the male treasury analysts had. 74. At the end of the November 15, 1996, meeting, Ms. Mullens asked Ms. Estes to resign from her employment, effective on January 31, 1997. When Ms. Estes stated that she would not xesign, Ms. Mullens and Mr. Porta forced her to go home for the day, so that she could "think about" resigning. 75. On November 27, 1996, Ms. Estes’ attorney sent Georgetown a letter which indicated that the adverse actions taken against Ms. Estes by Georgetown and Mr. Porta constituted an onePiccrimination against her on the basis of her sex and pregnancy, and retaliation. 76. After Ms. Estes notified Georgetown of her legal claims, Mr. Porta refused to communicate with her, and shut her off from all office communications, which impeded ner from performing her jop. 77. On December 12, 1996, Mr. Porta gave Ms. Estes another "Formal Disciplinary Warning" in which he reprimanded her for allegedly neglecting to make wire transfers in a timely fashion. The “Formal Disciplinary Warning," which threatened Ms. Estes! termination, was unjustified since two of the three incidents cited in it were caused by Mr. Porta's administrative staff (Ms. _Freund) and not Me. Estes, and the third occurred while Mr. Duffy “« was in charge of daily cash liquidity. 78. On Decenber 20, 1996, Georgetown terminated Ms. Estes! employmont, effective immediately. 79. The reason stated for Ms. Estes' termination in Nr. Porta's termination letter was her alleged poor performance on an assignment to create a spreadsheet analyzing bank service charges incurred by the Office of Treasury Services during 1996. This reason was pretextual, since Mr. Porta gave Ms. Estes the project after Mr. Murphy was incapable of making any progress on it. Whereas Mr. Porta gave Mr. Murphy four weeks to try to complete the spreadsheet project, he gave Ms. Estes a four-day deadline, which she net. a 22 noecS 0. After Ms. Estes’ termination, her primary duties were given to the two male treasury analysts, who lacked the necessary qualifications required by the Cash Manager's position description. 81. On four occasions, from April 1996 through November 1996, Ms. Estes met with Human Resources representatives to @iscuss Mr. Forta's discriminatory and abusive behavior towards her, and the emotional distress that he was causing her. Eileen Fenrich, Director of the Faculty and Staff Assistance Program in the Human Relations Department, told Ms. Estes that Mr. Porta's behavior would be reported to Ms. Mandeville. Despite Ms. Estes! repeated notification to Georgetown about the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of Mr. Porta and the male treasury analysts Din her office, defendant Georgetoun failed to take any corrective action. 82. Mr. Porta's treatment of Me. Estes significantly contrasts with his not taking any comparable disciplinary actions against the other staff of the Office of Treasury Services, notwithstanding their actual and serious performance issues. 83. Mr. Porta knew that Mr. Duffy had engaged in an unauthorized offshore investment of Georgetown funds, when, on July 1, 1996, Mr. Duffy took a $10 million gift (from BMW), and instead of depositing this with Riggs Bank for transfer to an approved security, he arranged for the money to be transferred offshore to the Nassau (Bahamas) branch where it was used to buy a Eurodollar (offshore derivative banker's acceptance security), e 23Med thet day and maturing the following day. This investment was contrary to the guidelines as promulgated by Ms. Mandeville and the Board of Directors. Mr. Porta failed to take any action againet Mr. Duffy, instead comnending Mr. Duffy for his quick thinking. 4. Mr. Porta also knew that Mr. Murphy, whose ob responsibilitics included receiving and immediately selling securities gifts received by Georgetown, instead held onto such gifts in anticipation of forthcoming stock price increases, or otherwise to play the market with Georgetown funds. Despite mr Porta's having warned him on prior occasions, Mr. Murphy, upon receiving ‘a gift of securities from a company just before it iecued a [public offering] . . . decided to hold the stock a day in anticipation of the stock going up, rather than just selling it immediately." Ms. Mandeville, instead of blaming Mr. Murphy, or requiring that mr. porta formally discipline Mr. murphy, merely thanked Mr. Porta ‘for bringing this point up’ and stated that the gift policies would be revised to make it clear that playing the market with Georgetown funds was prohibited. Mr. Murphy got off with a verbal warning, instead of written disciplinary actions as Mr. Porta had taken against Ms. Estes. 85. Ms. Estes has exhausted all necessary administrative remedies and has received her Notice of Right to Sue from the FEOC, dated December 14, 1999. 86. Georgetown's discrimination and retaliation against Ms. Estes has caused her pain and suffering, including extreme 24el | which caused her to experience health problems during her pregnancy, including but not limited to hich blood pressure. The extreme stress to which Georgetown has subjected Ns. Estes has also caused her to suffer from headaches, stomach pain, acute muscle tension, ‘end fron a disorder that induces teeth-grinding during sleep. Georgetown's actions have also caused Ms. Estes to suffer from sleeplessness, irritability, and depression, which have interfered with her marital relations. 87. Georgetown's Human Resources procedures for preventing and correcting gender- and pregnancy-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation were and are unreasonable. ‘The Human Resources office engages in a pattern and practice of ignoring the legitimate complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation raised by employees, including Ms. Estes, which perpetuates the pattern and practice of discrimination, harassment and retaliation at Georgetown. Georgetown's procedures for monitoring, filtering, and blocking inappropriate Internet usage in the workplace by its employees, and the disciplinary measures taken in response to such usage, were and are unreasonable. Ms. Estes repeatedly placed defendants Georgetown and Porta on notice about the discrimination, harasement and retaliation which she has suffered, but their responses have been objectively unreasonable 25FOUNT ONE -- DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 § 20002 et AGAINST DEFENDANT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, 88. Plaintiff Monica Estes hereby incorporates by reference as though restated each of the factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 87 above. 89. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employnent based upon a person's sex. 90. From approximately May 1995 until her unlawful termination on December 20, 1996, defendant Georgetown subjected Ms. Estes to continuing discriminatory treatment on the basis of her sex. 91. Defendant Georgetown discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her sex by, inter alia, denying ner compensation that is commensurate with her position and level of experience, while paying lesser-qualified male employees at higher levels within their pay ranges; failing to promote her to the position of Director of Treasury Services, while promoting a lesser- qualified male employee to this position; denying her the same support and opportunities for advancement that have been provided to lesser or similarly situated male employees; impeding her in her ability to perform her job, while supporting lesser or similarly situated male employees; unfairly criticizing her performance and holding her to different standards than those to which it holds lesser or similarly situated male employees; renoving her responsibilities and giving them to lesser-qualifiea 26Male employees; and terminating her employment and giving her responsibilities to lesser-qualified male employees. 92. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits discrimination against women "affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." 93, Georgetown has discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of pregnancy by, inter alia, subjecting her to demeaning comments concerning her pregnancy; by forcing her to work out of her home prior to her pre-established time for maternity leave; by refusing to allow her to monitor the progress of her projects while she was on maternity leave and to provide input into the permanent status of her projects; by allowing lesser-situated male employees to alter permanently her projects while she was on maternity leave; by denying her a substantially similar job after her maternity leave by stripping her of her substantive duties and authority; and by terminating her fron her employment based on her taking pregnancy leave. 94. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the creation and maintenance of a sexually hostile work environment. 95. Defendant Georgetown created a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Title VII by subjecting plaintiff to sexual comments and intimidation, ridicule, and insult on the basis of her sex, which were sufficiently severe so as to alter the conditions of her employment and create a pervasive, abusive working onvironnent. 2796. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee for reporting or filing claims of discrimination. 97. Defendant Georgetown retaliated against plaintiff for making reports of discrimination to her immediate supervisor and to representatives of: the Human Resources Department by, inter alia, subjecting her to verbal abuse and harassment, including demeaning comments and threats of dismissal; impeding her in her ability to do her work; taking away many of the duties of her job; giving her unjustified, negative performance appraisals and disciplinary warnings threatening dismissal; giving her a cub- standard annual increase; and terminating her employment. 98. Defendant Georgetown's actions described above constitute discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 99. Defendant Georgetown's actions described above vere within the knowledge of plaintiff's co-workers, vere willful, malicious, and reckless, and were taken in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights. 100. Georgetown's actions described above directly ana proximately have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff to suffer loss of income and other financial benefits, a loss of future professional opportunities and future income, severe emotional distress, anguish, pain and suffering, humiliation, 28wel Pe gnity, personal enberrassnent, and danage to her professional reputation. COUNT TWO -- DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, D.C. CODE 101. Plaintiff Monica Estes hereby incorporates by reference as though restated each of the factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 100 above. 102. The D.C. Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based upon a person's sex. 103. From approximately May 1995 until her unlawful termination on Decenber 20, 1996, defendant Georgetown subjected Me. Estes to continuing discriminatory treatment on the basis of her sex. 104. Defendant Georgetown discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her sex by, inter alia, denying her compensation that is commensurate with her position and level of experience, while paying lesser-qualified male employees at higher levels within their pay ranges; failing to promote her to the position of Director of Treasury Services, while promoting a lesser~ qualified male employee to this position; denying her the same support and opportunities for advancement that have been provided to lesser or similarly situated male employees; impeding her in her ability to perform her job, while supporting lesser or similarly situated male employees; unfairly criticizing her performance and holding her to different standards than those to which it holds lesser or similarly situated male employees; 29an Ning her responsibilities and giving them to lesser-qualified male employees; and terminating her employment and giving her responsibilities to lesser-qualified male employees. 105. The D.C. Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination against women "affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. 106. Georgetown has discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of pregnancy by, inter alia, subjecting her to demeaning comments concerning her pregnancy; by forcing her to work out of her home prior to her pre-established time for maternity leave; by refusing to allow her to monitor the progress of her projects while she was on maternity leave and to provide input into the permanent status of her projects; by allowing lesser-situated male employees to alter permanently her projects while she was on maternity leave; by denying her a substantially similar job after her maternity leave by stripping her of her substantive duties and authority; and by terminating her from her employment based on her taking pregnancy leave. 107. The D.C. Human Rights Act prohibits the creation and maintenance of a sexually hostile work environment. 108. Defendant Georgetown created a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Title VII by subjecting plaintiff to sexual comments and intimidation, ridicule, and insult on the basis of her sex, which were sufficiently severe so as to alter the conditions of her employment and create a pervasive, abusive working environment. 30rt 109. The D.C. Human Rights Act forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee for reporting or filing claims of discrimination. 110. Defendant Georgetown retaliated against plaintirr tor making reports of discrimination to her immediate supervisor and to representatives of the Human Resources Departnent by, inter alia, subjecting her to verbal abuse and harassment, including demeaning conments and threats of dismissal; impeding her in her ability to do her work; taking away many of the duties of her job: giving her unjustified, negative performance appraisals and disciplinary warnings threatening dismissal; giving her a sub- standard annual increase; and terminating her employment. 111. Defendant Georgetown's actions described above constitute discrimination and retaliation in violation of the D.c. Human Rights Act. 112. The D.C. Human Rights Act forbids any person from aiding, abetting, inviting, compelling, or coercing the doing of any act prohibited under the Act, and prohibits any person from attempting to do so. 113. Defendant Porta aided, abetted, invited, compelled, and coerced Georgetown in its discrimination and retaliation against plaintiff, and in its creation and maintenance of a sexually hostile work environment. 114. Defendant Porta's actions described above constitute discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful aiding, abetting, and coercion in violation of the D.C. Human Rights act. 31position of employment held by the employee when her leave commenced, or to an equivalent position with equivalent enploynent benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employnent. 120. ‘The FNLA and the DCFMLA prohibit an employer fron discriminating againet and retaliating against an employee for taking family leave, and from denying an employee who has taken leave under the Acts any employment benefit or seniority that accrued prior to the employee's taking of family leave. 121. Georgetown discriminated and retaliated against Ms. Estes for taking family leave; failed to restore her to the same position she held prior to her family leave, or to an equivalent position; and denied her employment benefits and seniority that accrued prior to her leave by, inter alia, stripping her of her duties and authority upon her return from family leave; subjecting her to unnecessary supervision, including supervision from her subordinates upon her return from family leave; taking avay her office and putting ner in a different office upon ner return fron family leave: giving her an unjustified, negative performance review for the time covered by her family leave; giving her a substandard yearly salary increase because she took family leave; subjecting her to verbal abuse and harassment; and terminating her employment. 122. Defendant's actions described above constitute discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FMLA and the DCFMLA, vhich were done willfully and in bad faith. 23"423. Defendant's actions described above have directly and proximately caused plaintiff to suffer lost wages, salary, employment benefits, and other compensation, including but not limited to a merit increase she was illegally denied because she had taken family leave during the fiscal year covered by her performance review. COUNT FOUR -- INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, 0 124. Plaintiff incorporates as though restated each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 123 above. 125. ‘Throughout plaintifé's employment under his supervision, Mr. Porta consistently treated plaintiff in an unusually abusive and humiliating manner, including, inter alia, subjecting her to highly demeaning and sexually explicit comments in the workplace; subjecting her to violent and abusive conduct, including hitting her and screaming at her in front of her colleagues for no apparent reason; subjecting her to extreme stress during her pregnancy by making unjustified threats to terminate her employment, which caused her to experience health problems; attempting to push her out of her employment by giving her disciplinary warnings and requesting her resignation without justification; and terminating her employment on the basis of false performance appraisals and in an extremely humiliating and degrading manner. 126. Mr. Porta acted with the intent of inflicting severe emotional distress upon plaintiff or with reckless disregard that his actions would cause plaintiff severe emotional distress. 34G27. Mr. Porta's conduct was extreme and outrageous and peyond the bounds of human decency. 128. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Porta's actions, plaintiff suffered extrene enotional distress, humiliation, pain and suffering, stress-related physical injuries and damage to her professional reputation. 129. Defendant Georgetown is liable for mr. Porta's conduct, since he was acting within the scope of his duties at Georgetown. 130. Defendant Georgetown refused to take corrective action despite repeated notification of Mr. Porta's abusive and discriminatory actions towards Ms. Estes. REQUESTED RELIEF NOW, WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays this court for the following relief: 1. Issuance of a declaratory judgment that defendant Georgetown discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 2. Issuance of a declaratory judgment that defendants Georgetown and Porta discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff in violation of the D.c. Human Rights Act; Expungement of any negative references to plaintiff or her work from all files maintained by defendants, including but not limited to her 1996 Performance Appraisal and plaintiff's response thereto; the November 7, 1996, "Interim Performance Appraisal" and "Formal Disciplinary Warning"; the December 12, 35 LISe B., "Formal Disciplinary Warning"; and the December 20, 1996 termination letter. 4. An award of liquidated damages as provided by the FNLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A), and by the DCFMLA, D.C. Code Ann. § 36-1309 (b) (6); 5. An award to plaintiff of compensatory damages in an amount appropriate to the proof presented at trial, but in no event less than $750,000; 6. an award to plaintiff of punitive damages in the amount no less than of $750,000; 7. an award to plaintiff of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and 8. All other relief the court deems just. Ci BP ORS ape. Lynne Bornabel #938936 Bernabei, Katz & Balaran PLLC 1773 7 Street, N.W. Washington, Dic. 20009 (202) 745-1942 ebra 8. Katz g4iis61 Bernabei, Katz & Balaran PLLC 1773 T Street, N.W. Washington, 20009 (202) 745-1942 Attorneys for Plaintiff Monica Estes )) parep: December 30, 1999 36