Publication: Cook County Jury Verdict Reporter Published: 3/4/2005

CIVIL RIGHTS--SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF FEMALE MAINTENANCE WORKER

(WW 21/2) Neshawn Moore v Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
02C-4040 Tried: Jan. 18-27, 2005 (14)

Verdict: $885,000 ($60,000 actual damages/future medical expenses; $825,000 compensatory damages)

Judge: Magis. Nan R. Nolan (USDC IL NE)

Pltf Atty: Michael D. Robbins of Schlesinger & Robbins and John P. DeRose of John P. DeRose & Associates
(Hinsdale) Demand: none

Deft Atty: Robert L. Abraham and Margaret T. Conway of Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Law Dept.
Offer: none

Pltf Medl: Dr. Mahesh Shah (Internist)
Pltf Expert: Hector Gonzalez, 139 LeMoyne Pkwy., Oak Park, IL (708-557-0942) (Psychotherapist)

Deft Expert: Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter (Psychiatrist)

Pltf F-27, a single mother, began working as a maintenance laborer for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District at their Stickney facility in Jan. of 2000. She contended that she was subjected to a continuous atmosphere
of sexual harassment that permeated deft’s workplace, conduct which was engaged in both by co-workers and by
supervisors. The harassment included a male co-worker repeatedly exposing himself to her, explicit and graphic
sexual comments made to and about her, male employees entering the women’s locker room, and supervisors
taking bets over who would be first to have oral sex with her. Pltf claimed she first complained to her supervisor,
who either ignored or made fun of her complaint. Pltf subsequently complained to the head ‘‘EEO’’ official at the
district, who took seven months to commence an investigation. Pltf further alleged that the in-house investigation
of her complaints by the EEO officials ignored credible, well-corroborated evidence of the sexual misconduct by
her co-workers and supervisors, which resulted in patently false findings and inadequate recommendations. A
female co-worker testified that the same man who exposed himself to pltf had exposed himself to her, and
another female co-worker testified that she had complained about sexual harassment to the district and its EEO
officer but they ignored her complaints. Pltf contended the nature, scope and extent of the sexual harassment
constituted a continuing violation of Title VII and caused her to suffer emotional distress as well as physical
injuries due to the stress. Defense argued that the pltf was not subjected to a sexually hostile work environment,
deft exercised reasonable care in investigating pltf’s complaints, certain incidents of sexual harassment were time
barred, and pltf fabricated her story for secondary gain. Jury found in Special Interrogatories that three
supervisors did discuss/bet on having oral sex with pltf. Jury deliberated 3.5 hours.

(c) Law Bulletin Publishing Company 2005 16-NOV-2005 16:17 Page 1