sex-based discrimination is a violation of equal protection if it “does not ‘serve important governmental objectives’ and is not ‘substantially related to achievement of those objectives.’ ” Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 896 (quoting Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 234-35, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979)). Therefore, if plaintiffs complaint sufficiently alleges the elements of a sexual harassment claim, she will succeed in establishing a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim as well as a Title VII claim. See Siaca v. Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Puerto Rico, 160 F.Supp.2d 188, 195 (D.P.R.2001) (“[A] plaintiff may assert a claim for employment discrimination under both Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983”); Ribot Espada v. Woodroffe, et al., 896 F.Supp. 69 (D.P.R.1995) (<HOLDING>). 2. Sexual Harassment Claim Against Hernández
holding that title vii did not provide exclusive remedy for sex discrimination in public employment claim could also be brought under equal protection clause recognizing that a claim of hostile environment sex discrimination is actionable under title vii holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment