Counsel states: “The State implies that the complaint of Orton-Bell about employees having sex on her desk and being told to wash down her desk every morning does not relate to the hostile work environment based on sex. It is hard to imagine how it would not relate to sex. The very word ‘sex’ was the central part of the complaint.” This is an equivocation. The conduct was certainly sexual intercourse on her desk, but that does not mean that night-shift staff had sexual intercourse on Orton-Bell’s desk because she was of the female sex. There is no evidence to indicate that, had her conveniently private and secure, but accessible, office belonged to a man, it would not have been used in the same manner. See, e.g., Shermer v. Illinois Dep’t of Transp., 171 F.3d 475, 478 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this incident, while egregious,
holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding that evidentiary void as to motive for making and details of offensive comments doomed title vii claim holding that title vii claim was subject to compulsory arbitration holding that title vii plaintiff must show that retaliatory motive played a part in the adverse employment action 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