Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #29 - Discussion ItemC;TY OW M11A,: i.=LC:�!DA INTER -OFFICE MEh9OPAND11M 2 7 w -° Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission A. inn s, III City Att ey ^A TE July 3, 1996 FILE j_96-5` SLaECT• Proposed Settlement - Anais Aurora Padia vs. city of Miami and wally Lee REFERENCES Case No. 94-2197-CIV-PERGUS City Co=ftirsion Meeting ENC OSUPES. July 11, 1996 (2) The attached proposed Resolution is being submitted for your consid:ration to authorize a settlement, without any admission of liability, in full. and Complete settlement of any all claims and demands against the city of Miami in Lhe t1'ulted States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 94-2197-CIV- FERGUSON, Anai A. Sadia vs". City of Miami and Wa113C T.P2, in the amount of $250,000. Funds are available from the City of Miami Self -Insurance and Insurance Trust Fund, Index Code No. 620103- 661, for said settlement. A'triet background and analysis of the case follows. The plaintiff in this case is a Hispanic female engineer who was hired by the City Manager on May 1, 1987 as an assistant director of the Public Works Department. The plaintiff, who holds a master's degree in civil engineering from the University of Delaware, left a positions witil LLe Delaware DepidrLtuent, of Transportation and moved to Miami with her family to take the job as the City's first Hispanic and first female assistant di-re%ctor of Public Works. However, in 1988, her job title was -changed from Assistant Director to Economic Coordinator Manager III. In addition to her claims that she was qualified for but never promoted to the position of director or deputy director of Public, works because of her gender and national origin, plaintiff also claims that during her tenure in the Public Works Department, the work environment in that department was hostile to women and minorities and that her complaints about, this situation were ignored. A massive report (more than 500 pages) completed and recently released by the City's own Equal Opportunity Office supports plaintiffs allegations regarding the work environment and her allegations that her complaints were ignored. Plaintiff claims that, in her case, the climax of the hostile work environment occurred when, in September, 1993, her position of Economic Coordinator Manager III was eliminated and thus plalziLiff'& City etuployitwuiL ucLine Lv din ead. ALLer plaiaLiLL was notified about the elimination of her position, Dade County administrators agreed with City administrators that a liaison flUa'Ioa:fA01e MUYUL' UIR z!1111WArW Dull 3 .99b at (: he r_ ! t:.y conun i s a l on page 2 poii:l.t :lon should be est:.abl.ished to coordinate on -going projects of Lile Dade t"� mir.y Water and ,eager Authority that involved the City of Miami. The liaison position would be filled by a City allipl hy+es w1io was em r ncgineez . The County would fund the yearly sa+:l ax-y of Lhe liaison engineer in an amount up to $75, 000 . Pl ainL.i.ft was offered the liaison position and accepted it. An a.nt:erloca.l agreement establishing the arrangements regarding the :l:ial son posit:iou was signed by both the City and County managers and aclopt:ed 1,iy 1)oth Corot isbsions . The duration of the agreement was for Lh.iree years with two, cane -year renewals at the City's opLic'vi. The agreement also provided that it could be terminated 1iy the City aL wly time with proper notice to the County. Or, May 27, 1995, after the afire-ement had been terminated, plaintiff's poh; LluA L, Economic Coordinator Manager III (the liaison position) was again eliminated. Att:er the elit ination of her position in 1993, plaintiff filed an SWC charge arad her original coWlaiat in this lawsuit alleging violations n: Title v11 Of Lhe Civil Rights Act of 1964. She also alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Ptauxiecxath Amenchnent. ?fitter her prosit:ior was a imi i8ted again in tidy, 1995, piaintwiff amended her complaint 'Co add a trb rd count uuder the First. �menndment at�zgirg that her position was eliminated ill retaliatriev for filing t:he SBf)C cha ge and the or igi ual C omplaiut in this lawsuit. The p-arties were ordered h+. ;he Court to pa=-tic-1pate in the rileCZi3t.it+n ofi= thi � case coil Sme b?., 1996 , PrJor to t:he med_at3.on, pjaa,,jat itt , $ a►tt:orueys Alan Cahea and Judson Cc -hen • had made a salt l uelat deU-i:U d, of $750, 000 . At the mted_maticn the demand was :educed to $caMQOO tAen t. and *tea?3y UO $25tDrfl(3o. pl.ai:itiff will also receive one year's- 'vacs, pay and the reopening a:c the '.iailzon position or not ;Here than Three vr3a-r5: . 'I'bA-- mediator and the Court :have already been nptif_eed -that the The casesetllement is coatingent upon Ctit is set for jury tri a=. Da Zluly. Zy, :.996 . The Citwy' s pvL"LaL ,.al expQzure would include (1) frvn.t pay (at �5, 400 r yea :) until plaintiff , w1ac is new �2 , is 62 or =ti 1 she obtains ctLialparabI R Rmployment ; ;y) daaaages fcr e=ti.ana.l disLtreas est:imaced coas--vratrively at fi15Q.000: and attorneys' fees. estimated at $200, 0oo it' the _ase proceeds t© Cr4al. This claim has beea invest :gated by the ,oiv si on. ear Risk ma age► leer. and evaluated by the 3rapiolment Utigmtion ,set- ame�t CouanitLee and it is agreed that the set=:i,_t,ment is in the best interest of the :kw/ S1 ss