The exchange of sexual favors for financial gain is prostitution. Those who engage in the practice are prostitutes or whores. According to Uncle Ned (See Uncle Ned’s Corner), there are three types of men. The first type doesn’t buy whores. The second type buys whores with their own money. The third type buys whores with other people’s money. Men of the third type are mostly politicians.
Local news from the past week included much on the topic of the County’s settlement of a sexual harassment suit brought in the U.S. District Court by former part-time Recorder’s Clerk Estela Montalvo against Lake County and incumbent Lake County Recorder Michael B. Brown.¹
According to her Complaint² citing sex discrimination contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mrs. Montalvo was hired by Recorder Brown in August of 2014 as a part-time clerk without benefits.³ Thereafter, she “made it clear to Brown that she was interested in full-time work with benefits. The Complaint goes on to allege that Brown “began making sexual advances with an implicit message that a sexual relationship was a condition of a promotion to a full-time position.”
Rather than sue over the perceived outrage, Mrs. Montalvo took the deal by having an ongoing sexual relationship with Brown, but “only because she believed it was a condition of a promotion to full-time employment.” The “deal” that Mrs. Montalvo took was the exchange of sexual favors for financial gain. This is not by my accusation but rather by her own admission.
Trouble in paradise appeared, according to the Complaint, when Brown reneged on the deal. More to the point, Mrs. Montalvo didn’t get her full-time gig (with benefits) from her partner in adultery. Hence the federal suit that officially claimed sex discrimination while unofficially bearing a strong resemblance to an action for breach of promise.
Most lawyers are (or should be) aware of the disfavored position of respondeat superior in § 1983 cases. For instance, an action for police brutality may result in a damages award against the cop but not against the Department or municipality unless the case is made for negligent hiring, retention, training, supervision or the like against the governmental employer. So why would Estela sue the County? “Deep pockets” is the first answer that comes to mind. The second answer may be a reputation (of the County) for settling to cover the misdeeds of its office holders. Mrs. Montalvo’s Complaint struggled to state a theory of liability against the County, settling on the specious claim that Brown was a “policymaker” for the County. The County’s refreshingly competent Answer conceded that Brown ran the Recorder’s Office but rightly denied that he was a “policymaker” for the County.
To its substantial discredit the County (through its Commissioners) wrote the check for $185,000.00 of your money and mine to pay for Mikey’s adulterous _______ (you can fill in the blank). No one asked me for permission. I would not have given it.
The better news is that the Recorder’s Office appears to be surviving. The reported absences of Recorder Brown from the Office may not be a detriment. If you have business in the Recorder’s office you will find the (mostly female) staff to be friendly, helpful, and efficient.
______________________
¹Michael B. Brown should not be mistaken for Michael A. Brown, the incumbent Clerk of the Lake County Circuit/Superior Courts who appears to have brought no discredit upon his office. Michael B. Brown gained “same name” advantage in his successful 2012 primary run for the office of Recorder. Michael A. Brown had actually been the popularly elected Recorder who departed that office to be Clerk of the Courts.
²The circumstances alleged in the Complaint are not thereby true. Recorder Brown has denied misconduct.
³The CLB theory is that the 2014 hiring of Mrs. Montalvo was payback for the favor (to Recorder Brown) of running “against” Brown in the crowded 2012 primary but actually serving to snag the uncommitted Hispanic vote that might otherwise have gone to a more credible candidate.
Leave a Reply