His resignation comes just days after a Senate investigation found that Mendoza “more likely than not” engaged in unwanted flirtatious or sexually suggestive behavior with female staffers and interns.
Late Wednesday, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles) introduced legislation to expel Mendoza from the Senate. No member of the California Legislature has been expelled since 1905.
Before the legislature could vote on the resolution, Mendoza resigned.
“I shall resign my position as Senator with immediate effect as it is clear that Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon will not rest until he has my head on a platter to convince the #MeToo movement of his ‘sincerity’ in supporting the #MeToo cause,” Mendoza wrote in a letter.
Although he resigned, Mendoza said he may still run to reclaim the seat later this year.
“I intend to canvas my district to determine my candidacy for the Senate this year,” Mendoza said.
The two-month investigation into Mendoza’s behavior was conducted by the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP at the request of the Rules Committee of the California State Senate in response to sexual misconduct allegations against Mendoza, who has denied the charges. A senate investigation found that embattled state Sen. Tony Mendoza “more likely than not” engaged in unwanted flirtatious or sexually suggestive behavior with female staffers and interns.
Late Wednesday, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles) introduced legislation to expel Mendoza from the senate, the L.A. Times reported. No member of the California Legislature has been expelled since 1905.
The two-month investigation was conducted by the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP at the request of the Rules Committee of the California State Senate in response to sexual misconduct allegations against Mendoza, who has denied the charges.
In a report revealing its findings, the law firm said it conducted 51 interviews with 47 witnesses. The report is labeled confidential but a copy was received by the Patriot.
“In the course of the investigation, witnesses we interviewed described multiple instances in which Mendoza engaged in a pattern of unwelcome flirtation and sexually suggestive behavior towards several female staff members and other women he interacted with at the Capitol,” the report states. “These incidents ranged from the 2007-2008 legislative session when Mendoza was in the Assembly, to the 2017-2018 session when he was in the Senate.
“Many current and former staff members, particularly those in his District office, said they had neither witnessed nor heard of any inappropriate behavior by Senator Mendoza. It appears based on these interviews that he behaved appropriately and professionally towards female staff while he was in his District. However, we received reports of Mendoza engaging in inappropriate behavior while in Sacramento or on overnight trips.
“Over the course of the investigation, six women stated they personally experienced unwanted flirtatious or sexually suggestive behavior by Mendoza. Four of these women were working for Mendoza as staff members, interns, or fellows at the time of his conduct. None of these women alleged that they had a sexual relationship with Mendoza or that he had been physically aggressive or sexually crude towards them. However, the recipients of this unwelcome behavior understood that Mendoza was suggesting sexual contact.
“Although none of the women reported that Mendoza explicitly threatened them or offered career benefits in exchange for sexual favors, the subordinate employees believed that complaining about his conduct could put their careers at risk.”
Investigators found it “more likely than not” that in 2007, Mendoza was sexually suggestive with a female staff member, including asking her to share a room with him at an event in Hawaii. The staff member directly asked Mendoza to stop suggesting a sexual relationship and he “subsequently conformed his behavior.”
The investigation found that in 2008, Mendoza “more likely than not” was inappropriate with a 19-year-old intern who was staying in an adjoining room at the Democratic California Convention. Mendoza offered and drank alcoholic drinks with the woman in his hotel suite and asked her questions about her dating life, the report says.
In 2010, Mendoza invited a female staff member to dinner or drinks and kissed her on the cheek after driving her home. The incident prompted an Assembly Human Resources representative to counsel Mendoza on his behavior.
Investigators also discovered other incidents of sexually suggestive behavior:
In 2014, Mendoza “more likely than not” was flirtatious with a Senate Fellow in his office, who was in her early twenties. Mendoza suggested she could rent a spare room in his house; suggested they could reserve just one room for an overnight event; invited her to come to his house at night under the guise of reviewing her resume despite having little intention of hiring her; and suggested they could go out to dinner or a movie.
In 2015, Mendoza likely invited a different Fellow working in another legislator’s office to visit him at his home. In another incident that same year, Mendoza allegedly suggested to a lobbyist that they go out to dinner and asked what type of men she liked.
Mendoza has consistently denied acting inappropriately. In a statement Tuesday, he criticized the Senate Rules Committee for shutting him out of the investigation process.
“This inability to view and understand the accusations in a timely fashion rubs across the grain of fairness, impartiality and ultimately justice,” he said.
“This government body must rise above and not be swayed by the court of public opinion, but rather, influenced to arrive at a conclusion based on facts and one of the basic tenants of our society, a due process that allows for a complete and thorough investigation procedure that then allows the accused to view and respond to the accusations in a timely manner,” Mendoza added.
“Unless we adhere to the pillar of fairness that serves as a key anchor of our American system of justice, we are condemned to repeating the mistakes of our past when due process was nothing more than a legal luxury reserved only for the well-heeled or mere legal folly.”