Male correctional officers claimed unlawful sex discrimination when the Washington state Department of Corrections made a decision to designate certain discrete sex-based correctional officer positions at its women's prison, resulting in some male officers losing some overtime. Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court found that the decision was an individualized well-researched decision, which was justified because sex was a bona-fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the operation of women's prisons. The defendant was motivated by wishing to see that rampant abuse of female prisoners should not be an accepted part of prison life. The state agency was entitled to summary judgment. Faced with sexual abuse and misconduct by prison guards, breaches of inmate privacy, and security gaps, the defendant determined that a primary driver of these problems was the lack of female correctional officers to oversee female offenders and administer sensitive tasks, such as observing inmates showering and dressing and performing the pat-down and strip searches. The state then undertook a comprehensive assessment and ultimately designated a limited number of female-only correctional positions—specifically, 110 positions to patrol housing units, prison grounds, and work sites. Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v. Washington Dep't Corrections, #13-35331, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 9883 (9th Cir.).
     An investigator looking for breaches of security at a maximum security prison found out that employees on the night shift were having sex on the desk of a female substance abuse counselor who worked there. He told her that he wasn't concerned about this happening, but that she should consider washing her desk each morning. The superintendant subsequently stated that he also was not concerned about the sex, as long as prisoners were not involved. Soon after, the substance abuse counselor and the Major in charge of custody were both fired when the superintendant learned that they were having an affair and allegedly having sex on his desk. The Major appealed his termination and received a settlement allowing him to keep his benefits and pension, to soon get unemployment benefits and to keep working at the prison as a contractor. He was called to testify against the counselor at her appeal, and she was not given similar opportunities and benefits. A federal appeals court found that her lawsuit stated viable claims for sex discrimination, and a hostile work environment, but upheld a trial court ruling that she failed to present sufficient evidence of unlawful retaliation to overcome summary judgment. The appeals court rejected the trial court's finding that the sexual tenor of the work environment at the facility was not pervasive or severe enough to be hostile, as there was evidence of a constant stream of sexually charged comments and her complaints about it were ignored. Orton-Bell v. State of Indiana, #13-1235, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 13993, 123 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1200 (7th Cir.).
     A county was not entitled to summary judgment on male deputies' federal and state sex discrimination challenge to a policy barring them from supervising female inmates in jails. The county failed to show that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was entitled to a "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) defense to the sex discrimination claim. The BFOQ defense could not be established merely by deferring to the sheriff's judgment. There were also factual issues as to whether the sheriff arrived at the policy by engaging in a reasoned decision-making policy, as well as whether the policy legitimately furthered important underlying interests, such as protecting the safety of female inmates. Ambat v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, #11-16746, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12512 (9th Cir.).
     A female corrections officer sued the county and a former chief deputy sheriff for sex discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, arguing that she had commenced a sexual relationship with the former chief deputy, who served as jail administrator, and allowed it to continue because she believed that ending it might lead to her termination. He allegedly continued to hug and kiss her at work after she said she wanted to end the relationship, as well as having intercourse with her at work. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of qualified immunity to the former deputy. The plaintiff presented adequate evidence that she had let him know that his romantic attention was unwelcome. Under the totality of the circumstances that she alleged existed, his actions could be viewed as severe enough to alter the terms and conditions of her employment in the view of a reasonable person. She had adequately alleged that he acted in a physically threatening and severe manner which unreasonably interfered with her work performance. She adequately alleged gender discrimination in violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights, despite the defendant's claim that her sexual relationship with him was voluntary. A reasonable public official would have known that the defendant's alleged conduct was unlawful, violating the plaintiff's clearly established rights. Williams v. Herron, #11–2894,   687 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2012).
     A female correctional officer, having previously been warned about engaging in excessive absenteeism, declined to accept a change of shift requiring longer hours, and which she claimed would not reasonably accommodate her back problems. She was terminated, and claimed that this constituted gender discrimination because a male co-worker who also refused to accept a shift change was not disciplined as severely. A federal appeals court found that the two officers' actions were similar enough that a jury could find that the different treatment constituted gender discrimination, and should be allowed to consider her claim. Summary judgment for the employer was improper, and there was no indication in the record that the employer had taken her disciplinary record into consideration in firing her. Eaton v. Indiana Department of Corrections, #10-3214,  2011 U.S. App. Lexis 18675 (7th Cir.).
     Ninth Circuit overturns a lower court holding that perpetuated a practice of only assigning women lieutenants at a women’s prison. There is no reason to believe “that individuals in the correctional lieutenant role are particularly likely to sexually abuse inmates.” Breiner v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections, #09-15568, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13933, 109 FEP Cases (BNA) 1153 (9th Cir.).
     State department of corrections failed to prove that gender was a BFOQ for promoting lieutenants. Breiner v. Nevada Dept. of Corr., #09-15568, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13933, 109 FEP Cases (BNA) 1153 (9th Cir.).
     Seventh Circuit reinstates a gender discrimination suit. The fact that more males were incarcerated in a juvenile facility did not justify a new staffing rule that required that at least one male officer work in every pod on each shift. Women officers with greater seniority lost overtime assignments to males with less seniority. "The evidence in the record does not support the conclusion that the juveniles' safety or security, or the institution's ability to manage risk effectively, was at all in jeopardy because of the presence of opposite-sex JCOs on the third shift." Henry v. Milwaukee County, #07-2534, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17724 (7th Cir.).
     Sixth Circuit splits 2-1 to support a ban on the assignment of male correctional officers to 250+ positions in women's housing units. Everson v. Mich. Dept. of Corr., #02-2028, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24905, 94 FEP Cases (BNA) 1542, 2004 FED App. 0418P (6th Cir. 2004). [2005 FP Feb]
     Federal court dismisses woman correctional officer's claim against management because of inmate sexual harassment; her superiors were not negligent, and she should expect inmates to misbehave. Powell v. Morris, 37 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2454, 81 FEP Cases (BNA) 899 (S.D. Ohio). [2000 FP 75]
     Federal appeals court upholds a small county that transferred a deputy sheriff based on her gender. Reed v. Co. of Casey, # 98-6021, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 18007, 184 F.3d 597, 80 FEP Cases 736 (6th Cir.). [1999 FP 171]
     Federal court dismisses woman corrections officer's bias lawsuit which claimed that the Dept. of Corrections failed to adequately discipline male inmates who exposed themselves in her presence. Wright v. Dept. of Corr., 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20074, 31 F.Supp.2d 1336, 78 FEP Cases (BNA) 1520 (M.D. Ala.). [1999 FP 43-4]
     County that adopted a policy of prohibiting the assignment of women correctional officers to posts where male inmates are housed and or assignment of male officers to a post where female inmates are housed misunderstood state law and was in violation of 42 U.S. Code 1983. State law required only that at least one officer of each gender be present within a jail when jail holds inmates of both genders. Sheriff's Assn. v. Co. of Oswego, 80 FEP Cases (BNA) 744, 56 F.Supp.2d 263, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10848 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). {N/R}
     Appeals court rejects suit to prohibit the assignment of women officers to the men's units of a county jail. Johnson v. Phelan, 69 FEP Cases (BNA) 119, 69 F.3d 136 (7th Cir. 1995). [1996 FP 11-12]
     A policy of assigning only female staff to the women's unit of a mixed-gender prison did not violate Title VII. Tharp v. Iowa Dept. of Corr., 69 FEP Cases (BNA) 42, 68 F.3d 223 (8th Cir. 1995). [1996 FP 12]
     See also: Sexual Harassment - By Inmates in Correctional Facilities.