A recent case has come out from the Ninth Circuit holding that the California Department of Corrections can be held liable under Title VII for sexual harassment by inmates against correctional staff. The case is summarized in more detail below.
Frietag v. Ayers, No. 03-16702 (9th Cir. 2006)
Daenna Frietag was a correctional officer in the Secure Housing Unit of Pelican Bay State Prison in California. The female correctional officer made complaints and attempts to stop repeated "exhibitionist masturbation" and other harassment by prisoners. However, her complaints were rebuffed by the prison. The Ninth Circuit held the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The CDCR tried to argue that they could not be liable under Title VII for maintaining a hostile work environment caused by inmate misconduct. The court disagreed and proffered that prisons are not uniquely exempt from liability for sexual harassment by inmates. According to the court, Freitag presented "overwhelming evidence" at trial that the CDCR maintained a sexually hostile work environment at Pelican Bay by failing to take prompt and reasonable corrective action in response to her multiple complaints, and that it retaliated against her for those complaints. The jury found for Freitag on her sexual harassment and retaliation claims against CDCR and First Amendment claims against the warden, an associate warden, and the EEO coordinator. It awarded her $500,000 in economic damages and $100,000 in non-economic damages. In addition, the trial court permanently enjoined the prison from maintaining a sexually hostile work environment or retaliating against employees who complain of perceived Title VII violations, and ordered the appointment of a special master to aid in the development of a remedial plan to resolve the inmate sexual misconduct problem and monitor compliance with the plan. On appeal, a unanimous panel agreed that CDCR could be held liable under Title VII for a hostile work environment created by inmates. The court noted that employers may be held liable for third-party conduct and non-employees where the employer "knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action". The court also noted that "nothing in the law suggests that prison officials may ignore sexually hostile conduct and refrain from taking corrective actions that would safeguard the rights of the victims, whether they be guards or inmates". Please find the news story and the entire opinion attached to this email. We hope you find this information helpful.
I am the administrator for the Corrections Community and the Web Services Manager for the NIC Information Center.