Is a correctional facility where inmates (but not employees) openly display sexually suggestive materials in violation of the facility’s policies a hostile work environment for a correctional officer? No, according to a November 20, 2013 ruling by the Eastern District of California. Daniels v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:10-cv-00003-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013).
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Maria Aguilar, worked for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as a housing officer in an all-male correctional facility. It was the facility’s policy to ban all sexually explicit material (i.e., pornography), while permitting sexually suggestive materials such as swimsuit and lingerie photographs as long as inmates did not openly display them (No Rita Hayworth posters on the walls for Andy Dufresne in this prison). Inmates who failed to remove materials found to be in violation of the policy were written up and subject to potential discipline.
Ms. Aguilar identified six incidents between 2007 and 2011 – all of which occurred in 2008 – where inmates had openly displayed sexually suggestive materials and received a verbal reprimand. Of those six, only two had carried on to the point where Aguilar reported them to her supervisors. Significantly, there were no allegations that her supervisors ridiculed or failed to take seriously her reports of misconduct, or that she observed other correctional officers failing to enforce the policies.
Ruling in favor of the CDCR, the Daniels Court found that merely exposing Aguilar to sexually suggestive materials was not severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level of a hostile work environment. The court emphasized the fact that what constitutes severe or pervasive misconduct is specific to the context in which such conduct occurs – a prison setting is very different from, say, a law office. Thus, as a correctional officer, Ms. Aguilar and others “accepted the probability that they will face inappropriate and socially deviant behavior.” Viewed in that light, the conduct was not nearly as “severe or pervasive,” according to the court, as a situation where inmates frequently exposed themselves and engaged in sexual acts in front of officers. Additionally, the court ruled, even if there had been severe or pervasive sexual misconduct, the CDCR would not be liable based on the appropriate corrective action it took in response. As the Court noted, “liability for inmate sexual harassment depends not on the prisoners’ conduct but instead on the correctional facility’s response to inmate behavior.” (Emphasis added). Ms. Aguilar herself admitted both that all of her complaints were taken seriously by supervisors and that she was not harassed by coworkers or supervisors for making those complaints.
This case emphasizes two significant points for employers to keep in mind. First, the severity or pervasiveness of sexual (mis)conduct must be viewed in the context of the specific work environment. Second, it is simultaneously important and beneficial for employers both to have internal policies in place and to enforce those policies when potentially discriminatory situations arise. In the sexual harassment context, especially, Title VII holds employers to a standard of due diligence, rather than one of perfection.