Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v. Washington Department of Corrections

Good Law
789 F.3d 979·2015 WL 3634711·127 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1682·99 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,329·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9883
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 12, 201513-35331California6,808 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKEOWN, J.

For years, Washington faced problems common to a number of states in their women’s prisons: sexual abuse and misconduct by prison guards, breaches of inmate privacy, and security gaps. A primary driver, according to prison authorities, was the lack of female corree- tional officers to oversee female offenders and administer sensitive tasks, such as observing inmates showering and dressing and performing the pat (or “pat-down”) and strip searches that are stitched into the fabric of day-to-day-prison life. After long wrestling with this gender gap, the state 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. The prison guards’ union, Teamsters Local No. 117 (“Teamsters” or the “Union”), challenged this practice, though it acknowledges the legitimacy of 50 of the female-only designations. This case juxtaposes the prison’s penological interests against male correctional officers who claim the staffing policy discriminates against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.