Everson v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections

• Decision Date: 11 July 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00-73133.,00-73133.
• Citation: 222 F.Supp.2d 864
• Parties: Roslyn EVERSON, Randy Fox, Stennis George, Brenda L. Sebastian, and Richard Idemudia, Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, and Linda Nunn and Tracy Neal, Intervening Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

222 F.Supp.2d 864

Roslyn EVERSON, Randy Fox, Stennis George, Brenda L. Sebastian, and Richard Idemudia, Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, and Linda Nunn and Tracy Neal, Intervening Defendants.

No. 00-73133.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

July 11, 2002.

Eileen Nowikowski, John R. Runyan, Jr., Sachs Waldman, Detroit, MI, for Roslyn Everson, Randy Fox, Stennis George, Brenda L. Sebastian, Richard Idemudia.

Mark W. Matus, Marie Shamraj, Mich. Dept. of Atty. Gen., Corrections Div., Lansing, MI, for Michigan Dept. of Corrections, Bill Martin.

Deborah A. LaBelle, Ann Arbor, MI, Molly H. Reno, Ann Arbor, MI, Richard A. Soble, Soble & Rowe, Ann Arbor, MI, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Linda Nunn, Tracy Neal.

Kary L. Moss, Michael J. Steinberg, Amer. Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Detroit, MI, for American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Womens Lawyers Ass'n of Washtenaw County.

DECISION

COHN, District Judge.

There is hardly ever a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.¹

                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                     I. Introduction .............................................................867
                        A. Nature Of The Case ....................................................867
                        B. The Correctional Officer Positions ....................................867
                        C. Relief And Scope ......................................................867
                        D. Decision And Preliminary Statement ....................................868
                           1. Decision ...........................................................868
                           2. Preliminary Statement ..............................................868
                    II. The Statutes .............................................................869
                        A. Basic Laws ............................................................869
                           1. Federal Law ........................................................869
                           2. State Law ..........................................................869
                        B. The Exemptions ........................................................869
                           1. Federal Law ........................................................869
                           2. State Law ..........................................................870
                

                   III. Precursors To The MDOC Effort To Make The Change .........................870
                        A. The United States Case ................................................871
                        B. The Female Inmates Case ...............................................872
                    IV. Request For The BFOQ .....................................................873
                        A. Gender Specific Assignment Committee ..................................873
                        B. Director's Initiative .................................................874
                        C. The Application To The DCS ............................................876
                     V. The Case In Court Pre-Trial ..............................................878
                    VI. The Trial ................................................................879
                        A. The Issue .............................................................879
                        B. The Trial Generally ...................................................880
                        C. The Witnesses .........................................................880
                           1. Plaintiffs .........................................................880
                           2. Defendants .........................................................881
                           3. Intervening Defendants .............................................885
                        D. The Exhibits ..........................................................885
                           1. Plaintiffs' Relevant Exhibits ......................................886
                           2. Defendants' Relevant Exhibits ......................................886
                           3. Joint Exhibits .....................................................887
                   VII. Statistics ...............................................................887
                  VIII. The Right Of Plaintiffs To Bring Suit ....................................888
                    IX. The BFOQ .................................................................889
                        A. The Law Generally .....................................................889
                        B. The Law Particularly ..................................................889
                           1. Female Prison BFOQ .................................................889
                           2. No Reasonable Alternative ..........................................892
                           3. Female Inmates Rights ..............................................893
                     X. Findings .................................................................893
                        A. Facts .................................................................893
                        B. Reasonable Alternatives ...............................................895
                        C. Continued Incidents ...................................................895
                    XI. The Intervening Female Inmates' Case .....................................895
                        A. "The Harm To Plaintiffs Is Speculative And At Most Minimal" ...........896
                        B. "Since Plaintiffs Do Not Contest The Right Of MDOC To Make Gender
                              Specific Tasking Assignments MDOC Is Entitled To Make The Tasks
                              of CO And RUO's In The Housing Units Gender Specific" ..............896
                        C. "Assigning Males To Housing Units Solely To Achieve Gender Neutrality
                              In Employment And Without Regard To Gender Differences Has
                              Proven To Be A Mistake" ............................................896
                        D. "MDOC Is Obligated To Take All Reasonable Steps To Prevent Abuses
                              From Continuing In The Female Prisons" .............................897
                        E. "Making Gender A BFOQ For Female Housing Unit Officers Is Reasonably
                              Necessary To Achieve MDOC's Core Mission" ..........................897
                   XII. National Profile of Corrections Officers In Female Prisons ...............898
                  XIII. Conclusion ...............................................................898
                

I. Introduction

A. Nature Of The Case

In this case, male and female corrections officers working for the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) challenge the Michigan Department of Civil Service's (DCS)² approval of the MDOC's request to make female gender a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the positions of Correctional Officer (CO) and Resident Unit Officer (RUO) in the housing units in the female prisons in Michigan.³ The challenge comes in the form of a request by five CO's and RUO's⁴ for a declaratory judgment that gender specific assignment to the positions of CO and RUO violates Section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and Section 207 of Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2202.

In response, the MDOC says that the BFOQ exception in the statutes, found at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(1) and M.C.L. § 37.2208 applies to these positions, i.e. a gender specific qualification (female) for the positions is reasonably necessary to the normal operations of a female prison.

A group of female inmates in the custody of the MDOC are also parties to the case as intervening defendants. They too argue that only female correction officers should be permitted in female prisons.⁵

On September 28, 2000, the Court entered a temporary restraining order against implementation of gender specific assignment of CO's and RUO's in Michigan's female prisons, which continues in effect.

B. The Correctional Officer Positions

The General Summary of Function/Purpose of Positions in DCS language of a CO reads:

Responsible for custody and security in a female housing unit. The goal is to provide a safe, clean, secure, and efficient environment while respecting the privacy of female prisoners, and enforcing rules and regulations.

The General Summary of Function/Purpose of Positions in DCS language for an RUO reads:

Responsible for custody and security in a female housing unit, as well as treatment responsibilities, primarily on the day and afternoon shift. The goal is to provide a safe, clean, secure, efficient living environment while respecting the privacy of female prisoners, and enforcing rules and regulations.

C. Relief And Scope

Plaintiffs request the following relief:

A declaratory judgment that to make gender-based assignments to the Corrections Officer positions, Resident Unit Officer positions, as well as rover and transport positions at the Scott Correctional Facility, Western Wayne Facility, and Camp Brighton Facility is unlawful as a violation of the gender discrimination provision of Title VII, the provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.⁶

On the date suit was filed, July 12, 2000, the MDOC operated two female prisons: Florence Crane Corrections Facility (Florence Crane), Scott and a female camp, Camp Branch. At that time, the MDOC was in the process of converting Western Wayne and Camp Brighton to female only prisons and closing down Florence Crane and Camp Branch. Approximately 267 CO and RUO positions are involved overall, of which approximately 60% are male.⁷ A subset of the CO and RUO positions are transportation officer, intake officer, and rover.

D. Decision And Preliminary Statement

1. Decision

For the reasons which follow, which constitute the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the MDOC has failed to sustain its burden that gender is a BFOQ for CO and RUO's in the housing units in female prisons, that it is reasonably necessary to their normal operations, and that there is no reasonable alternative to employing female corrections officers in such...