Griffin v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections
| Decision Date | 12 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 80-71516. |
| Citation | 654 F. Supp. 690 |
| Parties | Jennie M. GRIFFIN and Constance M. Anderson, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Perry Johnson, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections; Jack Boyett, Personnel Director, Michigan Department of Corrections; Charles E. Anderson, Regional Administrator for the State Prison of Southern Michigan; William F. Grant, Deputy Warden for the State Prison of Southern Michigan; Raymond H. Kraft, Personnel Director, State Prison of Southern Michigan; Dale Foltz, Administrator of the Michigan Reformatory in Ionia, Michigan; Michigan Civil Service Commission; James Miller, Chairman of the Michigan Civil Service Commission; and Richard Ross, State Personnel Director, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Kurt Beggren, Ann Arbor, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Elaine Dierwa Fischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Detroit, Mich., for defendants.
This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by the Court, as required by Fed.R. Civ.P. 52.
Plaintiffs, Jennie M. Griffin Griffin and Constance M. Anderson Anderson, are citizens of the State of Michigan. Griffin is a female corrections officer at the State Prison of Southern Michigan in Jackson, Michigan Jackson. Anderson is a female corrections officer at the Michigan Reformatory in Ionia, Michigan Ionia.
This is a Rule 23(b)(2), (3) class action. The Plaintiff class has been certified as "all women employees and correctional officers now working or who have worked at the all-male maximum security institutions in Michigan and who are denied or who have been denied promotional opportunities because of the defendants' policies of not allowing women to work within the housing of residential units."
Defendant, Michigan Department of Corrections Department of Corrections, is a unit within the State of Michigan government which is responsible for the maintenance of all persons who have been sentenced to terms of incarceration in correctional facilities by the various State courts. Defendants, Perry M. Johnson Johnson, Director of the Department of Corrections, and Jack Boyett Boyett, Personnel Director for the Department of Corrections, are responsible for the implementation of all policies, practices, rules and regulations of the entire prison system, including the employment, promotions, salary, seniority and other benefit policies, practices and actions.
Defendants, Charles E. Anderson Anderson, William F. Grant Grant, and Raymond H. Kraft Kraft, hold the positions of Regional Administrator, Deputy Warden and Personnel Director, respectively at Jackson. These three individuals are responsible for all of the employment practices and policies relating to employees at Jackson.
Defendant, Michigan Civil Service Commission Civil Service Commission, is a State agency which is responsible for the enactment of employment policies and practices for all State employees, including Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class. Defendant, James Miller Miller, is Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and Defendant, Richard Ross Ross, is the Personnel Director for the Civil Service Commission.
Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which provides for original jurisdiction in all suits that have been authorized by (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress deprivation, under color of State law, of any right, privilege, or immunity that has been secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1985 to redress deprivation of the equal protection of the laws which have been caused by the conspiracy of two or more persons.
Jurisdiction is also conferred on this Court pursuant to (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs have raised substantial federal questions and seek damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, (2) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) which provides for original jurisdiction of this Court in all suits that arise from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, and (3) the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1966, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiffs' action for declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as well as by Rule 57 of the Fed.R. Civ.P. relating to declaratory judgments.
On April 15, 1980, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with this Court, seeking, inter alia, compensation "... for money damages, back pay, rights to seniority and other benefits, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief." In their Complaint, Plaintiffs charge that "Defendants have systematically and continuously discriminated against women correctional officers at all male prison facilities in the State of Michigan." They further allege that "there is a pattern of practice by the Defendants to harass, intimidate and punish ... Plaintiffs and other members of ... Plaintiff class for filing complaints and grievances and otherwise attempting to remedy this unlawful discrimination." Plaintiffs seek (1) "to have this court declare ... Defendants' policies, practices and actions invalid, and to enjoin, preliminary and permanently, ... Defendants from unlawfully, illegally and unconstitutionally discriminating against women employees and correctional officers in the Michigan prison system ... and (2) Defendants' practices declared unlawful and ... to enjoin their further utilization, as well as compensatory damages, for the defendants' illegal actions." They also ask for punitive damages from those Defendants who have "willfully, maliciously and intentionally harmed" them.
On May 13, 1980, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was subsequently denied. On June 13, 1980, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction with this Court which was also denied. On October 14, 1980, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On January 5, 1981, this Court certified the class, pursuant to a Stipulation of the parties. The non-jury trial, which began on January 20, 1981, concluded on January 28, 1981. During the course of the trial, Plaintiffs produced twelve witnesses, and Defendants produced five witnesses. Plaintiffs and Defendants introduced fourteen exhibits, respectively, into evidence. The matter is now before this Court for a final determination.
The parties have not stipulated to any substantive facts for the purpose of this trial.
The instant controversy surrounds the claims of Plaintiffs, Griffin and Anderson, as well as the claims of the Plaintiff class who contend that they have been subjected to employment discrimination on the basis of their sex by Defendants at three of the correctional facilities within the Michigan penal system (Jackson, Ionia and the Marquette Reformatory Marquette).
(1) Introduction
There are two basic employment units within each of the three penal institutions that are involved in these proceedings; to wit, Housing and Custody.
(2) Housing
Within the Housing unit, there are six major positions (all on a grade level of 08 or higher), the description of which are listed below:
(a) Resident Unit Aide IVB RUA IVB:
Works directly with prisoners, and is required to (1) patrol the residents' quarters, (2) "maintain the proper standards of care and personal hygiene among the residents, and (3) maintain an active awareness of the resident unit's activity through periodic resident counts, investigating of suspicious or unusual situations, or the preventing of unauthorized activities."
(b) Assistant Resident Unit Manager VB ARUM VB:
Participates in a variety of paraprofessional supportive counseling and custodial activities involving the treatment, evaluation, security and disposition of residents in the housing units of state correctional facilities, and service as supervisors of resident/client care staff. This classification is the first-line supervision classification for employees within the dormitories.
(c) Assistant Resident Unit Manager VI ARUM VI:
Carries out the activities of a housing unit treatment program, serves as a first-line supervisor with responsibility for directing the work activities of resident/client care staff in a housing unit.
(d) Resident Unit Manager V RUM V:
Performs a variety of activities within the dormitories which are designed to (1) assist correctional residents in adapting to prison life, (2) regulate the daily lives of correctional residents, (3) assist in the rehabilitation of correctional residents, and (4) serve as second-line supervisors of residents/client care staff.
(e) Resident Unit Manager VIB RUM VIB:
Performs the full range of professional unit manager assignments by utilizing methods and techniques that are required to carry out the activities of a resident unit treatment program in the dormitories.
(f) Resident Unit Manager VIII RUM VIII:
Serves as a second-line supervisor (the highest level position to which selected assignments are made), with the responsibility for planning and directing the work of resident/client care support through lower level supervisors, and exercises considerable independent judgment to adapt and apply the guidelines to specific situations, as needed. Work assignments stem from the implementation of prison counseling program policies to performing such functions as approving leaves, performing service ratings, counseling employees, participating in employee grievance procedures and the hiring and training of personnel.
(3) Custody
The major positions within the Custody Unit are Corrections Officer IIB, Corrections Officer III, Corrections Shift Supervisor IV (Sergeant), Corrections Shift Supervisor V (Lieutenant), Corrections...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rushing v. Wayne County
...clothed pat-down frisk searches and visual observation of males by female guards were constitutional); Griffin v. Dep't of Corrections, 654 F.Supp. 690 (E.D.Mich., 1982) (inmates did not possess protected privacy rights under the federal constitution against being viewed while naked by corr......
-
Bedford v. Sugarman
...F.2d 1100 (8th Cir.1982), and cases therein cited. But see Davis v. Bucher, 853 F.2d 718 (9th Cir.1988); Griffin v. Michigan Dep't of Corrections, 654 F.Supp. 690, 703 (E.D.Mich.1982). From these cases, it appears that the right of confidentiality the Supreme Court first articulated in Whal......
-
Rider v. Com. of Pa.
...intimate bodily functions. In reaching his conclusion, the arbitrator relied primarily on Griffin v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 30 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 638, 654 F.Supp. 690 (E.D. Mich.1982). In Griffin, the district court rejected the prison management's claim that inmates had a ri......
-
Torres v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Social Services
...professionalism of guards and the dignity of inmates. Quoted in Bagley, 579 F.Supp. at 1104; see also Griffin v. Michigan Dep't of Corrections, 654 F.Supp. 690, 702-03 (E.D.Mich.1982). The present case is further complicated by the fact that those asserting infringements of their privacy ar......