March 26, 2019 – (LOS ANGELES) – Six female correctional officers assigned to prisons throughout California, today filed a class action lawsuit accusing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) of disability discrimination for denying the women reasonable accommodation for, and during, their pregnancies. The suit is seeking unspecified damages. A full copy of the complaint can be found here.
According to the complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the CDCR has adopted a discriminatory and irrational policy which threatens the physical safety of both correctional officers and inmates. Under the current policy, the CDCR refuses to provide reasonable accommodation for pregnant guards or engage in an interactive process for the purpose of providing such accommodation.
“The women bringing this case today, along with hundreds of others serving in our prisons right now, have been forced to make extremely difficult choices that no man in the same role would ever have to make,” said Arnold P. Peter, attorney for the class. “The CDCR has shown callous indifference towards their own female employees who have requested nothing more than reasonable accommodations during their pregnancies. It is high time to put a halt to this archaic practice and give these brave individuals the full benefits they deserve.”
The plaintiffs are:
Jacqueline Carreon, 31, a Correctional Officer at Centinela State Prison which is located in Imperial, Imperial County, California, housing over 5,000 inmates of varying custody levels.
Geneva Carter, 28, a Correctional Officer at Centinela State Prison.
Racquel Chanelo, 38, a Correctional Sergeant at Kern Valley State Prison, a male-only state Level IV Maximum Security institution, located in the City of Delano, Kern County, California.
Melissa Glaude, 36, a Medical Technical Assistant at the California Medical Facility, a male-only state prison medical facility located in the City of Vacaville, Solano County, California. Glaude’s role as a Medical Technical Assistant is considered a “sworn” position with “peace officer” status and must be capable of performing all duties of a Correctional Officer.
Karen Lang, 38, a Correctional Officer at Centinela State Prison.
Angela Powell, 32, a Correctional Officer at the California Medical Facility.
Each of the plaintiffs requested and were denied reasonable accommodation during their pregnancies. When each of the plaintiffs requested reasonable accommodation due to their pregnancies, they were advised by CDCR that they had three choices: 1) Stay in their current position, waive any medical restrictions, confirm their ability to perform each and every essential job function and assume liability for any injury caused by their decision to ignore medical restrictions; 2) Accept a demotion, resulting in reduced pay, loss of peace officer status, loss of seniority, loss of benefits and loss of right to bid for shifts; or 3) Take a combination of paid and unpaid leave as an accommodation.
“In California, and nationwide, the numbers of women in law enforcement are kept artificially low by widespread discriminatory hiring and selection practice, and by discriminatory personnel policies like the CDCR’s pregnancy policy,” said Katherine Spillar, executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and its National Center for Women & Policing. “We are in awe of the California correctional officers of diverse experience and background who have shown selfless courage to take a stand against a policy that cannot be justified and runs contrary to practices in modern law enforcement.”
The Women in Federal Law Enforcement (WIFLE) Foundation, in their report titled “21st Century Policing: Guide to Recruiting, Hiring, Retaining and Promoting Women and Minorities,” notes that:
Reassignment to accommodate an officer that cannot perform 100% of the duties and responsibilities as contained in their job description should be a viable option. Conditions that limit an employee to a “Less than Full Duty” (injury, illness, pregnancy) assignment become part of an employee’s development rather than a punishment or busy work. Temporary duty assignments that assist in accommodating an employee when they are “temporarily” not capable of performing 100% of their assigned duties should be viewed as important to attaining the goals and objectives of an agency and not seen as or used as punishment.
According to a report by the National Center on Women and Policing, “One of the biggest complaints from pregnant female sworn officers is that when they notify their department that they are pregnant, they are removed from their position. There are sometimes no efforts to find light duty positions for pregnant women.” The report goes on to state that:
One of the most critical components of a pregnancy policy is inclusion of a light duty policy. Many pregnant women officers in law enforcement positions will want the option of moving to a light duty assignment at some point in their pregnancy. Without the option of a light duty assignment, many women may have to take unpaid leave, creating financial and emotional hardships that can be avoided. Light duty assignments may include a transfer to different duties or a modification in current duties. If the department provides light duty assignments for other employees who have non-service related temporary disabilities, then they are required by law to provide the same assignments for pregnant employees. However, a pregnant officer should not be forced into a light duty assignment against her will if she is physically able to safely perform her current assignment. If the officer’s ability to perform her assignment is at issue, consultation with a physician may be necessary. The best light duty policies are flexible; have no time limit on how long a pregnant woman can be assigned to light duty; leave the decision as to when to commence a light duty assignment with the pregnant officer and her physician; and stipulate that officers on light duty will continue to receive normal promotion and pay increases while in that status, and that retirement benefits will not be affected.
The case underscores the ongoing national dialogue about gender inequality in the workplace, where women who work in traditionally male-dominated fields are regularly forced to make difficult choices in order to stay on the earnings track. A recent study by the U.S. Census Bureau found that the spousal earnings gap doubles between two years before the birth of the first child and the year after that child is born. After the child’s first year of life the gap continues to grow for the next five years.
California is second only to Texas in the number of corrections officers in the state. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics study Women in Law Enforcement 1987-2008, published in June 2010, 14 percent of Bureau of Prisons officers were female.
