By Kasey Burton
In Gethers v. Harrison, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina held that a sheriff’s office did not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of gender when it demoted a female detention officer. The female officer refused to leave the bathroom area while a male inmate was showering. Two other male officers were present, and the inmate was no longer agitated or presenting any sort of threat. Consequently, the female officer’s presence was determined unnecessary and inappropriate. During the course of the investigation following the demotion, the Sheriff concluded that Gethers was not truthful and subsequently terminated her on that basis.
In alleging claims for gender discrimination and retaliation, Gethers relied on various evidence, including the unwritten sheriff’s office policy prohibiting the presence of female officers while male inmates shower or are nude, and her superior officer’s statement, “[Y]ou’re a female, you should not have been there.” Gethers produced fairly weak evidence that she was performing her job satisfactorily, as well as questionable evidence attacking the credibility of the officers who spoke out against her. To support her retaliation claim, Gethers alleged that she contacted the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) about her demotion, and was subsequently terminated.
The Sheriff responded by providing evidence that the male officers present during the incident requested that she leave multiple times, but she refused and remained five-to-ten feet from the inmate while he was showering nude. Even though the policy was unwritten, it was well-known among the employees and for the purpose of providing inmates with some small measure of privacy. The Sheriff also pointed out numerous issues with Gethers’ performance in her job—including the incident at issue—to support her demotion.
The court agreed with the Sheriff holding that Gethers failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation. Gethers was aware of the policy, which was aimed at granting inmates a degree of privacy and dignity. The policy was also an appropriate standard, and necessarily gender-specific. The court also granted summary judgment on Gethers’ retaliation claim, because she provide no evidence that the Sheriff knew of her complaints, and terminated her.
As counsel for the Defendant aptly noted at Gethers’ deposition, a male employee who without justification enters the women’s employee locker room would be subject to termination, despite the fact that no written policy exists prohibiting such conduct.
Editor’s Note (Erica Shelley Nelson): Based on the described facts, most courts would have ruled this way. Gender-specific policies in correctional institutions for the express purpose of protecting inmate privacy are generally upheld, with some exceptions. The court was also clearly persuaded by the fact that the policy at issue was well-known among the other officers, and that Gethers was performing her job unsatisfactorily, and was dishonest during the investigation. All of these facts weighed in favor of upholding the policy, and Gethers initial demotion and subsequent termination.
