Printer Friendly
The Free Library
19,122,084 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Everson v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections.


U.S. Appeals Court

FEMALE OFFICERS

CROSS GENDER SUPERVISION

Everson v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 391 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2004). Male and female corrections officers The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please [ improve this article] or discuss the issue on the talk page.
 brought a class action against a state corrections agency, alleging gender discrimination in staffing positions within female prison housing units. The district court granted judgment in favor of the officers and the state appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that female gender was a bona fide [Latin, In good faith.] Honest; genuine; actual; authentic; acting without the intention of defrauding.

A bona fide purchaser is one who purchases property for a valuable consideration that is inducement for entering into a contract and without suspicion of being
 occupational qualification (BFOQ BFOQ Bona Fide Occupational Qualification ). The court held that female gender was a BFOQ under Title VII for correctional officer and residential unit officer positions in housing units at a female prison, since the exclusion of males from such positions was reasonably necessary to the normal operation of facilities. According to according to
prep.
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.

2. In keeping with: according to instructions.

3.
 the court, the BFOQ materially advanced the security of the prison, safety of inmates, and protection of privacy rights of inmates, and reasonable alternatives to the plan were not identified. (Michigan Department of Corrections The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and other correctional facilities in the state of Michigan, USA. It has some 43 prison facilities, 10 camps and a Special Alternative Incarceration program, together composing approximately 50,000 inmates. )
COPYRIGHT 2005 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:sex discrimination, violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U3MI
Date:Feb 1, 2005
Words:158
Previous Article:Thompson v. Spears.
Next Article:Thompson v. Spears.
Topics:



Related Articles
EEOC rules employers must cover contraceptives.
U.S. District Court: SEXUAL HARASSMENT HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT TITLE VII SEX DISCRIMINATION.
Prescription birth-control coverage cannot be excluded from benefit plan, court rules.
Personnel.
Martin v. New York Dept. of Correctional Services.
McCall v. Board of Com'rs of County of Shawnee, KS.
Everson v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections.
Personnel.
Moser v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2012 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles