Printer Friendly

Personnel.

U.S. District Court

FREE SPEECH RETALIATION

Bailer v. Taylor, 170 F.Supp.2d 466 (D.Del. 2001). A former internal affairs investigator for a state corrections department brought an action against corrections officials, alleging they had retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and that he was constructively discharged by the officials' retaliatory conduct. The district court held that the investigator's speech regarding wrongdoing by corrections officers was entitled to First Amendment protection and that summary judgment for the officials was precluded by fact questions regarding the alleged retaliation and the circumstances of the investigator's termination. Officials had criticized the investigator's report following an inmate riot, telling him that it contained unsupported conclusions and was vague, and directing him to revise it. The investigator protested the order to revise the report but eventually did so because he feared for his job. The investigator eventually resigned from his position after allegedly be ing subjected to retaliatory actions. (Delaware Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court

SEXUAL HARASSMENT TITLE VII RETALIATION

Longstreet v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections 276 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2002). A female correctional center employee brought a Title VII action against a state corrections department and the center's warden, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the employee appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the department's response of reassigning a male employee after the plaintiff complained of a sexual harassment incident was not obviously unreasonable. According to the plaintiff, a male employee offered her money to perform sexual acts. The court did not find evidence of retaliation. (Joliet Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court

PROTECTION FROM HARM

Nicholas v. Wallenstein, 266 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2001). County jail employees who had participated in the restraint and removal of a prisoner who was suffering from a cocaine overdose brought a state court action under ss 1983 based on the public identification of them as the persons who had participated in the cell extraction. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the employees did not show that the facility commander had acted with deliberate indifference to known or obvious dangers when he disclosed their identities to an angry group of the prisoner's family and friends while the prisoner was near death. The employees had struggled with the inmate and handcuffed him and used pepper spray to control him. When they put him on a restraint board he stopped breathing and had no pulse. He was revived and taken to a hospital where he later died. (King County Jail, Washington)

U.S. Appeals Court

SEARCHES

Virgili v. Gilbert, 272 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2001). An employee at a state correctional facility brought suit under ss 1983 against; fellow employees and a state patrol officer, who had performed a strip search of the employee, alleging that her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that it was not clearly established at the time of the challenged search the that search was in violation of the employee's Fourth Amendment right, or implicated a liberty interest protected by the due process clause. The employee had been strip searched at the correctional facility at which she worked without "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity. (Mansfield Correctional Institution, Ohio)

U.S. District Court

HIRING/QUALIFICATIONS DISCRIMINATION

Winkelman v. Magne, 173 F.Supp.2d 821 (C.D.Ill. 2001). An applicant for employment with a state correctional facility filed a ss 1983 action against employees responsible for interviewing candidates, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the officials, finding that the applicant failed to tender any evidence of political affiliation discrimination. The court noted that politics, political affiliations, political beliefs, political activities, and political support were never mentioned or discussed at any time during the interview process. (Graham Correctional Facility, Illinois)
COPYRIGHT 2002 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Feb 1, 2002
Words:689
Previous Article:Mental problems (prisoner).
Next Article:Pretrial detention.
Topics:


Related Articles
Management who's news personnel.
Syngenta Corporation.
Phibro Animal Health.
We Stand By You.
Bass v. Richards.
Marcum v. McWhorter.
Via v. Taylor.
Mangiafico v. Blumenthal.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters