Printer Friendly

Via v. Taylor.

U.S. District Court

FREE SPEECH

TERMINATION

Via v. Taylor, 224 F.Supp.2d 753 (D.Del. 2002). A former correctional officer brought an action against corrections officials alleging that she was wrongfully terminated because of her off-duty relationship with a paroled former inmate. The district court held that the corrections department code of conduct that prohibited off-duty personal contact with offenders was not substantially related to the state's interest in the orderly function of prisons and concerns about being discredited in the public eye. The court found no evidence that the officer's relationship with a former inmate had any impact on staff or inmates. The court noted that the code did not prohibit relationships between prison employees and persons outside the prison system who knew inmates who were under the employees' supervision, and that the officer's job performance was not negatively impacted by her association with the former inmate. The court held that the conduct code was void because of it was vague and overly broad, and violated the officer's off-duty rights to personal association and privacy. The code read, in part: "Trafficking with incarcerated offenders is prohibited. No staff person shall have any personal contact with an offender, incarcerated or non-incarcerated, beyond that contact necessary for the proper supervision and treatment of the offender ... Any sexual contact with offenders is strictly prohibited." According to the court, the code was open for discriminatory enforcement, failed to clearly set forth the prohibited conduct, appeared to create a safe harbor for employees who reported relationships that allegedly infringed, and failed to notify officers of possible disciplinary measures to which they might be subjected if they violated the code. The court found that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity because these rights were not clearly established at the time the officer was discharged. (Sussex Corr. Inst.)
COPYRIGHT 2003 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:PERSONNEL
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U5DE
Date:Feb 1, 2003
Words:305
Previous Article:Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles.
Next Article:Jordan v. Cobb County, Georgia.
Topics:


Related Articles
Editor's corner.
Note to Readers.
Generating interest in the ASMC Korea Chapter. (Chapter Idea Interchange).
Publications professionals `hit the jackpot'. (Agricultural Publications Summit, LLC).
Information for authors.
Defense AT & L writer's guidelines in brief.
No injuries in Kansas City train derailment ...: soldiers' personnel records available for viewing online.
Via v. Taylor.
E-mail issue spurs debate on policy.

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