Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] Digest Number 1180

Expand Messages
  • George eells
    what would you like the male guards to do? Beat the crap out of prisioneers.They run the asylum not the guards.The inmates are in there because of their
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      what would you like the male guards to do? Beat the crap out of prisioneers.They run the asylum not the guards.The inmates are in there because of their problems coping outside and crimes commited.If the female nurses or correction people cannot handle the situation then find a job at K-Mart.

      Just my opinion
      George

      infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      There are 6 messages in this issue.

      Topics in this digest:

      1. Re: Female :Corrections Officers v. Dept. of Corrections (DOC)
      From: Jurydoctor@...
      2. Upcoming Investigative Assignments: July 30th and July 31st
      From: "tprla"
      3. FALI Conference - Orlando - Sept 23-25, 2004
      From: "D. Sturgeon"
      4. phone searches
      From: "pisource2004"
      5. IRVINE, CA - HANDLED
      From: "Mike Arrington"
      6. Surveillance Detail - IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
      From: "Mike Arrington"


      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 1
      Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:05:48 EDT
      From: Jurydoctor@...
      Subject: Re: Female :Corrections Officers v. Dept. of Corrections (DOC)






      Need your opinions on this one!! wow!! is this interesting. Female
      correction officers (that are nurses) are suing the Dept of corrections for sexual
      harrasment.
      they claim that the male security officers do not stop the male inmates from
      "pointing and shooting" (masturbating) in front of them when they go on the
      cell block. They claim the inmates are purposely doing this.. what do you
      think?
      amy
      LITIGATION BACKGROUNDLITIGATION BACKGROUND
      On April 16, 2002, the Plaintiffs brought this action against the Department
      of Corrections (���Department���) alleging that the Department had engaged in
      system-wide policy and pattern and practice, in violation of Civil Rights Act
      of 1992, Chapter 760, State Statutes, of subjecting the Plaintiffs and the
      class to unwelcome, severe and pervasive sexual harassment by male inmates.
      The Plaintiffs allege specifically that the Department has engaged in the
      following illegitimate and unlawful practices:
      A. Failing and refusing to provide the Plaintiffs and the class
      with adequate training to protect against and stop or minimize sexual
      harassment by Special Housing inmates.
      B. Maintaining, fostering and condoning a sexually hostile
      working environment for the Plaintiffs and the class;
      C. Discouraging and deterring the Plaintiffs and the class from
      reporting complaints of sexual harassment by Special Housing inmates; and
      D. Failing and refusing to enforce and implement adequate
      policies and procedures to protect the Plaintiffs and the class from sexual
      harassment by Special Housing inmates.


      The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on grounds that the
      Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. The Court denied that motion by
      order of July 25, 2002. On August 12, 2002, the Department filed its
      answer and affirmative defenses.
      Subsequent to the Court's denial of the Department's motion to dismiss, the
      parties engaged in a period of extensive class discovery during which the
      parties exchanged, reviewed and analyzed voluminous documents as well as
      conducted numerous depositions on the issues of class certification and the systemic
      policies, practices and procedures of the Department at issue in the case.
      Additionally, the Plaintiffs interviewed numerous Class Members and other
      witnesses regarding the claims raised and engaged experts in the field of
      corrections who reviewed and analyzed the discovery obtained.
      Following this period of class discovery, a class certification hearing was
      held on November 26, 2002. Thereafter, the Court issued its Memorandum
      Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification based
      upon the following factors and/or findings.
      Each of the twenty-nine named class representatives (hereinafter referred to
      as "Plaintiffs") alleged that she is a current or former female non-security
      employee of the Department who has been required as a regular part of her
      duties to work with inmates in Special Housing custody. The Plaintiffs and
      the class members are primarily composed of health care providers, but also
      include, among others, such non-security positions as Classification Officer
      (see Complaint, depositions and affidavits; Ex. 1 DOC 00244-279).
      (References to exhibits in this Decree shall mean the exhibits submitted by Plaintiffs
      in their Motion for Class Certification.) According to the Department,
      there are approximately 2000 health care providers providing clinical health
      care to inmates and another 500 providing support services to clinical care
      providers (Ex. 2(e)).


      The Department operates approximately 68 prison facilities throughout the
      State of Florida (Ex. 2(b,c)). Its headquarters is located in(capitol city).
      The headquarters provides direction, policy, and operational and program
      oversight through the regional directors and their staff to all these facilities
      (Ex. 2(a)). Its operations and facilities are geographically organized into
      four regions. (Ex. 2(c)).
      The Plaintiffs alleged that of the 68 prison facilities operated by the
      Department, approximately 55 facilities have Special Housing inmates (Ex. 2(d)).
      These 55 facilities are male only (Ex. 2(d)). The approximately 55
      facilities are distributed throughout the four organizational regions of the
      Department, with the largest number being in Region I which contains, among other
      facilities, Washington CI. (Ex. 2(d)). See the Department's website.


      The Plaintiffs have submitted numerous depositions and affidavits of
      themselves and class members. The gravamen of their testimony is that each has
      suffered ongoing sexual harassment from inmates in Special Housing custody
      during their employment with the Department. The testimony of the Plaintiffs and
      class members reveals that they have each been required as a condition of
      their employment to work regularly on a daily or weekly basis with inmates in
      Special Housing custody (Poirier 21, 54-55; Meyer 66-68; Smith 34-35; LaCroix
      23; Wascher 17-18; Smith 12-13; Beckford 18-21; Parekh 16-21; Bigler 11-14;
      Jones 35-36, 42-43; Silvagnoli 26-29; Walker 16-17; Mitchell 13, 31; Black 24,
      39-40; Rudolph 54-55, 64-65; Anderson 20-22; Adair 10-11; affidavits of Clark,
      Gonzales, Bradford, Pixley, McCusker, De La Cruz ). These inmates are in
      the custody and under the supervision of the Department. Inmates in Special
      Housing regularly have exposed themselves and masturbated at the Plaintiffs
      and class members (Poirier 21, 52-55; Meyer 31-32; Wascher 17-18; Parekh 21-22,
      45; Meyer 30-32; LaCroix 32-36, 46; Beckford 21-25; Bigler 14-21, 33-40;
      Jones 37-47; Silvagnoli 30, 70-71; Walker 16-17, 26; Black 30; Rudolph 53, 58,
      93; Anderson 20-21, 54-55; affidavits of Clark, Gonzales, Bradford, Pixley,
      McCusker, De La Cruz). The practice is so common, notorious and tolerated it
      is referred to by inmates and correctional employees alike as ���gunning���
      (Poirier 31; Parekh 45; Wascher 31; Silvagnoli 24-25; Black 26 ). They alleged
      that the harassment occurs on a daily basis to female health care workers
      typically when they make daily medication and/or sick call rounds (Poirier
      14-19, 52-55; Meyer 31-32; Wascher 17-18; Parekh 21-22, 45; Meyer 30-32; LaCroix
      32-36, 46; Beckford 21-25; Bigler 14- 21, 33-37; Jones 37-47; Silvagnoli 26,
      30; Walker 16-17; Black 30; Rudolph 93; Anderson 5-7; affidavits of Clark,
      Gonzales, Bradford, Pixley, McCusker, De La Cruz). These rounds require them to
      go from cell to cell to pass medication to inmates and make physical and
      mental health assessments (Poirier 15-19; Meyer 30-32; Parekh 45-46; LaCroix
      28-32, 49-50; Bigler 15-17; Jones 37-44; Silvagnoli 26-29, 49-50; Rudolph 46;
      affidavits of Clark, Gonzales, Bradford, Pixley, McCusker, De La Cruz). The
      Plaintiffs and class members also allege that they regularly experienced
      inmates exposing themselves and masturbating at them in the isolation management
      rooms within the medical unit or infirmary (Poirier 26-27; Meyer 99; Parekh
      31-32; Beckford 33-34; Bigler 33-34; Jones 52-53; Silvagnoli 40; Walker 31;
      Mitchell 24; Adair 10-11; affidavits of Pixley, De La Cruz). They further
      allege that male inmates also fake medical and psychological emergencies in order
      to have female nurses come to their cells so that they can masturbate at them
      (Parekh 34-35; Beckford 23-24; Bigler 19-20, 49-50; Jones 53; Mitchell 18;
      Black 40; Rudolph 58; Adair 28; affidavits of Clark, Gonzales, Bradford,
      Pixley, McCusker, De La Cruz).


      The Plaintiffs testified that in many cases the harassment has been so
      severe that many Plaintiffs and class members have been unable to continue to
      provide care to Special Housing inmates and/or are unable to continue working
      at the Department (Poirier 21, 54-55; Meyer 66-68; Smith 34-35; LaCroix 23;
      Bigler 14-15; Jones 28-29, 69-70; Mitchell 15, 79; Anderson 19-20, 64; Garrett
      6).
      Other Plaintiffs in non-health care, non-security positions similarly
      testified to having suffered repeated harassment from inmates (Mitchell 47-48;
      Rudolph 99). Classification officers, for instance, are required to make weekly
      visits to Special Housing inmates at their cells regularly regarding matters
      such as sentencing, gain-time, job assignments, education programs and the
      like (Smith 8, 17, 21-22; Mitchell 11). Female classification officers would
      be masturbated at by Special Housing inmates at the cell door (Smith 19,
      22-23, 28-29).


      The testimony of the Plaintiffs and class members further reveals that they
      have made repeated complaints to officials of the Department in an effort to
      get relief from the harassment (Smith 23-28; Poirier 36-37; Meyer 39, 65;
      Parekh 24; Jones 48-49; Silvagnoli 46; Walker 27-28, 33-35; Mitchell 34;
      Rudolph 71-74; Anderson 34; affidavits of Clark, Gonzales, Bradford, Pixley,
      McCusker, De La Cruz). They allege that their complaints were either ignored,
      rejected or trivialized (Smith 23-28; Parekh 24; Mitchell 34; Anderson 51-52;
      Garrett 56-57; Adair 17, 51-52; affidavits of Clark, Gonzales, Bradford,
      Pixley, McCusker, De La Cruz). The female nursing staff at Washington C.I. made a
      written complaint to the Secretary of the Department after repeated
      complaints to their warden and other management officials. Their complaint was
      ignored, and they were neither contacted nor received a response. (Ex. 11;
      Mitchell 42-44; Rudolph 74-76; Walker 34). The female health care staff at
      Martin C.I. similarly complained repeatedly to security officials and their Warden
      (Poirier 36-37; Meyer 39, 65; Parekh 24; Affidavit of Pixley. De La Cruz).
      They were merely told to write more DRs (Parekh 24; Black 25-26).


      The further testimony of the Plaintiffs was that the prevailing attitude
      among security officials in the Department to the harassment has been
      indifference, condonation and hostility. Many Plaintiffs testified they were told
      that women have no business working in corrections (Meyer 96-98; affidavit of
      Gonzalez); that they worked in a male prison and as females, what did they
      expect?; that it was part of the job; that the inmates had not had sex in a long
      time (Poirier 35; Beckford 25; Wascher 26; Parekh 23; Walker 20; Garrett 8-9;
      affidavits of Bradford, Clark, Gonzalez ); that if they could not handle the
      harassment, they should not work in the prison (Poirier 56; affidavit of
      Gonzalez); that the prison is the inmate���s ���home,��� and he can do as he likes
      (Poirier 21-22, 36; Bigler 57; Silvagnoli 44-45; Mitchell 45; Rudolph 115-116;
      affidavit of McCusker); that they asked for the harassment (Meyer 66-67);
      corrections officers asked, "Why are you working here; I wouldn���t let my wife or
      girlfriend work here" (Poirier 34-35); the corrections officers stated that
      the women were getting what they deserved (Garrett 20); or the officers
      laughed or joked about the harassment (LaCroix 38; Silvagnoli 43, 47, 50;
      Anderson 37). Many simply denied they had seen the harassment or ignored it and
      failed to do anything about it (Poirier 41; Beckford 25; Wascher 26; LaCroix
      65; Walker 19-20; Bigler 27; Mitchell 29-30; Black 34-35, 39; Garrett 9, 33;
      Anderson 32-34, 39, 65; affidavits of Pixley, Bradford, McCusker, Gonzalez,
      Clark). The Plaintiffs stated that a substantial contributing factor to the
      harassment has been the failure of corrections officials to require inmates to
      be fully dressed when the Plaintiffs and class interacted with them (LaCroix
      59-60, 62; Smith 29; Poirier 39-41; Beckford 30; Bigler 37; Jones 43-44, 76;
      Walker 36-37, 44-45; affidavits of Bradford, Clark, Gonzalez, McCusker).
      The Plaintiffs and class members submitted testimony that they attempted to
      remedy the harassment in numerous ways. Many tried to put screens or film
      on cell windows, but they were told by corrections officers to take them down
      (Smith 26-27; Meyer 99; Poirier 26-27; Parekh 35; Beckford 33; Bigler 34-35;
      Jones 53-54; Silvagnoli 50-52; Walker 32-33; Mitchell 72, 75; Rudolph
      113-114; Anderson 69; Garrett 10; Adair 20-21, 52; affidavits of De La Cruz,
      Bradford, Clark, Gonzalez). At one point at Martin C.I., nurses refused
      medication to inmates masturbating at them but were told they could not do so (Meyer
      33-34; Jones 47-48; Silvagnoli 65). Alternatives were not suggested for them.
      At Martin C.I., the Plaintiffs and class members were told that if an
      inmate was masturbating, they must wait until he was through (Meyer 34; Poirier
      21; Jones 47-48). Class members at Union C.I. similarly alleged that they,
      too, put up contact paper over plexiglass windows to avoid the harassment, which
      had a significant effect, but then they were told they had to take it down
      (affidavits of Bradford, Gonzales, Clark). Plaintiffs and class members at
      Lake C.I. also put covers over windows to avoid seeing the inmates masturbate
      but were told to take them down (Garrett 10).




      The Plaintiffs and class members further testified that they wrote numerous
      disciplinary reports (DRs) on inmates who sexually harassed them by exposing
      themselves and masturbating at them (Wascher 31; Meyer 41-42; Parekh 24;
      LaCroix 48; Beckford 28; Smith 23; Poirier 33-34; Bigler 20-22; Jones 49-50;
      Silvagnoli 32; Walker 23-24; Anderson 41; affidavits of Clark, Gonzales,
      Bradford, Pixley, McCusker, De La Cruz). They contended that the DRs had no effect,
      and most found the fruits of their efforts so dispiriting that they gave up
      writing them (Poirier 36; Meyer 53-56; Parekh 23; LaCroix 63-65; Bigler
      20-22; Walker 3-24; Mitchell 32-33; Black 60; Garrett 10, 19; Adair 22, 54;
      affidavits of Pixley, Gonzalez, Clark, McCusker). They testified that security
      officers routinely discouraged them in various ways from writing DRs, such as by
      actually telling them not to write them (Wascher 26; LaCroix 48, 63-64;
      Mitchell 51-53; Anderson 43-45; affidavits of McCusker, Clark, Gonzalez,
      Bradford) or not to write them for ���petty��� things like masturbation (affidavit of
      Bradford); that they were too time consuming or expensive to process (Wascher
      31; Parekh 23; Bigler 20-21, 26; Silvagnoli 31, 43; affidavit of Bradford,
      McCusker); that the prison had too many, so it "would not look good to
      Tallahassee" (Bigler 26-27); that they would not do any good (Meyer 41-42; Rudolph
      117-118; affidavit of Bradford, Clark); that they were not properly filled out
      (Meyer 53-56; Bigler 21-22; Jones 49; Mitchell 82-84); that they were not
      aware of the DR or merely that it was being ���processed,��� usually without any
      evidence that this was happening (Meyer 42, 56; Parekh 48-49; Beckford 28-29;
      Rudolph 96-97); refusing to sign witness statements in support of DRs or
      denying they witnessed the harassment (Parekh 52; LaCroix 64-65; Silvagnoli 30;
      Mitchell 86; Anderson 39; Rudolph 119-120); refusing to write or assist in
      filling out the DRs (LaCroix 47; Jones 68; Silvagnoli 31; Wascher 31-32;
      affidavit of McCusker); or even in one case that it would mar the inmate���s record
      (Beckford 27-28). The Plaintiffs and the class members contend that they were
      not given any training in filling out and completing DRs (Meyer 53-56; Parekh
      41; Poirier 33; Bigler 38; Jones 55; Silvagnoli 31-32; affidavits of
      Bradford, Gonzalez, McCusker) and that security officials required them to describe
      the in graphic detail, e.g., to state which hand the inmate was using to
      masturbate, the harassment before accepting the DRs (Poirier 33; Bigler 20, 28;
      Jones 49; Black 59-60; Anderson 37-38; Adair 54-55; affidavit of McCusker).
      One Plaintiff, Vesna Poirier, testified that she wrote ���masturbate��� on a DR,
      only to have it returned by security who asked, ���What does that mean?���
      Then, she was told she had to be more descriptive (Poirier 33; see also Mitchell
      82-84, 87-88). Others testified that the names of the nurses who wrote the
      DRs were revealed to the inmates, and the behavior worsened, or they were
      threatened by the inmates (Garrett 25; affidavit of Bradford).
      According to Plaintiffs and class members, the frequency of the harassment
      suffered by the Plaintiff and Class Members is not accurately reflected by the
      number of DRs written by them (Jones 43, 68; affidavit of Gonzalez). In the
      words of one Plaintiff, ���If I had to write DRs on every single person, I���d
      have a full-time job writing DRs out there��� (Jones 43).
      Many Plaintiffs and class members testified that they were told at some
      point that they were not supposed to write DRs (Bigler 20-221; Walker 24;
      Mitchell 51-53; Anderson 47; Garrett 15).
      Plaintiffs and class members testified that inmates did not sexually harass
      male security and non-security staff (Poirier 43; Meyer 16, 91; Parekh 30;
      Bigler 39; Jones 54; Walker 38-39, 43; Mitchell 40; Rudolph 70; Anderson 72;
      Garrett 60; Adair 57, 60; affidavits of Bradford, Gonzalez, Clark).
      The Department utilizes and operates according to highly uniform and
      standardized policies, rules, practices, and procedures. This uniformity and
      standardization appears in the organization and delivery of health care services
      throughout the Department. The Department's Office of Health Services
      formulates and promulgates policies, practices and procedures for health care
      services in the Department and is responsible for all health services statewide.


      The organization and delivery of health services in each region and at each
      prison facility is similarly uniform and standardized (Exs. 3(a), 4(b);
      6(b)). The organization is prescribed by statute and rules and policies
      promulgated by the central Office of Health Services in Tallahassee, and the duties of
      health care providers employed at each institution are uniform and
      standardized and are formulated and promulgated by the Office of Health Services (id.;
      Chapters 944 and 945, Flat. Stat.; Sec. 33-401 and 404, Fla. Admin. Code;
      Exs. 3,4,6; Exs. 1 DOC 244-279, 2 (e), 3,4, and 5).
      Each institution has a Chief Health Care Officer and some or all of the
      following Health Care Providers: physician, advance registered nurse
      practitioner, physician assistant, dentist, dental assistants, psychologists,
      psychologist specialists, pharmacist, optometrist, podiatrist, registered nurse,
      licensed practical nurse, correctional medical technician, unit treatment and
      rehabilitation special, health support technician, and other independent providers
      (Exs. 1 DOC 00244-00279, 3(a) DOC 01206, 4(b) DOC 02831-02832, 6(c) DOC

      === message truncated ===

      signature

      George Eells


      ---------------------------------
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.