Female Officers in Male Institutions - Inmates' Right to Privacy vs Women's Right to Work (From Proceedings of the One Hundred and Ninth Annual Congress of Correction, P 263-266, 1980 - See NCJ-74427)

• NCJ Number: 74455
• Author(s): T G Toombs
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 4 pages
• Sale Source: American Correctional Association
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Summary of an appeal prepared by Terry A Pressler.

Annotation

Arguments are presented concerning the balance between male inmates' right to privacy and female correctional officers' right to equal employment opportunity.

Abstract

In September 1978, the Oregon Corrections Division began to assign female correctional officers to positions in male prisons. In September 1979, three inmates at The Oregon State Penitentiary brought a suit of injunction against the corrections division to prohibit the assignment of women to any position where they might be able to observe an inmate unclothed. After noting that evidence pointed to the participation by women in frisk searches (brief, clothed, pat-down searches for contraband) as part of their official duties, the court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the corrections division from assigning female correctional officers to any position where the job would require frisk searches, except in emergency situations. This injunction had the practical effect of limiting women officers to about 57 of a possible 203 positions at two facilities; these positions are limited mainly to the towers. Not only does this limit the number of jobs available to women, but the ruling also limits the opportunity for promotion. The injunction was eventually made permanent, and the decision is now under appeal. The injunction is an unreasonable interpretation of an inmate's right to privacy, since custodial requirements include frisk searches. Further, the limitations imposed on the hiring and functions of female officers constitute unreasonable and illegal employment discrimination.