1 / 54

INVESTIGATING STAFF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

INVESTIGATING STAFF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. Employment Law Considerations National Institute of Corrections/American University, Washington College of Law July 7-12, 2002. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS EMPLOYERS. In relationship to an employee, managers of a correctional institution are:

enan
Download Presentation

INVESTIGATING STAFF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INVESTIGATING STAFF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT Employment Law Considerations National Institute of Corrections/American University, Washington College of Law July 7-12, 2002

  2. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS EMPLOYERS • In relationship to an employee, managers of a correctional institution are: • 1) Invested with the state’s police power • 2) (usually) public employers subject to federal and state constitutional law • 3) employer subject to general employment laws

  3. THE THREE ROLES OF CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MANAGERS • Police Powers • Public Employer • General Employer

  4. DIFFERENT SOURCES OF LAW • Police Powers -- Criminal and Constitutional Law • Public Employer -- State and Federal Constitutional and Statutory Law • General Employer -- Title VII, Common Law, and Other Laws

  5. POLICE POWER

  6. CRIMINAL LAW vs. EMPLOYMENT LAW • Garrity - statement compelled as condition of employment cannot be used against employee in criminal prosecution • if criminal prosecution is a goal, employment issues must be handled differently

  7. CASE EXAMPLE ONE

  8. FACTS: • Corrections officer placed on administrative leave pending investigation of alleged sexual misconduct with an inmate • Officer informed, by supervisors and employee handbook, that if he did not cooperate with police and take a polygraph test, he would be terminated • Officer filed motion to suppress self-incriminating statement and polygraph results because they were made under fear of losing his employment

  9. RESULT: • Trial Court granted motion to suppress and Court of Appeals affirmed • Officer reasonably believed that he had no choice but to make statement to police as part of internal investigation • Moral: State can either: • Compel answers to job related questions as a part of internal investigation, which cannot be used in criminal investigation, or • Choose to prosecute, in which case cannot terminate for failure to answer job related questions

  10. STATE V. CHAVARRIA • 33 P.3d 922 (N.M. App. 2001)

  11. EXAMPLE TWO

  12. FACTS: • Correction officer was arrested and indicted on charges of 3rd degree rape and other charges related to alleged sexual misconduct with an inmate • Officer was ultimately acquitted of all charges • Officer filed suit against the county and county investigator, alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution • Officer argued no probable cause for arrest because investigator induced accuser, who had a history of mental illness and drug abuse, to fabricate accusations

  13. RESULT: • defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted because: • No evidence that investigator induced allegations • Questions about veracity of informant doe not automatically defeat probable cause • Investigators found sufficient corroborating evidence • Moral: Finding of probable cause defeats a malicious prosecution claim

  14. CORONA v. LUNN • 2002 WL 550963 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

  15. PUBLIC EMPLOYERS

  16. CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO GOVERNMENT ACTING AS EMPLOYER • due process rights • privacy rights

  17. BALANCING TEST • Courts will balance employer needs against employee rights to some extent in employment context

  18. EXAMPLE • Facts: • Food Service supervisor accused by a third party witness of sexual misconduct with an inmate • Employee suspended without pay for two weeks, pending investigation • After investigation concludes with accusation unsubstantiated, employee reinstated with full back pay • Employee alleges violation of due process rights based on lack of pre-suspension hearing

  19. Court balanced: • minimal intrusion on employee’s rights: Suspension was temporary and lost wages were insubstantial, against • Prison’s substantial interest in the investigation and safety concerns

  20. MACKLIN v. HUFFMAN • 976 F. Supp. 1090 (W.D. Mich. 1997)

  21. KEY EMPLOYMENT LAW ISSUES • discrimination • defamation

  22. SEX/RACE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS • Plaintiff must show treated differently from others of same group • Best defense is to show all people are treated equally

  23. EXAMPLE ONE

  24. FACTS: • Native American-Hispanic corrections officer accused of sexual misconduct by inmate in the “special needs unit” • Officer was placed on administrative leave with full pay, pending investigation • Officer reinstated and promoted after investigation failed to turn up evidence of misconduct • Officer filed suit, alleging administrative leave was racially motivated, violating state anti-discrimination laws • Placed on leave, despite exemplary record, as a result of accusations by an inmate with credibility issues • Alleged that At least one white officer was not placed on leave following similar allegations

  25. RESULT: • At the trial level, jury found for officer. Defendant appealed, claiming results of polygraph test on inmate should have been admissible to rebut charge of discrimination • The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision • no racial motivation established, similarly situated white officers treated similarly • also remanded with instructions to allow the admission of the inmate’s polygraph test • Polygraph, while not admissible as evidence of officer’s sexual misconduct, was admissible to establish non-discriminatory motive for placing officer on administrative leave

  26. SUBIA v. RIVELAND • 15 P.3d 658 (Wash. App. 2001)

  27. EXAMPLE TWO

  28. FACTS: • African American Correctional Supervisor was fired following an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct with an inmate • Investigation concluded there was sufficient evidence for termination based on DNA evidence, witness statements, polygraph • Officer filed suit, alleging workplace discrimination, on grounds of • Replacement of African American investigating officer • White officer facing similar accusations was not terminated • General atmosphere of racial intolerance, particularly following involvement in prior action for systemic racial discrimination

  29. RESULT: • District Court awarded summary judgment to employer and Court of Appeals affirmed, because: • Replacement of AA officer was based on conflict of interest • Dismissal of criminal charges had no bearing on evidentiary results of internal investigation • White officer not terminated ; the two cases were factually dissimilar. • Two white officers facing similar accusations were terminated. • No nexus shown between circumstantial evidence of racial hostility and termination decision

  30. ENGLISH v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS • 248 F.3d 1002 (10th Circ. 2001)

  31. MORAL: CONSISTENCY AVOIDS LAWSUITS • enforcing policies in some cases but not others creates a bad evidentiary record • discretionary action can be made to look like something it’s not • important to enforce disciplinary and other policy rules across the board, without exceptions • important to train supervisory staff on this policy

  32. DEFAMATION

  33. EXAMPLE

  34. FACTS: • Prison warden accused of sexually harassing a correction officer • Asked to resign by two County officials, which he did a few days later. • article detailing the sexual misconduct charge later appeared in the paper • Warden filed suit on various grounds, including defamation

  35. RESULT: • Employer wins: • No defamation because article presented “fair gist” of investigation report and there was no evidence any official abused their privilege

  36. O’CONNELL v. COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON • 795 F.Supp.2d 529 (E.D.Pa. 1999)

  37. DEFAMATION LAW: SOME BASICS • Defamation covers false statements that damage a person’s reputation • But, it’s better to avoid reaching point in litigation where must argue about truth or falsity of the statements • courts have tried to develop rules that shield employers from frivolous lawsuits

  38. PROTECTION AGAINST DEFAMATION CLAIMS • Even in private sector, “qualified privilege” protects representatives of employers who give out allegedly defamatory information for legitimate business purpose

  39. QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE PROTECTION AGAINST DEFAMATION CLAIMS • To gain protection of qualified privilege, employer must show • lack of malice • good faith • belief in truth of statement made • legitimate business purpose in making allegedly defamatory statement

  40. BEST PROTECTION IS CONSISTENT, WELL THOUGHT OUT POLICIES

  41. PROACTIVE STEPS • Establish and adhere to policy limiting dissemination of information about employee investigations • Limit dissemination of information to“Need to know” basis • Implement policies protecting employee personnel files and investigative records

  42. Implement consistent policy on reference checks • Avoid and/or carefully word press releases, etc., especially before investigation complete

  43. SOME OTHER ISSUES

  44. UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES • Disciplinary actions governed by terms of collective bargaining agreement • Employee has right to union representation • Arbitration is key forum for resolving disputes about employee discipline

  45. ARBITRATION • Both sides have right to legal representation and to present evidence • Employer may not interfere with right of employees to testify at arbitration hearing • Arbitrator is not required to follow finding of misconduct in another forum, even a criminal court

  46. PUBLIC SECTOR UNION ISSUES • Rules regarding union activity by state and municipal employees are established by state law, not federal law • State law also defines administrative procedures for public employee discipline

  47. PROACTIVE STEPS IN UNION CONTEXT • Run training sessions, which include clear statement of disciplinary rules • Give union policy statement on disciplinary procedures for staff sexual misconduct • Review collective bargaining agreement for inconsistent terms; request modifications if necessary

  48. NONUNION CONTEXT:PRIVATE SECTOR • Most private-sector nonunion employees are “at will” employees who can be fired at any time for any nondiscriminatory reason • Employee personnel manuals can modify the at-will rule

  49. PROACTIVE STEPS: NONUNION, PRIVATE SECTOR • Check personnel manuals, revise or eliminate any problematic terms • Distribute to employees policy statement on employee sexual misconduct • Develop and adhere to consistent procedures on access to disciplinary and personnel information, reference checks, etc.

  50. PRIVACY ISSUES • In public sector, U.S. constitution applies • basic test is “did the employee have a reasonable expectation of privacy?” • courts will engage in a fact-specific inquiry

More Related