Rampant Sexual Misconduct in Indiana Prison Shows Pitfalls for Employers

23 July 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

“Connie J. Orton-Bell was employed as a substance abuse counselor at a maximum security prison in Indiana. An investigator, who had been looking for security breaches, discovered that night-shift employees were having sex on Orton-Bell’s desk and informed her. That investigator told her that he was not concerned about night-shift staff having sex but suggested she should probably wash off her desk every morning.

* * * * *

Believe it or not, this is not a scene from the new season of Orange is the New Black. It’s actually the opening lines from Orton-Bell v. Indiana, No. 13-1235 (7th Cir. July 21, 2014), an opinion authored by Judge Manion, and one of the more entertaining Seventh Circuit opinions in recent memory. 

Still, the allegations in the case read like something from the Netflix show. In addition to the repeated acts of intercourse on the plaintiff’s desk, the case has the following:

  • offensive sexual comments, such as the comment from the plaintiff’s supervisor that she could not wear jeans on casual Friday “because her ass looked so good that she would cause a riot”;
  • male employees congregating around the pat-down area to watch female employees receive pat-downs while making harassing comments;
  • the plaintiff being required to take off her sweater as part of the pat-down process; and
  • the plaintiff engaging in a sexual escapade of her own, having an affair with her co-worker and having sex in his office.

It was this last incident that got the plaintiff (and her male coworker) fired. Because, although the prison apparently was not concerned with sex by its night staff, the prison superintendent determined that the plaintiff’s affair could “bring dishonor or disrepute” to the prison.

So far, so good. But the story doesn’t end there. Because the prison employees are state employees, they have the opportunity to appeal their dismissals. While the appeals were pending, the state apparently cut a deal with the male employee, enabling him “to resign in good standing, keep all the benefits he had earned, including his pension, and continue working at the prison as a contractor.” This same deal was not offered to the plaintiff. In fact, in exchange for the deal, the male employee testified against the plaintiff at her appeal hearing, which was denied. Further, because she was fired for having sex in the workplace, she was denied unemployment benefits.

The plaintiff filed claims alleging both a hostile work environment and discrimination based on her termination. Based on the variety of harassing conduct she faced, the hostile work environment claim was allowed to go forward. (Interestingly, however, she was not allowed to use the sex-on-the-desk incident to support her hostile work environment theory. Because there was no evidence that the night staff was having sex on her desk because she was a woman, the court determined that the incidents were not evidence that she suffered a hostile work environment on account of her sex.) And based on the disparate treatment she received compared to her male coworker, the discrimination claim was allowed to go forward as well.

In addition to the entertainment value from these soap-opera worthy facts, employers should draw an important lesson from this opinion. Businesses have a legitimate interest in the orderly operations of their workplaces, which extends to taking actions to prevent employees from having sex on the premises. This means it is entirely appropriate to take disciplinary action, including discharge, against employees who have sex during the work day or on the worksite. However, an employer who treats the male offender in such a case more favorably or more leniently than the female offender does so at its risk.

In other words, if you cut a better deal with the male employee than the female employee, you need a good reason to do so. Otherwise you might end up like the Pendleton Correctional Facility, with your dirty laundry being aired for all the world to see.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.