In Vasquez v. County of Kern, published January 31, 2020, the 9th Circuit reversed summary judgment for a juvenile corrections officer and his supervisor in a lawsuit by a juvenile ward under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging violation of the ward's Fourteenth Amendment rights. The officer allegedly made multiple sexual comments to the ward; was alone with her in closed rooms, in violation of policy; touched her inappropriately; and sat at a staff counter in another room while she showered, from which point he could look into a shower. There was evidence he directed her to use a particular shower. The district court granted the officer and supervisor summary judgment, ruling that the conduct did not rise to the level of a Fourteenth Amendment violation, and that even if it did, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
The 9th Circuit disagreed. There was a genuine issue of fact on whether the officer violated the ward's Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily privacy. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the ward, there was a dispute over whether the officer viewed the ward multiple times in the shower, and once entered her room when her privacy sign was out, without a legitimate prison interest. Past cases holding that correctional officers did not violate prisoners' bodily privacy by observing prisoners of the opposite sex naked when the view was from far off and obscured, or where there was a legitimate prison interest, were distinguishable. There was also a genuine dispute of fact on whether the officer violated the ward's right of bodily integrity by engaging in sexual harassment, considering the difference in age, size, and power between the two parties. The evidence created a genuine dispute over violation of the ward's Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom from punishment, because the alleged conduct caused the ward harm outside of the inherent discomforts of confinement, and did not serve a legitimate governmental purpose. The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for this conduct, because Ninth Circuit precedent clearly established that such conduct would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. It was also obvious that a juvenile corrections officer should not sexually harass or abuse a ward. There was a genuine dispute of fact as to the supervisor's liability, because there was evidence that the supervisor was aware of the officer's conduct concerning wards showering and of the officer's violation of policy in the past and did not intervene.
Comments