The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge James M. Munley United States District Court
Before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. Having been fully briefed, the matter is ripe for disposition.
This case arises out of plaintiff's employment as a Corrections Officer at the Wayne County (Pa.) Correctional Facility ("WCCF" or "The Prison"). (See Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Complt.") (Doc. 18)). Plaintiff began working at the prison on Decmeber 12, 2006. (Id. at ¶ 6). When hired, plaintiff was one of only two female correctional officers at the facility. (Id.). She did well in her job, being offered a promotion three months after she started. (Id. at ¶ 7).
At the same time, however, plaintiff suffered continuing abuse and harassment from her shift supervisor, Defendant Milo Hamby, from her first day on the job. (Id. at ¶ 8). Others joined in this harassment. (Id.). On plaintiff's first day at work, Defendant Hamby announced over a loadspeaker that plaintiff was a "hot female." (Id. at ¶ 9). This statement was heard by male co-workers, supervisors and prison inmates. (Id. at ¶ 9). This event caused plaintiff great embarrassment and undermined her authority as a prison officer. (Id.).
The alleged harrassment took other forms as well. (Id. at ¶ 10). Hamby often made false reports and accusations about plaintiff, including an allegation that Plaintiff had misplaced an inmates jewelry. (Id.). He aimed different rules at her than her male co-workers. (Id. at ¶ 11). Plaintiff was prohibited from eating lunch. (Id.). Her reports on inmates--properly prepared--were not accepted. (Id.). Reports by male co-workers prepared in the same manner were accepted. (Id.). Hamby undermined plaintiff's authority by countermanding her orders to inmates, and punished her when she complained about his behavior to superiors. (Id. at ¶ 12). Plaintiff also failed to receive the protection from inmates accorded other, male, officers. (Id. at ¶ 14). Prison policy was to place disobedient inmates in lock-up, yet an inmate who threatened plaintiff did not suffer such consequences. (Id.). In early February 2007, plaintiff found a picture of herself at work that had the phrase "Gypsy Porch Monkey" scrawled across it. (Id. at ¶ 15). Male corrections officers often discussed plaintiff with inmates, discussing both her work performance and personal life. (Id. at ¶ 26). One corrections officer falsely told inmates that he was dating plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 27). This officer also made sexually explicit gestures that simulated copulation towards plaintiff in the presence of other officers and inmates.
(Id. at ¶ 33). An inmate told plaintiff that other correctional officers had told them that plaintiff had performed sexual acts on others to be allowed to wear the sweater she wore to work. (Id. at ¶ 35). Plaintiff alleges that such behavior was humiliating and degrading, and not mere horseplay. (Id. at ¶ 34).
Plaintiff alleges that this disparate treatment embarrassed her and undermined her authority as a corrections officer. (Id. at ¶ 16). This treatment also placed her safety in danger, as inmates were aware that they could act aggressively towards her without suffering any consequences. (Id.). The behavior of Defendant Hamby and other male corrections officers also trapped plaintiff alone in the cell block, unable to use the restroom or have access to beverages for long periods of time. (Id. at ¶ 17). Male co-workers did not face such restrictions on their movement. (Id.) Hamby also frequently forced plaintiff to work alone in dangerous cell blocks, including one block populated by a prisoner who had attacked her. (Id. at ¶ 18). Male corrections officers, by contrast, were allowed to sit behind a desk, away from the cell block. (Id.). Plaintiff was also forced to work split shifts and double shifts that male officers were not. (Id. at ¶ 19).
Plaintiff also contends that Hamby and other supervisors retaliated against her when she complained of their behavior by giving her less desirable work hours, changing the conditions of her workplace to make them less safe, calling family members to harass them and generally behaving in a hostile manner. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-32, 36-42, 47-48, 50). This combination of harassment and retaliation turned plaintiff into "'an emotional wreck.'" (Id. at ¶ 54). This instability left her unable to supervise inmates and forced her to take time off from work. (Id.). On June 18, 2007, plaintiff, fearing that she would be fired and feeling that she had no other options, submitted her resignation. (Id. at ¶ 60). These events, plaintiff claims, "were unwelcome, humiliating, severe and/or pervasive, frequent, relentless, based on sex and [because of] protected activity. (Id. at ¶ 67). They caused plaintiff "to obtain both medical and psychiatric advice, medication, obtain ongoing counseling, subjecting her to therapy and deep depression, and depriving her of further substantially equal job opportunities." (Id.).
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court on April 1, 2009. (See Doc. 1). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on July 10, 2009. (See Doc. 14). The court denied the defendants' motion as moot after plaintiff filed her amended complaint. (See Doc. 20). The amended complaint raises nine causes of action. Count I alleges disparate treatment sexual harassment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Count II raises a claim of strict liability sexual harassment pursuant to the same statute. Count III is a hostile environment Title VII sexual harassment claim. Count IV alleges retaliation for complaining about Title VII violations. Count V claims retaliatory harassment and strict liability pursuant to Title VII. Count VI makes a retaliatory harassment claim based on a hostile work environment. Count VII is a First Amendment retaliation claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count VIII alleges an equal protection violation constituted by harassment, privacy and retaliation. Count IX is state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. All claims are aimed in part against the defendants in their official capacities. The defendants then filed the instant motion to dismiss. (Doc. 21). The motion seeks to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The parties then briefed the issues, bringing the case to its present posture.
Because this case raises claims under Title VII and Section 1983, this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). The court has supplemental ...