Indiana Prison Counselor's Sexual Harassment Suit Reinstated

On July 21, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit brought by a prison counselor who alleged sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The Seventh Circuit decision restored the first two causes of action only.

Shortly after Connie Orton-Bell was hired as a correctional counselor at the Pendleton Correctional Facility in Indiana in 2008, the sexual harassment quickly began. According to Orton-Bell, then-superintendent Brett Mize told her not to wear jeans because her "ass looked so good that she would cause a riot." The workplace was "saturated" with sexual comments, stated Orton-Bell, "from the second you walk into that building ... until the second you leave."

Male employees would congregate in the employee pat-down area and make sexual comments as female employees were getting searched. Orton-Bell says she was later informed that the night-shift staff would routinely use her desk for sexual intercourse. When she complained about this to the new superintendent, he said he didn't care as long as prisoners weren't involved.

In 2010, though, Orton-Bell was under investigation herself for having an affair with the major in charge of custody at Pendleton. Ironically, the accusations included the pair having sex on the major's desk.

As a result of that investigation, both Orton-Bell and the major were suspended. The major was eventually allowed to resign in good standing and keep his benefits. Orton-Bell, on the other hand, was fired. She appealed her termination to the State Employees' Appeals Commission. Her case went to a hearing, at which the major testified against her. Orton- Bell's appeal was denied and her dismissal upheld.

She filed suit in federal court in Indianapolis. The district court dismissed the case on Indiana's motion for summary judgment, and Orton-Bell appealed.

The Seventh Circuit held that Orton-Bell's claim for sex discrimination based on the “sex-on-her-desk” allegations failed under Title VII because there was no evidence that her gender had anything to do with the alleged activity.

As to the hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims, the court said that Orton-Bell did indeed present sufficient "evidence for a jury to find that it was severe, subjectively offensive, and that there was a basis for holding the state liable."

The court further found that since Orton-Bell was similarly situated to the major, but treated less favorably, it was error for the district court to grant summary judgment on her discrimination claim.

The appellate court thus remanded the case for trial on the sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and sexual harassment claims; while affirming the dismissal of her retaliation claim. See: Orton-Bell v. Indiana, 759 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. Ind. 2014).

Related legal case