Connecticut Discriminated Against Women: Federal Judge Rules Against Dept. of Corrections

BRIDGEPORT, Conn., May 9, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- A federal judge has ruled that for years the State of Connecticut discriminated against more than a hundred women who applied for jobs as prison guards with the Department of Correction.

The ruling, which Plaintiffs announced today, takes the extraordinary step of granting final judgment before even reaching a trial.  The case will now enter the relief phase, and Plaintiffs will seek cash payments for lost wages totaling well over $1 million, and the possibility of being hired for the jobs for which they had applied.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in May 2008 by attorneys at Outten & Golden LLP and Public Citizen Litigation Group on behalf of Cherie Easterling of Bloomfield, the lead Plaintiff representing the class of women who were subjected to the discriminatory job application test.  The court will be scheduling a conference soon to determine the amount of the damages and the details of an injunction.

To apply for the jobs as prison guards, the women were required to run 1.5 miles within set times.  U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall ruled that on average, female applicants for the prison guard positions failed the physical fitness test at a rate that was much higher than their male counterparts, and that the 1.5 mile run test had no relationship with the requirements of the job, and that it therefore was unlawful.

The Department of Correction "was aware of this adverse impact as early as September 2004" and the department chose to use the results of the tests "despite its adverse impact on women," the suit says.  

In 2005, Easterling filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities as well as the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  Despite the State Commission's warnings that the test is discriminatory, the Department of Correction kept using it anyway.  By February 2008, both government agencies granted Easterling the right to sue in court.

"The defendant has presented no evidence showing the timed 1.5 mile run to be predictive of who can perform the essential physical functions of the job" of corrections officer, Judge Hall said in her 37-page decision.

"We have always found it absurd that any applicant who could not run 1.5 miles at a certain speed was automatically rejected right then and there, regardless of how well qualified they were in all other respects.  There's no place in any Connecticut prison where anyone could run nearly that far or any evidence that that level of fitness is required for guards," said one of Plaintiffs' lawyers, Seth M. Marnin, of Outten & Golden.   "And there's never been any dispute that women passed the run test at a lower rate than men. When an employer uses an arbitrary test like this, and the test favors men over women, it violates the federal Civil Rights Act and is illegal."

"It is hard to understand why the Department of Correction continued to rely upon a test that they knew was discriminatory and had no relationship to a person's ability to perform well as a prison guard," said co-counsel Michael T. Kirkpatrick, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C.  "Not only did all these women lose a source of livelihood, but the State lost an opportunity to hire applicants who may have been excellent guards."

Representing the State of Connecticut are Assistant Attorneys General Margaret Chapple and Maria Rodriguez.

ABOUT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP focuses on representing individuals in employment, partnership, and related matters. The firm advises individuals on employment and severance agreements, compensation and benefits issues and family/medical leaves. The firm represents employees with a wide variety of claims, including claims of discrimination and harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, race, disability, national origin, religion, and age, as well as retaliation, whistleblower, and contract claims. The firm represents clients in administrative proceedings arbitrations and cases in federal and state trial and appellate courts. Before beginning proceedings, the firm often negotiates with employer representatives; it also helps clients help themselves by developing and implementing negotiation tactics and strategies. O&G has substantial experience mediating employment disputes. Additional information available at www.outtengolden.com.

SOURCE Outten & Golden LLP