EdPDLaw Editorial 

August 18, 2014

Click to get Settlement and Release

SUCCESS! CONGRATULATIONS TO OFFICER YVONNE COLEMAN-DAVIS! YOU GO GIRL!

After a 4 year Battle to get Hudson County to Acknowledge the Rights of Pregnant Officers, Yvonne Coleman has Settled her Law Suit against the County for $150,000.00 and had 2 New Policies implemented to Protect the Rights of Pregnant Correction Officers. 

"I would like to state that without the courage and perseverance of Yvonne Coleman-Davis, I have no reason to think that the County would have  ever addressed these issues.  She has accomplished something that few County employess have been able to do - Get the County to recognize the women in their workforce and to comply with the laws in affording those women the opportunity to be trained workers who are also women with families and needs that can be addressed in the workplace." Gayle Loftis, Esquire, Attorney for Coleman 

Officer Coleman's plight began in 2010 when she was 6 months pregnant:

On July 20, 2010, while six month pregnant, the Plaintiff attempted to stop a fight between two inmates, during the course of which she was pushed against a metal bunk bed causing injury to her already, previously injured back and right knee, and one of them kicked her in the abdomen causing injury to her abdominal area. From the abdominal injury, the Plaintiff immediately began to have extreme pain and vaginal bleeding. However, rather than provide emergent transportation of the Plaintiff to the hospital as the HCDC nurse was indicating was needed, one of her supervisors, Lt. Conrad, refused to permit the Plaintiff to be transported to the hospital until she had completed a number of incident reports and forms. While vaginally bleeding and in extreme abdominal, back and knee pain, the Plaintiff was compelled to complete the demanded reports before being taken to the Emergency Room of the Jersey City Medical Center.

EdPDLaw had been working with PBA Local 109 since October of 2010 grieving to have a policy implemented to protect its pregnant officers. Shortly after the new Executive Board was sworn into office (Ocasio, Murray, Estrada & Dille) it was brought to the Board's attention that pregnant officers were being assigned to posts which placed them in direct contact with the inmates threatening the health of their unborn children. When the first grievance was filed in 2010, 4 pregnant officers had been injured.

Four documented incidents involving pregnant officers were brought to the attention of the Hudson County Administration by way of grievance filed on October 13, 2010: In April 2009, Officer A, 8 months pregnant was assigned to a housing unit and responsible for approximately 70 inmates.  She was involved in a verbal incident which quickly escalated to a physical confrontation.  Fearing for her safety and the safety of her unborn child, she called for assistance (Code Blue).  Officer A, who should have never been placed in that situation, was later disciplined for calling for assistance.  She received a 45 day suspension. On September 21, 2009, Officer B, also 8 months pregnant at the time, was assigned to strip search a female inmate in the shower placing her unborn child at risk from either inmate assault and/or a slip and fall in the shower.  She was assigned to the housing units throughout her pregnancy where she was interacting with approximately 70 inmates on a daily basis. On September 6, 2010, Officer C was nearly injured in an attempted assault by an inmate wielding a chair. She notified her supervisor on August 29, 2010 that she was pregnant, she was still assigned to a housing unit where she was responsible for approximately 70 of inmates. On July 20, 2010, Officer D, having already lost one of her unborn twins and having a high risk pregnancy, was kicked in the stomach while working in holding.  She began hemorrhaging but was denied medical treatment or transportation to the hospital by her supervisor until she completed a report.

The Union continued to file numerous grievances over the issue but was continuously ignored by the Administration.   When Officer Coleman returned to work she was breast feeding and requested to be allowed to pump her breast milk for her baby:

Prior to her return from work after the birth of his child on October 28, 2010, the Plaintiff twice notified her superior officer, Lt. Tish Nalls, that she was breast feeding her child and needed to be able to have a location and times during her shift to express milk and utilize her breast pump while shielded from view and free from intrusion. The Plaintiff was notified on approximately April 7, 2011, by Lt. Nalls that the County would not permit her to bring her breast pump to work or utilize it during her work shift as "there was no state law that required same." At her return to work on April 9, 2011, the request of Plaintiff was repeated to the PBA Local Union Vice-President, Joe Jordan, who reported to the Plaintiff that the Director of the HCDC, Oscar Aviles, had indicated that the Plaintiff would not be able to express milk at work, and that he would not permit the use of the storage area within the female locker room, which room was used by him for storage, not for lactating female employees.

In December of 2011, Walt Kane aired  a segment on Kane in Your Corner wherein EdPDLaw and a pregnant officer were interviewed and brought the problems to the public.  The Hudson County Administration still refused to take any measures to protect its pregnant officers.

In July of 2012, Coleman filed suit in the United States District Court enumerating her tale of horror and disdain likened only to the treatment of women in Middle Eastern Countries.

Coleman settled her suit in April and although she could have just been concerned for herself, she stood strong for all female correction officers and incorporated the implementation of 2 new policies into her Settlement Agreement to assure that no other female would be made to suffer the atrocities she suffered at the hands of the Hudson County Corrections Department.

The 1st Policy allows for breast feeding officers to have time to express milk and the 2nd Policy affords pregnant officers reasonable accommodations. Click here to get the Policies.

Once again the County has wasted tax payer's monies to do what was inherently the right thing all along.  They paid $150,000 to Coleman, who still retains her Worker's Compensation Claim which will cost them more money. They also paid Chasan Leyner thousands of dollars to defend a suit they knew they would never win.

 Officer Yvonne Coleman-Davis is a Role Model for all Female Corrections Officers both in Hudson County and in other Departments throughout New Jersey.  Thank you Officer Coleman!  Keep up the good work!  Shame on you Hudson County!

EdPDLaw Editorial:                              Click to get Newspaper Article July 22, 2012 PLACING PREGNANT OFFICERS IN HARMS WAY RESULTS IN LAW SUIT  Hudson County refused to implement policy to protect its pregnant officers then denied its female Law Enforcement Officer privacy or a break to pump breast milk for her infant.  The Director decided that the Area in the Female Locker Room would be Used For His Storage NOT Lactating Women! click to get suit EdPDLaw has been working with PBA Local 109 since October of 2010 grieving to have a policy implemented to protect its pregnant officers.  Shortly after the new Executive Board was sworn into office it was brought to the Board's attention that pregnant officers were being assigned to posts which placed them in direct contact with the inmates threatening the health of their unborn children.  As of the date of the grievance, 4 pregnant officers had been injured. Despite repeated attempts to obtain protection for LEO pregnant officers, the Hudson County Administration ignored repeated request for humane and decent treatment of its female officers and took its nonsense one step further by refusing to provide privacy and time for officers to pump breast milk for their infants. In a law suit filed last week, one of the officers tells a tale of horror and disdain likened only to the treatment of women in Middle Eastern countries. On July 20, 2010, while six month pregnant, the Plaintiff attempted to stop a fight between two inmates, during the course of which she was pushed against a metal bunk bed causing injury to her already, previously injured back and right knee, and one of them kicked her in the abdomen causing injury to her abdominal area. From the abdominal injury, the Plaintiff immediately began to have extreme pain and vaginal bleeding.  However, rather than provide emergent transportation of the Plaintiff to the hospital as the HCDC nurse was indicating was needed, one of her supervisors, Lt. Conrad, refused to permit the Plaintiff to be transported to the hospital until she had completed a number of incident reports and forms. While vaginally bleeding and in extreme abdominal, back and knee pain, the Plaintiff was compelled to complete the demanded reports before being taken to the Emergency Room of the Jersey City Medical Center. Hudson County continues to show complete disdain for females as they allocate nearly $500 thousand dollars a year to be in compliance with Title VII Laws that they ignore.  The allocation is no more than a pretext to pad the pockets of politically chosen law firms to "cover up" and protect the male superior officers who are accused of sexual harassment by female officers.   The PBA submitted draft Policies to the Administration which simply would need to be slightly altered to the County.  However, these requests were repeatedly ignored. Hudson County then took it a step further and denied the officer break time and privacy to pump her breast milk as required by law.  The Director, Oscar Aviles relayed to the officer that the area she requested to use, located in the female locker room was being used for his storage, not lactating women.  He then denied her the right to bring her breast pump in the building. Prior to her return from work after the birth of his child on October 28, 2010, the Plaintiff twice notified her superior officer, Lt. Tish Nalls, that she was breast feeding her child and needed to be able to have a location and times during her shift to express milk and utilize her breast pump while shielded from view and free from intrusion. The Plaintiff was notified on approximately April 7, 2011, by Lt. Nalls that the County would not permit her to bring her breast pump to work or utilize it during her work shift as "there was no state law that required same." At her return to work on April 9, 2011, the request of Plaintiff was repeated to the PBA Local Union Vice-President, Joe Jordan, who reported to the Plaintiff that the Director of the HCDC, Oscar Aviles, had indicated that the Plaintiff would not be able to express milk at work, and that he would not permit the use of the storage area within the female locker room, which room was used by him for storage, not for lactating female employees. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act require that employers with more than 50 employees provide reasonable break time for a nursing mother to express breast milk for the first year of the child's life.  The County clearly did not take the time to investigate this matter.  It does have an in-house Legal Department (which apparently has no duties other than to assign cases to outside law firms) and has allocated $500k to make sure this does not happen.   Apparently, none of these attorneys took the 15 minutes to research the situation over the past year and a half since the Union has brought it to their attention and now the County has found itself embroiled in yet another law suit.  The good news is that the County has allocated the nearly $500k to fight the suit, or cover it up, which by all appearances is the true purpose of the fund. Notably, Hudson County spent in excess of $50k to investigate the actions of Internal Affairs Sgt. Ricardo Aviles for sexually assaulting a female vendor in his office while on duty.  Despite the guilty findings, the Hudson County Legal Department released a statement that Aviles was "demoted", when in fact he was transferred to another position and retains the same title. ATTENTION HUDSON COUNTY TAXPAYERS Men -These women could be your wives, daughters or sisters.   Ladies - It is a no brainer! Voters - Its no surprise that they are raising your taxes in the election year! CHECK YOUR MAIL BOXES EdPDLaw Editorial: February 8, 2012   As of this date, another grievance was filed on behalf of the pregnant officers.  Walt Kane also ran the story on Kane In Your Corner in December but the Administration still has not implemented any policy to protect the pregnant officers and their unborn children.   EdPDLaw Editorial: September 25, 2011   Hudson County Refuses to Implement Policy to Protect Pregnant Correction Officers Despite Spending Nearly $500,000 to be in Compliance with Title 7 Laws   EdPDLaw has been working with PBA Local 109 since October of 2010 grieving to have a policy implemented to protect its pregnant officers.  Shortly after the new Executive Board was sworn into office it was brought to the Board's attention that pregnant officers were being assigned to posts which placed them in direct contact with the inmates threatening the health of their unborn children. Four documented incidents involving pregnant officers were brought to the attention of the Hudson County Administration by way of grievance filed on October 13, 2010: In April 2009, Officer A, 8 months pregnant was assigned to a housing unit and responsible for approximately 70 inmates.  She was involved in a verbal incident which quickly escalated to a physical confrontation.  Fearing for her safety and the safety of her unborn child, she called for assistance (Code Blue).  Officer A, who should have never been placed in that situation, was later disciplined for calling for assistance.  She received a 45 day suspension. On September 21, 2009, Officer B, also 8 months pregnant at the time, was assigned to strip search a female inmate in the shower placing her unborn child at risk from either inmate assault and/or a slip and fall in the shower.  She was assigned to the housing units throughout her pregnancy where she was interacting with approximately 70 inmates on a daily basis. On September 6, 2010, Officer C was nearly injured in an attempted assault by an inmate wielding a chair. She notified her supervisor on August 29, 2010 that she was pregnant, she was still assigned to a housing unit where she was responsible for approximately 70 of inmates. On July 20, 2010, Officer D, having already lost one of her unborn twins and having a high risk pregnancy, was kicked in the stomach while working in holding.  She began hemorrhaging but was denied medical treatment or transportation to the hospital by her supervisor until she completed a report. The County was reminded that there are approximately 31 posts available for these women to be assigned to that would eliminate their exposure to the inmate population without creating an accommodation. Coincidentally, one of these posts is currently manned by a former politician.  One of the above officers applied for and was denied one of these positions, passed over for a junior officer. Shortly after filing the grievance, and not receiving a response to same, the Union supplied the Administration with a copy of Policy by the International Association of Chief of Police which could be used as a model to develop a policy to protect its pregnant officers.  Pregnant women fall in a protected class under the Law Against Discrimination N.J.S.A. 10:5-4, 5-5 (11).  The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and discrimination on the basis of  pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII and covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments.  Hudson County has hired the law firm of LeClair Ryan to "investigate and evaluate allegations of sexual and workplace harassment and hostile work environment and discrimination against the County and County employees".  This service costs the taxpayer in excess of $100,000 a year since 2008.  Ironically, in 2008 the firm conducted an audit of all Department policies and neglected to notice that there was no policy set in place to protect the pregnant females.  2007 Resolution. 2008 Resolution. 2009 Resolution. 2010 Resolution.     On April 26th, 2011, with still no response from the Administration, the matter was brought to the attention of a Freeholder and immediately addressed at the Freeholders meeting that evening.  At the meeting the Union was told that it would have a policy to protect its pregnant officers by the next meeting scheduled for May 10, 2011. As of this date, nearly a year later, the Administration has not implemented a policy to protect PBA 109's pregnant officers, yet they have spent in excess of $50,000 to protect the Director's cousin, Sgt. Aviles, who was accused of sexually assaulting a female vendor. It would not cost ONE PENNY to implement a Policy to protect the officer's unborn children.

Sexual Harassment

 There are two forms of sexual harassment, (1) Quid pro quo and (2) hostile work environment.  Keep in mind that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and that harassment based on "sex" is interchangeable with all illegal forms of harassment, i.e. race, age, religion, natural origin, etc.  These claims fall under Federal Code, Title VII, as well as individual state laws.  (In New Jersey, refer to NJLAD (New Jersey Laws against Discrimination) laws).

Quid Pro Quo

"Quid pro quo" in Latin simply means, "this for that", an equal exchange.  Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when an employer attempts to make an employee's submission to sexual demands a condition of his or her employment. It involves an implicit or explicit threat that if the employee does not accede to the sexual demands, he or she will lose his or her job or suffer other adverse employment consequences.

The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Center) defines sexual harassment as:

"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment."

Sexual advances do not have to be overt, but can be subtle in nature, i.e. repeated requests for dates that have been sternly rejected, assignments that involve working with a supervisor who repeatedly makes unwanted advances, repeated touching, etc.

Hostile Work Environment

The Supreme Court defines a hostile work environment as when an employer or fellow employee(s) harasses another employee because of his or her sex rendering the working environment hostile, intimidating or offensive.  Often, the harassing conduct takes the form of unwelcome sexual touchings and comments. However, the harassing conduct need not be sexual in nature; rather, the defining characteristic is that the harassment occurs because of the victim's sex. 

The Courts have determined that there are four "prongs" (equivalent of "elements" in criminal law) that must be met to establish a claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment.

The complained of conduct:

(1) would not have occurred but for the employee's gender; and it was

(2) severe or pervasive enough to make a

(3) reasonable woman believe that

(4) the conditions of employment are altered and the working environment is hostile or abusive.

Element (1) can be proven be merely showing that the conduct would not have occurred but for the complainants sex.  The conduct does not have to be sexual in nature, but can be sexist instead.  (An example of this would be denying a promotion/assignment based on the sex of the applicant.)

Element (2) is more difficult to prove. Typically, the Courts have held that a single incident of harassment would not normally give rise to substantiate a complaint.  More frequently, a complainant recites a series of events, that when taken individually may be harmless, but when viewed together show a pattern of abuse.   This is why it is very important for women in this position to thoroughly document events with dates and times.

Element (3) is an objective assessment of the working conditions and environment through the eyes of a "reasonable woman".  It does not give consideration to how the conduct affected the complainant because it takes into consideration that the complainant may be overly sensitive.  Therefore, the Court considers how the employer treats all females in its employ and will accept incidents of harassment towards other female employees as evidence to meet and satisfy this prong.  It will also accept all incidents of differential treatment towards all minorities employed with the same employer.

The Courts have noted that just because a fellow employee does not complain of illegal activity,  their lack of complaint does not make the activity legal, nor does it create an environment where fellow employees must accept the same illegal treatment.   Just as the Court takes into consideration that one employee may be overly sensitive, it also recognizes that another employee may be more resilient.

Element (4) must show that the complainant's work environment has been altered  to create a hostile work environment.  This can be achieved by examining the employee's work environment prior to the onset of the illegal activity as compared to after.  It should be noted that the condition of the complainant's work environment only need be affected and that monetary income need not be a consideration. Examples can include, shift changes, changes in assignments, receiving less favorable assignments, being repeatedly disciplined for infractions that others are not disciplined, being denied time off, schools, etc. 

Reporting Harassment

Along with the responsibility of identifying harassment, the employee has the responsibility to report it to the employer.   Every agency, by law, should have a method in place for an employer to report acts of sexual harassment.  If your agency does not have a procedure in place, simply write a letter and present it to your supervisor.  (If you are complaining about your supervisor, report it to their supervisor).   If your employer does not take actions to correct the situation, you will need to contact the EEOC and seek the assistance of an employee.

Visit the Case Law Library to read Sexual Harassment Case Law.

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.