Statute grants immunity to prison for inmates’ actions toward nurses

If employees at a correctional facility were required to endure sexual harassment as part of their job, does the public facility have liability for damages? It depends on which statute has priority over the other, as established in a recent case dealing with statutory interpretation.

Inherently harassing job

Jennifer Bitner and Evelina Herrera were employed as licensed vocational nurses by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Their duties included one-on-one suicide watch of inmates housed in CDCR’s California Institution for Men (CIM).

The nurses alleged they were subjected to sexually harassing conduct by male inmates while working in this role and that CDCR failed to appropriately prevent or correct the behavior. They alleged a claim for gender-based hostile work environment and failure to prevent harassment in violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Is the statute a ‘get out of jail free’ card?

The trial court dismissed the case and granted judgment in favor of the CDCR on the ground that it was entitled to statutory immunity. The relevant statute provides that “a public entity is not liable for . . . an injury proximately caused by any prisoner.” The court found it clear that if a prisoner’s acts or omissions are one cause of the alleged injury, the statute will immunize a public entity from liability even if its independent acts might also be a concurrent cause, or even if the public entity was grossly negligent in causing the injury.