Court Vacates Summary Judgment Regarding Sex Discrimination and BFOQ Stating Reasons for Implementation were Arbitrary
1 min read
Jul 30, 2014
Male sheriff's deputies were denied the right to supervise female-only housing within the city and county of San Francisco correctional facility. The policy, which was in effect since 2006, was put in place for the safety of the female inmates, as well as to curtail the sexual misconduct of the past. A group of sheriff's filed suit against the city and county of San Francisco alleging that the policy prohibiting male deputies from supervising female inmates in housing units of jails operated by the County violated Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County regarding the sex discrimination claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, holding the County was unable to bear its burden of demonstrating that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was entitled to a defense based upon bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The Ninth Circuit explained that when applying BFOQ in a prison context, the administrator must show 'a high correlation between sex and ability to perform job functions.' Although the court gave high deference to the decision of administrators in this context (a correctional facility), in this case the administrators performed no interviews with the sheriffs, failed to contact other facilities, and failed to conduct any internal surveys before implementing the policy, which inevitably led to male deputies being denied the ability to perform certain job functions. Employers who make personnel decisions based upon BFOQ should ensure that the policies and procedures are based on a reasoned, and well-supported decision-making process so as to avoid any potential discrimination claims.
Topics
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

