Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 380 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2008 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Fort Pierce Division
Case Number: 06-14324-CIV-MARTINEZ-LYNCH
MELANIE BECKFORD; SUSAN BLACK; TITA DE LA CRUZ; CHARLENE FONTNEAU; LINDA JONES; PAULA LACROIX, JOYCE MEYER; SUSHMA PAREKH; DONNA PIXLEY; VESNA POIRIER; MICHELLE POLLOCK; LOURDES SILVAGNOLI; JANET SMITH; and LEE WASCHER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant. _____________________________________/
FINAL JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and 58, and in accordance with the verdicts
rendered by the jury on May 13, 2008 (D.E. Nos. 366-379), judgment is entered in favor of the
Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford, Susan Black, Tita de la Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Paula
LaCroix, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Vesna Poirier, Michelle Pollock, Lourdes
Silvagnoli, Janet Smith and Lee Wascher and against Defendant State of Florida Department of
Corrections.
More specifically, the jury found the Defendant liable on Counts I and II of the Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 14), which allege violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act,
Chapter 760, Florida Statutes and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 380 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2008 Page 2 of 2

§ 2000e et seq., and awarded each Plaintiff damages in the amount of $45,000.00. Thus, in accord with the jury's verdicts, the Court enters judgment for each of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant in the amount of $45,000.00. Interest shall accrue on this judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. For which sum let execution issue. It is hereby:
ADJUDGED that this case is CLOSED and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 15th day of May, 2008.

Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Lynch All Counsel of Record

_______________________________________ JOSE E. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

 
 Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 65

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KATHLEEN RUDOLPH, BEVERLY JENKINS, PATRICIA ANDERSON, NANCY MITCHELL, SHARON HAGAN, MARSHA BIGLER, BONNIE FARRIOR, EDNA MERIDA HALL, JUDITH IVEY, MARLA WALKER, SANDRA LEWIS, MARY ADAIR, CAROL WOODS, MELANIE BECKFORD, CHARLENE FONTNEAU, TITA DE LA CRUZ, LEE WASCHER, LINDA JONES, JOYCE MEYER, SUSHMA PAREKH, LOURDES SILVAGNOLI, JANET SMITH, MICHELLE POLLOCK, VESNA POIRIER, SUSAN BLACK, DONNA PIXLEY, PAULA LACROIX, OLIVIA CRISAFI, and JEAN GARRETT, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD

-v.-

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendant. __________________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs sue the Defendant and allege: Jurisdiction and Venue
1. This is a class action for injunctive, declaratory and equitable relief and for damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court for violations of the Florida Human Rights Act

- 1 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 65
of 1977 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.
2. This court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 USC §1331 and 42 USC §2000e-5.
2. Venue is proper under 42 USC §2000e-5 and 28 USC §1391. Nature of the Action
This is a class action for injunctive, declaratory and equitable relief and damages brought by current and former health care professional employees, classification officers and other nonsecurity employees of the Department who are women and are required as a regular part of their duties to provide care and other services to male inmates in close management custody individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated female employees of the Department who on the basis of their gender are, have been, continue to be and may in the future be adversely affected by the Department=s continuing policy and pattern and practice of genderbased discriminatory treatment of the Plaintiffs and the class. This discriminatory treatment consists of policies and patterns or practices of the Department which subject the Plaintiffs and the class to unwelcome, severe and pervasive sexual harassment by inmates in close management custody of the Department. The sexual harassment is fostered by the failure of the Department to take appropriate action and to enforce and implement adequate measures to investigate and stop the harassment and by its preventing and hindering the Plaintiffs and the class from taking action to remedy the harassment. This pervasive gender-biased disparate treatment of Plaintiffs and the class constitutes a continuing violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes and
- 2 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 65
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. Parties
A. Plaintiffs 3. Plaintiff Kathy Rudolph is a woman who is employed by the Defendant as a Senior
Registered Nurse (ARN@) at Washington Correctional Institution (AWashington CI@) in Washington County, Florida and has been employed there as a nurse since December 1995. Rudolph resides in Calhoun County, Florida.
4. Plaintiff Beverly Jenkins is a woman who is employed by the Defendant as a Senior RN at Washington CI and has been so employed since December 1997. Jenkins resides in Bay County, Florida.
5. Plaintiff Patricia Anderson is a woman who is employed by the Defendant as a Senior Licensed Practical Nurse (ALPN@) at Washington CI and has been so employed since March 2000. Anderson resides in Bay County, Florida.
6. Plaintiff Nancy Mitchell is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior RN Supervisor at Washington CI and has been so employed since November 2001. Before that, Mitchell was employed as a Senior RN at Washington CI since February 1995. Mitchell resides in Bay County, Florida.
7. Sharon Hagan is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI and has been so employed since October 1996. Hagan resides in Washington County, Florida.
8. Plaintiff Marsha Bigler is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN and Psychiatric Nurse at Washington CI and has been so employed since September 1995.
- 3 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 65
Bigler resides in Washington County, Florida. 9. Plaintiff Bonnie Farrior is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior
LPN at Washington CI and has been so employed since February 1995. Farrior resides in Washington County, Florida.
10. Plaintiff Edna Merida Hall is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI and has been so employed since February 1997. Hall resides in Washington County, Florida.
11. Judith Ivey is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI and has been so employed since February 1998. Ivey resides in Washington County, Florida.
12. Marla Walker is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior RN and Psychiatric Nurse at Washington CI and has been so employed since May 1995. Walker resides in Washington County, Florida.
13. Sandra Lewis is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI and has been so employed since December 1997. Lewis resides in Bay County, Florida.
14. Mary Adair is a woman who was employed by the Department as a Senior RN/Psychiatric Nurse at Washington CI from April 1996 to November 2001. Adair resides in Holmes County, Florida.
15. Plaintiff Carol Woods is a woman who is employed by the Department as a Senior RN at Washington CI and has been so employed since February 1996. Woods resides in Washington County, Florida.
- 4 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 65
16. Plaintiff Melanie Beckford is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin Correctional Institution (AMartin CI@) in Martin County, Florida, as a Senior RN from July 1995 to February 2002. Beckford resides in St. Lucie County, Florida.
17. Plaintiff Charlene Fontneau is a woman who is employed by the Department and worked at Martin CI as a Senior LPN from July 1998 to February 2001. She resides in Brevard County, Florida.
18. Plaintiff Tita de la Cruz is a woman who is employed by the Department and worked at Martin CI as a Senior LPN from June 1996 to December 2001. De la Cruz resides in Marion County, Florida.
19. Plaintiff Lee Wascher is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior RN from March 2001 to July 2001. Wascher resides in Palm Beach County, Florida.
20. Plaintiff Linda Jones is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin CI and Glades CI as a Senior RN at various times from October 1999 to February 2001. Jones resides in Palm Beach County, Florida.
21. Plaintiff Joyce Meyer is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin CI as Senior LPN at various times from September 1989 to July 2001. Meyer resides in St. Lucie County, Florida.
22. Sushma Parekh is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin CI as Senior Physician and Chief Health Officer from July 1997 to October 15, 2001. Parekh resides in St. Lucie County, Florida.
23. Plaintiff Lourdes Silvagnoli is a woman who is employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior LPN and has been so employed since October 2000. Silvagnoli resides in
- 5 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 6 of 65
St. Lucie County, Florida. 24. Plaintiff Janet Smith is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin CI
as a Classification Officer from December 1990 to May 2001. Smith resides in Martin County, Florida.
25. Plaintiff Michelle Pollock is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior RN from April 1990 to September 2001. Pollock resides in St. Lucie County, Florida.
26. Plaintiff Vesna Poirier is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior RN from September 2000 to July 2001.
27. Plaintiff Susan Black is a woman who has been employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior RN at various times from 1987 to present. Black resides in St. Lucie County, Florida.
28. Plaintiff Donna Pixley is a woman who was employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior LPN from March, 1999 to July, 2001. Pixley resides in Martin County, Florida.
29. Plaintiff Paula LaCroix is a woman who has been employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior LPN and has been so employed since August 1999. LaCroix resides in St. Lucie County, Florida
30. Plaintiff Olivia Crisafi is a woman who has been employed by the Department at Glades Correctional Institution (AGlades CI@) in Palm Beach County, Florida, as a Senior LPN from January 2001 to April 2001. Crisafi resides in Palm Beach County, Florida.
31. Plaintiff Jean Garrett is a woman employed by the Defendant as a Registered Nurse Specialist (ARN@) at Lake Correctional Institution (ALake CI@) in Lake County, Florida,
- 6 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 7 of 65
and has been employed there as a nurse since January 2002. Garrett resides in Lake County, Florida.
B. Defendant 32. The Defendant Department of Corrections (the ADepartment@) is a department of the
State of Florida. The Department operates approximately 68 prison facilities throughout the State of Florida. Its central office is located in Tallahassee, Florida. The central office in Tallahassee provides direction, policy, and operational and program oversight through the regional directors and their staff to all these facilities. Its operations and facilities are geographically organized into four regions.
33. Of the 68 prison facilities operated by the Department, many facilities house or at all times material hereto housed close management custody inmates. These facilities are male only with the exception of Lowell Correctional Institution which is not material to this case. Close management custody is deemed by the Department to be the confinement of an inmate apart from the general population for reasons of security or the order and effective management of the facility where the inmate through his behavior has demonstrated an inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of others. The close management facilities are or were at all times material to this cause distributed throughout the four organizational ARegions@ of the Department, with the largest number being in Region I which contains, among other facilities, Washington CI.
34. The Plaintiffs and the class are required as a regular, routine and ongoing term and condition of their employment to provide health care or other services to inmates in close management custody.
- 7 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 8 of 65
35. The Department=s Office of Health Services in Tallahassee is responsible for the delivery of health care to inmates within the custody and control of the Department. The Office of Health Services is managed by the Director of Health Services who has overall responsibility for the Office of Health Services. The Office of Health Services consists of two management areas: clinical and administration. The clinical area is the responsibility of the Deputy Director of Health Services who manages five functional areas and 1,950 caregivers. These 1,950 individuals include physicians, nurses, mental health professionals, pharmacists and dentists. The Department provides comprehensive medical, dental and mental health services for inmates.
36. The Department does not permit female Correctional Officers as a part of their regular duties to work in close management custody housing at male only prisons.
Conditions Precedent 37. The Plaintiffs have satisfied all conditions precedent, including the exhaustion of administrative remedies, to bringing this action. All of the Plaintiffs, except Marla Walker, Bonnie Farrior and Linda Jones, timely filed charges of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (AFCHR@) and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on August 31, 2001, and more than 180 days have passed since the filing of their charges. Walker, Farrior, Jones and the class may rely on the timely filed charges of their co-plaintiffs, because the conduct alleged arises from the same discriminatory policies and practices of the Department in the same time frame. The Plaintiffs received their notices of right to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. from the United States Department of Justice on March 28, 2006.
- 8 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 9 of 65
Class Action Allegations 38. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs seek class certification under subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of Rule 23. 39. Commonality: Questions of law and fact are common to all members of the class: specifically, as to both the named Plaintiffs and the class, the Plaintiffs= claims arise from the same events or practice or course of conduct by the Department which gives rise to the claims of the putative class, and their claims are based upon the same legal theories as those of the putative class. The Department has engaged in system-wide policy and pattern and practice, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. of subjecting the Plaintiffs and the class to unwelcome, severe and pervasive sexual harassment by male inmates, specifically by engaging in the following illegitimate and unlawful practices: a. Maintaining, fostering and condoning a sexually hostile working environment for
the Plaintiffs and the class; b. Discouraging and deterring the Plaintiffs and the class from reporting complaints
of sexual harassment by inmates; c. Failing and refusing to enforce and implement adequate policies and procedures
to protect the Plaintiffs and the class from sexual harassment by inmates in close management custody; and d. Failing and refusing to provide the Plaintiffs and the class with adequate training
- 9 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 10 of 65
to protect against and stop or minimize sexual harassment by inmates. The Department utilizes highly centralized and system-wide policies, practices and procedures as regards the pattern and practice of discrimination alleged, in particular as regards the custody and supervision of inmates and all aspects of the Plaintiffs= and the class=s employment. These centralized and system-wide policies, practices and procedures are developed and promulgated from the Department=s central office in Tallahassee, Florida.
40. Typicality: Plaintiffs= claims are typical of the claims of the class inasmuch as they arise from the same course of conduct as the claims of the putative class, and the class consists of past, present and future health care professional employees, classification officers and other nonsecurity employees of the Department who are women, who are required as a regular part of their duties to provide care and other services to male inmates in close management custody, and who have been adversely affected by the continuing policy and pattern or practice of gender-biased discrimination described herein.
41. Numerosity and Class Definition: The proposed class Plaintiffs seek to represent has an estimated 500 class members throughout the state of Florida. Therefore, the class is so numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable. The proposed class consists of all past, present and future health care professional employees, classification officers and other non-security employees of the Department who are women and who are required as a regular part of their duties to provide care and other services to male inmates in close management custody.
42. Adequacy of Representation: The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class in that they have interests in common with the
- 10 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 11 of 65
class, have no conflicts with the class, understand their responsibilities as class representatives, and have retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of complex class action litigation. The Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent.
43. The Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to all the members of the class, to wit: engaging in and maintaining a policy and pattern or practice of gender-biased discrimination which adversely affects the class, thereby making final injunctive relief and declaratory relief concerning the class as a whole appropriate. Accordingly, this action is maintainable under subsection (b)(2) of Rule 23.
44. Alternatively, Defendants= actions, to wit: engaging in and maintaining a policy and pattern or practice of gender-biased discrimination which adversely affects the class, raise questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiffs and the class. These questions predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and class representation is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Accordingly, this action is maintainable under subsection (b)(3) of Rule 23.
Claims of Named Plaintiffs Kathleen Rudolph
45. Plaintiff Kathleen Rudolph is employed by the Department as a Senior RN at Washington CI. She has been employed as a Senior LPN from December 1995 to October 1997 when she became a licensed RN and assumed the position of Senior RN, which she has held since that time.
46. Rudolph=s duties as a Senior RN include dispensing medications, responding to medical and psychiatric emergencies and making sick calls to male inmates in close management
- 11 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 12 of 65
custody as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary at Washington CI. She is also team leader for her shift. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
47. Throughout Rudolph=s employment at Washington CI, male inmates, particularly, those housed in close management, have regularly exposed their genitals and masturbated at her. While doing so the inmates frequently abused her and other female nurses with sexually degrading and demeaning comments, such as wanting to Aeat her pussy,@ Alick her cunt,@ and the like and with efforts to have Rudolph and other nurses bend over or position themselves so that the inmates can look at their breasts and comment on their anatomy.
48. Rudolph and the other nurses are required to make daily rounds of the close management dorms and visually inspect all inmates. During these rounds, the inmates expose themselves and masturbate at her in front of the cell door windows. Others stand on commodes or their bunks and expose themselves and masturbate to be better seen by Rudolph and other nurses.
49. In one particular instance, an inmate who was to be released the next day masturbated at Rudolph while she was making her rounds. The inmate told Rudolph that it was one for the road, because he was leaving the next morning, and there was nothing she could do about it. The Correctional Officer on duty just shrugged, and nothing was done.
50. Rudolph must walk from the medical unit to the close management dorms. While she is doing so inmates often shout at her sexually degrading and demeaning comments about her appearance and about her anatomy such as Aeating her pussy.@ This became a particular problem when the blinders were taken off the windows of the dorms.
- 12 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 13 of 65
51. On numerous occasions, Rudolph and the other nurses at Washington CI have informed the Department of the sexual harassment they have suffered and have sought relief.
52. Rudolph has routinely written disciplinary reports (DRs) on inmates who have exposed themselves to her and masturbated at her. The DRs have been filed with the prison security at Washington CI. Rudolph has further routinely made entries on AForm 815 Integration Sheets@ (A815s@) of the sexual harassment by inmates which reports are kept on file by the Department.
53. On October 3, 2000, Rudolph and the other nurses at Washington CI wrote Michael Moore, the Secretary of the Department, informing him of the continual problem of inmates masturbating at the nurses as they make medical rounds in the close management housing. The letter informed the Secretary of the efforts made by the nurses to remedy the problem and the fact that they had written many DRs to no avail and were being discouraged against writing DRs. Despite the letter to Secretary Moore, nothing has been done to remedy the problem.
54. Not long before this letter to Secretary Moore, Rudolph and the nurses at Washington CI and elsewhere received a directive to AAll Health Services@ of the Department dated August 10, 2000 from David L. Thomas, the Director of Health Services for Department, in which Thomas instructed health care professionals not to write disciplinary reports or take any disciplinary action against inmates.
55. Rudolph also contacted the Inspector General=s office of the Department and sent in a complaint regarding the sexual harassment. She additionally went to both the Florida State Attorney=s office in Panama City and the Washington County Sheriff in an attempt to remedy the problem.
- 13 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 14 of 65
56. One Colonel Watson, a Correctional Officer at Washington CI, said that the prison is the inmates= Ahome@ and that the nurses, therefore, had to live with it. Other security personnel have told her to Ajust get over it.@
57. The Department has not given Rudolph any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
58. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Rudolph=s employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Rudolph has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting. Beverly Jenkins
59. Plaintiff Beverly Jenkins is employed by the Department as a Senior RN at the Washington CI. She has held this position since she was hired on December 1997.
60. Jenkins= duties as a Senior RN include dispensing medications, responding to medical and psychiatric emergencies and making sick calls to male inmates as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary at Washington CI. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
61. Throughout her employment at Washington CI, inmates in close management custody have regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at Jenkins. While masturbating at her, the inmates abused her with sexually degrading and demeaning comments. As part of her duties, Jenkins is required to make daily rounds of inmates in close management housing. She is required to visually look into each cell to determine whether the inmates need medical care. She and the nurses are also required to watch the inmate to be sure the inmate takes the medications dispensed. Inmates knowing that Jenkins is coming to the cells or that Jenkins is required to
- 14 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 15 of 65
watch them take medicine expose themselves and masturbate at her when she looks in, often standing on commodes so that they can be better seen by her.
62. Jenkins has routinely written DRs on inmates who have sexually harassed her. No apparent action has been taken on the DRs. For a long time, Jenkins believed that the Correctional Officers were doing the DRs. However, she later determined that they were not filing the DRs. She has been told that she is required to describe in graphic detail the harassment in the DR; otherwise, it will be rejected.
63. In addition to writing DRs, Jenkins has routinely filled out 815s which describe the sexual harassment and are reviewed by Department officials and maintained by the Department.
64. In response to her complaints and those of other female nurses, prison officials have told her that the prison is the inmates= Ahome,@ and, therefore, they cannot stop them.
65. The Department has not given Jenkins any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
66. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Jenkins= employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Jenkins has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting. Patricia Anderson
67. Plaintiff Patricia Anderson is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI. She has been a Senior LPN at Washington CI since March 2000. Before that she worked for the Department at Hernando CI, Sumter CI and Zephyrhills CI.
68. Anderson=s duties as a Senior LPN at Washington CI include dispensing medication to inmates, responding to medical emergencies of inmates, and making daily rounds of inmates
- 15 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 16 of 65
to determine and attend to their healthcare needs. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
69. On her first day on the job at Washington CI, Anderson was subjected to inmates in close management exposing themselves and masturbating at her. Since that day, inmates in close confinement have routinely exposed themselves and masturbated at her and in some cases inmates have ejaculated in her presence. The inmates routinely make sexually degrading and demeaning comments to her and to other female nurses. On her first day, she was called a Aa fresh bitch@ and Aa new cunt.@
70. On one occasion an inmate to whom she was dispensing medications began masturbating when she reached his cell door. She was with a Correctional Officer who told her to walk on and not give him his medication. The inmate called her a Apussy-ass white bitch@ and spit at her. She asked the officer to get the officer in charge, Captain Wall. Captain Wall arrived, and she explained the incident. Wall then questioned the inmate. Anderson overheard him explain to the inmate how to file a grievance against Anderson. Anderson did an incident report which she sent to the warden. Nothing came of her report.
71. In two other instances, the inmates were Aorderlies@ in close management and both masturbated while staring intently at her. She reported it to the Correctional Officer on duty and in one case she was told that the inmate was a Agood inmate,@ and nothing was done. The other inmate was initially locked up but then a short time later was allowed to be a Arun-a-round@ again. Many Correctional Officers have told her that they wish something would be done but that their hands were tied. She has been told by other Correctional Officers that the prison is the inmates= Ahome,@ and, therefore, the inmate behavior is tolerated.
- 16 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 17 of 65
72. During her employment at Washington CI, Anderson has routinely written DRs when inmates have sexually harassed her. She gave the DRs to security officials. DRs she has written have been rejected, because not all officers working the close management dorms were listed even though the other officers were not in the dorm in which the harassment occurred, or because her description of the inmate=s conduct - masturbation - was not graphic and detailed enough.
73. In August 2000, Anderson was told by Dr. David Thomas, the Department=s Director of Health Services, that she should not write DRs, and she stopped for a while.
74. Anderson has also made numerous records of the sexual harassment described above in 815s.
75. Anderson experienced similar sexual harassment at Sumter CI and Zephyrhills CI, both of which are close management facilities. She did not experience such harassment at Hernando CI, because it was a minimum security and did not house close management inmates.
76. The Department has not been given Anderson any training to prepare for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
77. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Anderson=s employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Anderson has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting. Nancy Mitchell
78. Plaintiff Nancy Mitchell is employed by the Department as a Senior RN Supervisor at Washington CI. She has been so employed since November 2001. Before that she was employed as a Senior RN at Washington CI continuously from the date of her hire in February
- 17 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 18 of 65
1995. 79. Mitchell=s duties as a Senior RN include dispensing medications, responding to
medical and psychiatric emergencies and making sick calls or rounds to male inmates in close management custody as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary at Washington CI. As Senior RN Supervisor, her duties also include the supervision of nurses at Washington CI. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
80. Throughout her employment at Washington CI, inmates in close management custody have regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at Mitchell. This has occurred regularly when Mitchell has made daily sick and medication rounds in the close management housing, which require her and other nurses to visually inspect the inmates as well as dispense medication to them at their cells. The inmates expose themselves and masturbate at her while receiving medications. Inmates not receiving medications stand on toilets and on their bunks, so that Mitchell cannot avoid seeing them while she makes her rounds, and masturbate at her. The inmates also regularly fake emergency calls to make Mitchell come to close management housing so they can sexually harass her. While harassing Mitchell the inmates make sexually degrading and demeaning comments to her.
81. Mitchell has regularly experienced the same sexual harassment by inmates in the isolation rooms and less often in the infirmary in the medical unit. Mitchell=s office looks onto the isolation rooms from which inmates stare at her and masturbate.
82. Mitchell has written numerous DRs on these inmates. The DRs appear to get lost and nothing has resulted from them. She and the other nurses have been told not to write them.
83. Mitchell has also made numerous records of the sexual harassment on 815s which are
- 18 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 19 of 65
submitted to prison officials at Washington CI. 84. She has been told by correctional officials at Washington CI that she has to remember
where she is working and that she must just live with it. 85. At one point, Mitchell and other nurses had curtains installed in the windows of the
close management cells in the multi-service building where the medical unit is located to remedy the harassment of inmates masturbating at the female nurses. The nurses were told to take them down.
86. The Department has not given Mitchell any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
87. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Mitchell=s employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Mitchell has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting Sharon Hagan
88. Plaintiff Sharon Hagan is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI. She has been employed at the Department at Washington CI since October 1996.
89. Hagan=s duties as a Senior LPN are to provide health care to inmates at Washington CI, including dispensing medication, responding to medical emergencies and making daily medical rounds in the close management dorms as well as attending to the medical needs of inmates housed in the infirmary.
90. As has happened throughout her employment at Washington CI, inmates in the close management dorms routinely expose themselves and masturbate at her. This typically happens
- 19 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 20 of 65
while she is making daily medical rounds during which she is required to visually look in on each inmate. It also often occurs when she is dispensing medication to close management inmates. While the inmates are masturbating at her, she is regularly abused with sexually degrading and demeaning comments, such as Awhite cunt,@ Afucking bitch@ or Awhite whore@ and the like.
91. The inmates in close management know whenever Hagan or other female nurses are coming to the dorm. The inmates are often not dressed when she arrives and are not required to do so. When she has asked why this is so, Hagan has been told that the inmate=s cell is his Ahome,@ and the inmate=s rights have to be protected.
92. Hagan has written numerous DRs on inmates who have exposed themselves and masturbated at her. She has rarely, if ever, seen any follow up on any of the DRs she has written; nor has she been asked to give additional information or answer any questions regarding the DRs. Hagan has not been given any training on how to complete DRs other than occasional advice from Correctional Officers. She eventually stopped writing DRs, because many of those she wrote were rejected, and no discipline was ever meted out to the inmates. She was also told that the Department did not want nurses to submit DRs, because the processing cost of each was $600-700.
93. The Department has not given Hagan any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
94. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Hagan=s employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Hagan has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting.
- 20 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 21 of 65
Marsha Bigler 95. Plaintiff Marsha Bigler is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at
Washington CI. She has been so employed since September 1995. She assumed duties as a psychiatric nurse in March 2002.
96. Bigler=s duties as a Senior LPN are to provide health care to inmates at Washington CI, including dispensing medication, responding to medical and psychiatric emergencies and making daily medical rounds in the close management dorms, as well as dispensing medication to open population inmates at the medical building and attending to the medical needs of inmates housed in the infirmary. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
97. Throughout her employment at Washington CI, inmates in close confinement have repeatedly exposed themselves and masturbated at her. While they are doing this, the inmates routinely call her sexually degrading and harassing names, such as Awhite cunt@ and Awhite bitch,@ make sexually degrading comments about her body and ask sexually degrading questions, such as how she feels about Ablack dicks@ and whether she has Aever had one.@ Throughout her employment she has been frequently called to respond to medical emergencies which are faked, and when she arrives at the inmate=s cell, the inmate masturbates at her.
98. Bigler and other nurses at Washington CI routinely have written DRs on inmates for this sexual harassment. Bigler has not received any follow-up information on DRs she has written; nor has she ever been asked to give testimony at any hearings on DRs she has written. She has largely stopped writing DRs, because she believes that nothing will be done.
99. As recently as February 2002, an inmate transferred to Washington CI masturbated
- 21 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 22 of 65
while another female nurse was processing his medical intake. Bigler checked his file, which showed that he had received numerous DRs for masturbating at another institution.
100. Also, in or around the same timeframe, Bigler wrote a disciplinary report on an inmate for masturbating in her presence. The DR was rejected as not properly worded. She was never instructed regarding how to correctly word a DR. On occasions, she asked Correctional Officers for assistance, since the DRs she wrote were often rejected.
101. Bigler and other nurses at Washington CI wrote Michael Moore, the Secretary of the Department, on October 3, 2000, informing him of the continual problem of inmates masturbating in front of the nurses as they made medical rounds in the close confinement housing. The letter informed the Secretary of the efforts made by the nurses to remedy the problem and the fact that they had written many DRs to no avail and were being discouraged against writing DRs. This letter was in response to a directive to AAll Health Services@ of the Department sent on August 10, 2000 by David L. Thomas, the Director of Health Services for Department, in which Thomas instructed health care professionals not to write disciplinary reports or take any disciplinary action against inmates. Despite the letter to Secretary Moore, nothing has been done to remedy the problem.
102. The Department has not given Bigler any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
103. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Bigler=s employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Bigler has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting. Bonnie Farrior
- 22 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 23 of 65
104. Plaintiff Bonnie Farrior is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI. She has been so employed since February 1995.
105. Farrior=s primary duties as a Senior LPN included dispensing medication and responding to medical and psychiatric emergencies and sick calls of inmates at Washington CI. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
106. In performing her duties, Farrior and other nurses are required to visually inspect inmates in close management custody daily. Throughout her employment inmates in close management have regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at her. When masturbating, inmates shout at Farrior sexually degrading and demeaning comments, such as Asuck my dick, bitch,@ threaten to Anail her from behind@ and attempt to force her and other nurses to bend over. One inmate responded to her having written a DR for his masturbating by alleging that she had sat at a desk with her legs spread apart and genitals exposed. On another occasion, an inmate orderly masturbated at her in the multipurpose room, staring at her while he did so as other inmates stood nearby.
107. Inmates in the isolation cells in the medical unit also routinely masturbate in the presence of Farrior and other nurses as they look at them through the cell window.
108. In the earlier years of her employment before locks were put on the food slots of cell doors, inmates in close management attempted to ejaculate on her and other nurses as they made their rounds.
109. One of Farrior=s supervisors would not go on rounds because of how bad the harassment was. In response to her complaints about the harassment, an Inspector Bush asked her rhetorically, Adon=t you realize where you work?@ He said there was nothing he could do and
- 23 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 24 of 65
if she could not handle it, she should find another job. 110. Farrior and other nurses were told that if they did write DRs they had to be
extremely explicit in their description of the harassment. She was told that stating that the inmate had Amasturbated@ was not sufficient. Rather, she had to describe whether the inmate=s penis was erect, which hand he was using, that he was sliding his hand up and down his penis, and so on. DRs which did not conform to these requirements were rejected.
111. The Department has not given Farrior any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
112. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Farrior=s employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Farrior has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting. Edna Merida Hall
113. Plaintiff Edna Merida Hall is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI. She has been so employed since February 1997.
114. Hall=s duties as a Senior LPN include dispensing medications, responding to medical emergencies and making sick calls to male inmates as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary at Washington CI. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
115. Hall is required to make daily rounds and visually inspect inmates in the close management dorms. During these rounds inmates regularly exposes themselves and masturbate at her. When she administers medicines and performs other medical operations at the cell doors of inmates, the inmates masturbate while speaking to her or insert their penises through the food
- 24 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 25 of 65
slot on the cell doors and masturbate. Nurses are not permitted to deny care to inmates who are sexually harassing them.
116. Inmates routinely call Hall such names as Awhite bitch,@ demand that she suck their Adicks,@ yell Awhat a fine ass she=s got,@ and taunt her with ADon=t you need me? And don=t you need this?@ referring to their penises. Hall and other nurses take care to make sure they are completely covered with clothing to minimize the sexual harassment.
117. One particular inmate with hypertension used this condition to routinely declare medical emergencies, sometimes as much as 3 to 4 times daily. When Hall arrived at his cell, he would masturbate in the window at her. Correctional Officers witnessed this. No action was taken despite the fact that Hall filed DRs and made chart notations of the behavior.
118. Hall has often written DRs on inmates who have sexually harassed her. These have had no effect and have not been taken seriously by the Department. Hall has had DRs rejected allegedly because they were not worded correctly. She has also been told that writing DRs is a function of security and not medical staff. For a time, she and other nurses at Washington CI stopped writing DRs, because they were having no effect.
119. Hall has been told by officials of the Department that she should have expected to be sexually harassed because she works at the prison.
120. The Department has not given Hall any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
121. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Hall=s employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Hall has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting.
- 25 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 26 of 65
Judith Ivey 122. Plaintiff Judith Ivey is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at
Washington CI. She has been so employed since February 1998. 123. Ivey=s duties as a Senior LPN include dispensing medications, responding to
medical emergencies and making sick calls to male inmates in close management custody as well as dispensing medications and attending to open population inmates in the medical building and in the infirmary at Washington CI. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
124. Ivey daily dispenses medication to inmates in close confinement. The inmates regularly expose themselves and masturbate at her while she is dispensing medication to them. At this time, inmates in other cells stand on toilets and get in their bunks so that they can be seen by her and masturbate at her. While doing so, the inmates shout to her sexually degrading and demeaning names, whistle, make comments about her anatomy, such as her behind, and tell her she is sexy.
125. Inmates regularly fake medical emergency calls, and when Ivey arrives they masturbate at her. Most medical emergencies are called simply to get a female nurse to come down to the close management dorms where the nurse can be sexually harassed.
126. Inmates in the isolation cells in the medical building also expose themselves and masturbate at Ivey.
127. Ivey has written DRs on the inmates. The DRs she wrote were ignored. She also makes notations of the inmate=s sexual harassment on encounter forms. She finds it embarrassing to ask Correctional Officers to write DRs on inmates for masturbating at her. She
- 26 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 27 of 65
was also told that she was not supposed to write DRs, but rather the Correctional Officers were supposed to.
128. Recently, while Ivey was on her break an inmate in the kitchen area called to her to get her attention, and when she looked at him, he masturbated at her. She called the security officer and believes that the inmate was not disciplined.
129. Ivey has been told that she must put up with the sexual harassment because she works in a prison.
130. The Department has not given Ivey any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
131. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Ivey=s employment at Washington CI and continues to occur. Ivey has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting. Marla Walker
132. Plaintiff Marla Walker is employed by the Department as a Senior RN and Psychiatric Nurse at Washington CI. She has been so employed since May 1995.
133. Walker=s duties as a Senior RN include dispensing medications, responding to medical emergencies and making sick calls to male inmates in close management custody as well as dispensing medications and attending to open population inmates in the medical building and in the infirmary at Washington CI. Her duties as a Psychiatric Nurse include scheduling inmate psychiatric appointments, tracking inmate prescriptions, dispensing and monitoring of medications, answering emergency calls, assisting psychologists and psychiatrists employed by the Department and performing related duties. Walker=s duties require regular contact with
- 27 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 28 of 65
inmates in close management custody. 134. Throughout Walker=s employment at Washington CI, male inmates in close
management custody have regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at her. This regularly occurs in the close management custody dorms were she is required to attend to inmates and in the medical unit, particularly the isolation management room cells.
135. While the inmates expose themselves and masturbate at her, they regularly abuse her with sexually degrading and demeaning comments, such as saying AI=d like to do this to you,@ AI=d like to suck that pussy,@ Atake that [clothing] off@ and the like. These kinds of comments are regularly made to Walker and other female nurses as they walk to and from the medical unit and the close management housing.
136. The inmates regularly make emergency calls, to which she is required to respond, that are faked so that the inmates can expose themselves and masturbate at Walker and other female nurses.
137. Walker has written numerous DRs on inmates for exposing themselves and masturbating at her. Her DRs have not been processed or pursued, or they have not been taken seriously.
138. Walker and other female nurses at Washington CI complained through the chain of command at Washington CI about the sexual harassment they were experiencing. Because their complaints were not addressed, they wrote to the Department=s Secretary Moore. Walker and other nurses were also told by Dr. Thomas, the Department=s chief medical officer, that they should not write DRs.
139. The Department has not given Walker any training to prepare her for or to address
- 28 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 29 of 65
sexual harassment by inmates. 140. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Walker=s employment
at Washington CI and continues to occur. Walker has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she finds it offensive and physically disgusting. Sandra Lewis
141. Plaintiff Sandra Lewis is employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Washington CI. She has been so employed since December 1997.
142. Lewis=s duties as a Senior LPN include dispensing medications, responding to medical emergencies and making sick calls to male inmates in close management custody as well as dispensing medications and attending to open population inmates in the medical building and in the infirmary at Washington CI. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
143. Throughout Lewis=s employment at Washington CI, male inmates in close management have regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at Lewis. Inmates regularly fake emergency medical calls, to which Lewis was required to respond, and when she arrives, the inmates expose themselves and masturbate at her. Inmates also use legitimate emergency calls to expose themselves and masturbate at Lewis. When dispensing medications through the food slots in the cell doors in close management housing, inmates regularly have inserted their penises through the slot and masturbated and, in some instances, attempted to ejaculate on Lewis.
144. While exposing themselves and masturbating, as well as at other times, the inmates shout sexually degrading and demeaning comments at Lewis and other female nurses,
- 29 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 30 of 65
such as AWouldn’t=t you like some of this? (pointing at their penises),@ ABig mama, I like big women, lots of meat,@ AI=ve got something for you. You=ve never had it so good,@ AI could just get it on with you,@ AI=d like to fuck you,@ Ayou=ve never had it so good until you=ve had me,@ and the like.
145. Close management inmates brought to the medical unit have routinely exposed themselves and masturbated at Lewis and made sexually degrading and demeaning comments to Lewis.
146. Lewis has worked various shifts at Washington CI and has experienced the sexual harassment described above during all shifts.
147. Lewis has written numerous DRs on these inmates. She believes that most of these have been rejected, lost or not processed, because nothing has resulted from them. At one point, Lewis and the other nurses were told that only Correctional Officers could write the DRs and that the officers could only do so if they themselves witnessed the sexual harassment. She has been told that every DR costs the Department money.
148. Lewis and the other nurses also have regularly made records of this sexual harassment on 815s.
149. The Department did not give Lewis any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
150. The sexual harassment described above occurred throughout Lewis=s employment at Washington CI. Lewis did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Mary Adair
- 30 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 31 of 65
151. Plaintiff Mary Adair was employed by the Department as an RN/Psych Specialist at Washington CI. She was so employed from April 1996 until November 2001.
152. Adair=s duties as an RN/Psych Specialist were to provide psychiatric care to inmates, including responding to psychiatric emergencies, monitoring and occasionally dispensing medications, making psychiatric assessments and performing related duties. Her duties required contact with inmates in close management custody.
153. On numerous occasions during her tenure at Washington CI, inmates in close management custody exposed themselves and masturbated at Adair. This typically happened when Adair was attending to inmates housed in the isolation cells in the infirmary. It also occurred when Adair dispensed medications to inmates in close management custody.
154. Inmates often faked psychiatric emergencies to be placed in the isolation cells in the infirmary for the purpose of exposing themselves and masturbating at Adair and other female nurses.
155. Adair and the other female nurses put up screens on the windows of the isolation cells to protect themselves against inmates exposing themselves and masturbating at them. They were told that they could not do this, and they had to take down the screens.
156. While the inmates exposed themselves and masturbated at Adair, as well as at other times, the inmates often made sexually degrading and demeaning comments to Adair, such as AI wanna fuck you,@ and made sexually degrading and demeaning gestures simulating sexual intercourse.
157. Adair wrote numerous DRs on these inmates as well as CCs. However, these had no effect. It was further discouraging to Adair to write DRs because of the many formal
- 31 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 32 of 65
requirements involved. 158. The Department did not give Adair any training to prepare her for or to address
sexual harassment by inmates. 159. The sexual harassment described above occurred throughout Adair=s employment
at Washington CI. Adair did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Carol Woods
160. Plaintiff Carol Woods is employed by the Department as a Senior RN and Psychiatric Nurse at Washington CI. She has been so employed since February 1996.
161. Woods= duties as a Senior RN include dispensing medications, responding to medical emergencies, administering insulin for diabetic inmates and drug regimens for HIV inmates, and making sick calls to male inmates in close management custody as well as dispensing medications and attending to open population inmates in the medical building and in the infirmary at Washington CI. She has also acted as Charge Nurse. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
162. Throughout Woods= employment at Washington CI, inmates in close confinement have regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at her when she dispenses medications and responds to emergency calls. While doing so, the inmates make sexually degrading and demeaning comments to her, such as calling her Apussy-ass,@ or AI bet your pussy is wet,@ or ACome in here, and I=ll show you what I=ve got for you,@ and the like. The inmates regularly make similar comments and wolf whistle as Woods and other female nurses walk to and from close management housing.
- 32 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 33 of 65
163. The sexual harassment is so severe on daily medication passes that the female nurses alternate duty.
164. Inmates in the isolation rooms in the infirmary also routinely expose themselves and masturbate at Woods and the other female nurses. She has also had inmates in open population masturbate at her.
165. Inmates are supposed to be dressed and sitting on their bunks when medication passes are announced. Rarely is this rule ever enforced.
166. Woods has written numerous DRs on inmates. Some of these appear to have been lost. In any event there has been no action as a result of them. She has also been told that she should not write DRs.
167. Woods has had a captain tell her in response to her complaints about the sexual harassment that AWell, he=s a man, and he=s in prison. What do you expect?@ Other security personnel tell her that AYou=ve forgotten where you are. You=re in a male prison.@
168. The Department did not give Woods any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
169. The sexual harassment described above occurred throughout Woods= employment at Washington CI. Woods did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Melanie Beckford
170. Plaintiff Melanie Beckford was employed by the Department as a Senior Registered Nurse at the Department=s Martin Correctional Institution (AMartin CI@) in Martin County. She held this position since her hire in or around July 1995 until February 2002. She
- 33 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 34 of 65
has been licensed in Florida since 1992. 171. In her position as Senior Registered Nurse, Beckford=s primary duties included
assessing medical and psychiatric emergencies and administering medicines as well as reporting to the physicians on staff her assessment. She worked the night shift and had the responsibilities as the charge nurse during her shift. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
172. Throughout her employment at Martin CI, inmates regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at Beckford when she was making daily rounds in the close management dorms. The majority of all medical emergencies of inmates in close management were faked by inmates, and when Beckford responded, they regularly would expose themselves and masturbate at her.
173. The inmates in close management knew that Beckford was coming to visit, because a Correctional Officer would call for her at the request of an inmate. When she was inside the close management dorms and when she was walking to the close management facility from the medical unit, inmates routinely shouted at her sexually degrading and demeaning propositions and commented on her breasts and other parts of her body.
174. Similarly, inmates in the medical unit where infirmary and Apink@ cells were located sexually harassed Beckford by exposing themselves, masturbating at her and, on one occasion, ejaculating and licking semen in the presence of Beckford. When this would happen in the medical unit, security personnel were up front in the Acube@ away from the observation areas where the inmates could be observed. When security personnel were around, the inmates would not engage in the harassment.
175. The above described conduct was well knows to the Department. Beckford
- 34 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 35 of 65
routinely made a record of each incident and, in many cases, wrote DRs, which she turned in to prison security personnel, either in the medical unit or in the control tower. She often inquired after the disciplinary reports but continually got not response other than the disposition of the report was unknown. On numerous occasions Beckford discussed the harassment by male inmates at staff meetings. She further routinely informed prison security about it, and prison security personnel witnessed the behavior in many, many instances. The typical response of security personnel was to ask the nurses what they expected or to act as though it did not happen. There was little effort at all to stop the harassment from happening. On some occasions security personnel laughed in response to it.
176. The Department did not give Beckford any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
177. The harassment described above occurred throughout Beckford=s employment at Martin CI. Beckford did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Charlene Fontneau
178. Plaintiff Charlene Fontneau was employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Martin CI from July 1998 to February 2001, when she was transferred to the Department=s Central Florida Reception Center.
179. Fontneau=s duties at Martin CI were primarily as a confinement medication nurse which entailed dispensing medications to male inmates in close confinement and monitoring the dispensation. Typically, she would dispense medication twice daily in close confinement housing. Her other duties included responding to emergency calls of inmates in close
- 35 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 36 of 65
confinement and attending to inmates housed in the infirmary. Fontneau=s duties required regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
180. When Fontneau went into the confinement house, male inmates, knowing that she was coming, would regularly expose their genitals and masturbate in view of the glass cell door windows. Some security officers pretended not to see it. Others told her that the cellblock was the inmates= Ahouse@ and that the inmates could, therefore, do what they wanted to do. In Housing D of the close management housing, the locks had been removed from the food slots which gave male inmates additional opportunities to harass Fontneau and other female nurses.
181. On one occasion, a Captain Wilds told Fontneau that it was a waste of time for his Correctional Officers to accompany her while making daily medication rounds. He suggested to Fontneau that she get a key and go by herself. Often instead of Correctional Officers, trainee officers were sent to accompany Fontneau, because there were too few Correctional Officers to escort her.
182. On one occasion, an inmate in close confinement inserted his erect penis through the food slot when it was opened. Fontneau refused to dispense medication to the inmate but was ordered to do so.
183. Inmates routinely called her Apussy,@ Acunt@ and other sexually degrading and demeaning epithets. One inmate threatened to stick his Adick@ in her Apussy.@ On another occasion in the lobby of the medical unit, an inmate had a hole in the crotch of his pants through which he exposed himself and masturbated. Fontneau told the male Correctional Officer not to let the inmate into the infirmary. The officer let the inmate in and laughed. On another occasion, Fontneau witnessed an inmate masturbating in the presence of a Correctional Officer
- 36 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 37 of 65
while one of her fellow female nurses took the inmate=s blood pressure. 184. Fontneau had to dress so as to completely cover all parts of her body. She could
not bend over at any time in the close confinement housing, because the inmates shouted sexual epithets and propositions.
185. On her walk to the close management housing, inmates, knowing she was coming, would shout to her sexually degrading and demeaning epithets, such as AI can smell your pussy.@ One inmate told her that it was like prostitution in that inmates would pay other inmates to make sick calls so that they could masturbate when the female nurse arrived. This practice was well known by security personnel.
186. Fontneau and other nurses routinely wrote DRs regarding the above inmate conduct. Many of the DRs she initially wrote were thrown out, because the nurses were told they had to have their own codes for DRs. Later they got the codes, but even after writing DRs they were unable to determine what had happened to them. She believes that many were lost.
187. Not having any success with DRs, Fontneau began giving inmates written corrective counseling (CC) statements. She was told that some of these were not worded right, and they were thus disregarded.
188. Fontneau and the other nurses were also told to file incident reports regarding the above conduct. They did so but were then told that they were writing too many of them.
189. The policies and practices that existed to curb the harassment were not enforced. Inmates were supposed to be dressed in shirts and pants before coming to their doors. Correctional Officers tried to enforce this but ultimately lost interest, because nothing was done to inmates who violated the rule. Fontneau and other nurses asked for a rule that inmates not
- 37 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 38 of 65
getting medications be required to remain on their bunks. This was refused. Fontneau and other nurses also requested one-way windows in cell doors. This was refused.
190. Fontneau and other female nurses met with the Martin CI superintendent and director of nursing about the problems of inmate harassment described above. The superintendent claimed he knew nothing of the harassment, because he did not review the disciplinary reports. He told them to do incident reports.
191. The Department did not give Fontneau any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
192. The harassment described above occurred throughout Fontneau=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Tita de la Cruz
193. Plaintiff Tita de la Cruz is employed by the Department as a Senior Licensed Practical Nurse (ALPN@) at its Lowell facility in Marion County. Before working at Lowell, Cruz worked for the Department at Martin CI as a Senior LPN from June 15, 1996 through August 2001.
194. De la Cruz=s duties as a Senior LPN at Martin CI included dispensing medication to male inmates and responding to medical and psychiatric emergency calls of male inmates. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
195. Throughout her tenure at Martin CI, inmates in close management custody regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at de la Cruz. While exposing themselves and masturbating at de la Cruz, as well as at other times, inmates made sexually degrading and
- 38 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 39 of 65
demeaning comments to de la Cruz, such as AChina doll,@ AFilipino whore,@ Awhat are you going to do for me for money, China doll,@ and the like. Inmates stood on the toilets in the cells when exposing themselves and masturbating at de la Cruz so that they could better be seen by her.
196. Inmates in the isolation or Apink@ rooms in the medical unit building also exposed themselves and masturbated at de la Cruz and other female nurses. These inmates would fake psychiatric emergencies to get into the Apink@ rooms so that they could expose themselves and masturbate at her and other nurses. De la Cruz put up screens over the windows on the Apink@ rooms to try to stop the harassment. She was told by a Correctional Officer that she had to take them down, because it was a Asecurity threat.@
197. De la Cruz and the other nurses at Martin CI wrote DRs and corrective counseling statements (CCs) on the inmates. However, little, if anything, came of these efforts to stop the harassment. In one instance, she believes the DR was trashed, because the inmate was allowed to be a run-around. De la Cruz was also required to notify and get the approval of the officer in charge before writing a DR.
198. The Department did not give de la Cruz training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
199. The harassment described above occurred throughout De la Cruz=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Lee Wascher
200. Plaintiff Lee Wascher was employed by the Department as a Senior RN at Martin CI from March 2001 to July 2001.
- 39 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 40 of 65
201. Wascher=s duties as a Senior RN at Martin CI included dispensing medication and answering sick calls to male inmates housed in the close management facility as well as inmates in the infirmary and Apink@ cells in the medical unit. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
202. While performing her duties in the close management housing, male inmates regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at her. The inmates frequently called out to her and other female nurses to get their attention and once they had done so fondled their genitals and masturbated from behind the glass windows in their cell doors.
203. On numerous occasions male inmates faked sick calls for Wascher and other female nurses for the purpose of masturbating at them.
204. Correctional Officers did little or nothing to stop the inmate, and one particular officer appeared to be amused by the harassment Wascher was suffering.
205. The Department did not give Wascher any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
206. The harassment described above occurred throughout Wascher=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Linda Jones
207. Plaintiff Linda Jones worked as a Senior Registered Nurse for the Department at Martin CI and Glades Correctional Institution (AGlades CI@) from around October 1999 to around February 2000. During this time she worked between the two facilities.
208. Jones= duties as a Senior RN at Martin CI included dispensing medication to and
- 40 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 41 of 65
responding to medical emergencies of male inmates in close confinement as well as inmates in open population and in the infirmary. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management confinement.
209. Within her first two weeks working at Martin CI, inmates in close management housing exposed themselves and masturbated at her while she was dispensing medication through the food slot in their cell doors. Approximately half of the inmates in Housing Y of the close confinement facility routinely masturbated at her. At the time they were doing it, the inmates called her by her name, often sang the pop song AMe and Mrs. Jones,@ and taunted her with sexually degrading and demeaning comments, such as Ayou know you want it.@
210. On one occasion, among many, an inmate waiting in the sick call room, with a guard in the area, exposed himself and masturbated as he stared at Jones.
211. Jones wrote numerous DRs on these inmates. On a number of other occasions, because she did not have an officer to witness the harassment and because she was discouraged from writing DRs without a witness, she did not. She was also told that DRs stating that an inmate was Amasturbating@ would be rejected. Rather, she was told that she had to describe in graphic detail every aspect of the inmate=s harassment. Finally, after writing numerous DRs without any effect, she gave up, reasonably believing that it was useless to continue.
212. Jones was told by Correctional Officers that the inmate housing was like the inmates= Ahome@ and that they could not make them do something in their home. She was told that the harassment was just something that happens and that she needed to get over it.
213. The Department did not give Jones any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
- 41 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 42 of 65
214. The harassment described above occurred throughout Jones= employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Joyce Meyer
215. Plaintiff Joyce Meyer was employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior LPN. She was initially hired in September 1989 and worked until around 1993. She returned in or around 1995 until 1999. She then returned a second time in February 2000 and worked as a Senior LPN until she voluntarily resigned in July 2001.
216. Meyer=s duties as a Senior LPN at Martin CI included preparing medications and dispensing medication to inmates in the medical unit and in close management as well as making sick rounds for close management inmates. She typically dispensed medications in close management twice daily. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management confinement.
217. Each time Meyer made rounds to dispense medication in the close management dorms inmates exposed themselves and masturbated at her. While the inmates masturbated at her they made sexually degrading and demeaning comments, such as AI can smell your pussy,@ AI want to eat your pussy,@ AI want to fuck you@ and called her such names as Acunt,@ Awhore@ and Abitch.@ The inmates in close management also made these and similar comments to Meyer and other female nurses as they walked to and from the close management dorms.
218. Close management inmates in the isolation or Apink@ rooms in the infirmary in the medical unit routinely stood on the toilets and exposed themselves and masturbated at Meyer and shouted sexual epithets at her and other female nurses. At one point, the female nurses put
- 42 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 43 of 65
curtains over the windows to the Apink@ rooms. The curtains provided some relief. However, she and the other nurses were told to remove the curtains.
219. Shortly before she resigned in July 2001, Meyer was making medication rounds in the close management dorms, escorted by Lieutenant Ferguson. She had finished her rounds, but Ferguson was still talking to an inmate, which meant she had to wait on him. While she was effectively trapped in the dorm as Ferguson talked with an inmate, 10 or more of the inmates screamed sexually degrading and demeaning comments and obscenities at her, stood on their toilets masturbating and ejaculated on the windows of their cell doors. Meyer yelled to Ferguson to look at what was happening. He ignored her. She then fled the dorm. She later asked him why he did not let her out of the dorm. Ferguson became angry and told her that she was Alooking for it.@ The incident so traumatized Meyer that she took a medical Astress@ leave and then resigned.
220. The Department did not give Meyer any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
221. The harassment described above occurred throughout Meyer=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Sushma Parekh
222. Plaintiff Sushma Parekh was employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior Physician and Chief Health Officer. She was hired in July 1997 and left in October 2001.
223. Parekh=s duties as a Senior Physician included making weekly rounds of the inmates in close management, seeing inmates in the infirmary, and supervising nurses. Her
- 43 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 44 of 65
duties as Chief Health Officer were the same with the additional duties of administering the medical unit at Martin CI. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
224. While Parekh made weekly rounds of inmates in close management, the inmates regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at her. While doing so, the inmates made sexually harassing and profane comments to her such as wanting to have sexual intercourse with her or about her and the female anatomy. The same kinds of comments were made to her as she walked to and from her office in the medical building to the close management dorms.
225. Close management inmates would also be housed in the isolation cells in the medical building. These inmates routinely exposed themselves and masturbated at Parekh and female nurses in the same manner as inmates in the close management dorms.
226. Inmates in close management would routinely call for medical emergencies that were false when they knew female nurses were on duty so that a female nurse would have to come to close confinement. Most medical or psychiatric emergencies were faked for this purpose. Whenever a new female psych specialist or nurse was hired, the number of medical emergencies would increase so that the inmates could harass her.
227. Whenever possible, Parekh filed DRs against the inmates who exposed themselves and masturbated at her. On numerous occasions she informed Warden Mingo of the sexual harassment she and the other female nurses were experiencing. Mingo instructed time and again that she should write DRs against the inmates. She and other nurses did so. Nothing came of any of the DRs she and the nurses submitted despite the fact that Warden Mingo told Parekh that the Department would take action against the inmates such as removing privileges.
- 44 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 45 of 65
When she asked why nothing was happening, she was told only to continue to file DRs. It seemed to Parekh that the DRs were going into the garbage. Parekh and the female nurses were not given any training on how to write DRs.
228. In addition to there being no apparent action taken on the DRs and no change in the inmate=s behavior, on numerous occasions Parekh and the nurses often could not get Correctional Officers to witness and support their DRs. Correctional Officers would ignore or say that they did not see the inmate=s sexual harassment of Parekh and the female nurses. Security personnel also appeared to take the attitude that nothing would be achieved by writing DRs, so they did not want to take the time to do it. Parekh was also told that because security personnel were short the nurse would just have to make do.
229. In addition to writing DRs, Parekh and the female officers routinely made notations on the medical records and the charts of inmates of the sexual harassment.
230. At one point, Parekh and the female nurses refused to give medications to inmates who were masturbating. They were later told that masturbation could not be considered a refusal of medication and that they must give the medication to the inmates even if they were masturbating.
231. The Department did not give Parekh any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
232. The harassment described above occurred throughout Parekh=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Lourdes Silvagnoli
- 45 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 46 of 65
233. Plaintiff Lourdes Silvagnoli has been employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior LPN since October 2000.
234. Silvagnoli=s duties as a Senior LPN include dispensing medications to inmates in close management, responding to medical emergencies in the close management dorms, attending to inmate houses in the SOS or Apink@ rooms in the medical building as well as dispensing medications to open population inmates at the medical building. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management confinement.
235. Silvagnoli passes medications to inmates in close confinement twice daily. Inmates expose themselves and masturbate at her every time she goes to the close management dorms. Many do it while receiving medications at their cell doors. Others stand on the toilets in the cells so that they can be seen through their cell door windows. Others do it while their cellmate talks to Silvagnoli and receives medication. On one occasion, an inmate ejaculated on the cell window at which Silvagnoli was dispensing medication. While they are masturbating, the inmates scream sexually degrading and demeaning comments such as Ahow wet is your pussy,@ Ayour pussy is really smelling,@ AI like the way you shake your ass@ and call her Awhore,@ Aslut@ and Acunt.@
236. Silvagnoli has written numerous DRs on the inmates. She has been told that security personnel are supposed to write DRs. However, they do not do so unless they are forced to because of security staff shortages and the fact that it is time consuming to do so. On some occasions security personnel refuse to write DRs. On other occasions, security personnel will not write DRs, because Silvagnoli does not have another witness. On other occasions, security personnel who witness the sexual harassment tell Silvagnoli to write the DR. Silvagnoli has not
- 46 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 47 of 65
been given any training on how to write DRs. She has generally stopped writing them, because it appears to be pointless since nothing results from it.
237. Silvagnoli and the other female nurses at one time refused medications to inmates who were masturbating. They were later told that they could not do this and that they were required to give the medication even if the inmate was masturbating.
238. The Department did not give Silvagnoli any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
239. The harassment described above occurred throughout Silvagnoli=s employment at Martin CI and continues to occur. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Janet Smith
240. Plaintiff Janet Smith was employed by the Department from December 1990 to May 2001. She was employed at Martin CI as a Classification Officer from October 2000 until May 2001 when she voluntarily resigned her employment.
241. Smith=s duties as a Classification Officer were to keep inmates informed of their custody status including such matters as receipt of, loss of or ineligibility for gain time, inmate job opportunities and other information pertaining to sentences. She also monitored DR hearings and kept inmates aware of rules and rights pertaining to them. Her duties required her to have regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
242. During her employment as a Classification Officer, Smith was required to meet with close management inmates at which times the inmates routinely exposed themselves and masturbated at her. While performing her duties in the close management dorms, inmates also
- 47 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 48 of 65
attempted to grab her, tried to ejaculate on her and regularly abused her with sexually degrading and demeaning comments such as AI can smell your pussy,@ AI=m gonna get a hold of you and fuck you,@ and Asuck my dick.@
243. Smith was routinely required to visit inmates in close confinement without the escort of a Correctional Officer. She was sometimes able to get an Officer to accompany her, but often because of the time and staffing problems it was impossible. When she entered the confinement dorm, inmates shouted sexually degrading and demeaning comments at her, and some began masturbating. Many would stand on the toilets in the cells and masturbate at her so they could be better seen by her.
244. During the period Smith was employed as a Classification Officer, the then Superintendent of Martin CI ordered that the locks be removed from the food slots in the cells doors of the close confinement cells. Smith and members of the nursing staff at Martin CI objected to this. Their objections were ignored. They were told by the Assistant Superintendent that the complaints about inmate behavior were exaggerated. The Assistant Superintendent said he had never experienced this kind of inmate behavior. Another female Classification Officer also complained to the Superintendent, and she was later summoned to the office of the Assistant Superintendent and reprimanded for going over his head.
245. Smith and other classification officers and medical staff requested that the Department remedy the harassment, including suggesting one-way film on windows. Their suggestions were rejected.
246. Smith wrote DRs on the inmates. However, nothing ever came of those that she wrote and she found it of no effect to do so.
- 48 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 49 of 65
247. The Department did not give Smith any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates. It is her understanding that such training had at one time in the past been given to Classification Officers but was subsequently eliminated.
248. The harassment described above occurred throughout Smith=s employment as a Classification Officer at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Smith resigned, because she could no longer tolerate the sexual harassment described above. Michelle Pollock
249. Plaintiff Michelle Pollock was employed by the Department at Martin CI as a Senior RN from April 1990 to September 2001.
250. Pollock=s duties as a Senior RN at Martin CI included preparing medications and dispensing medication to inmates in the medical unit and in close management, responding to medical emergencies and making sick rounds for close management inmates. In addition to these duties, she monitored the incidence of infectious diseases and HIV patients for tuberculosis and filled in for the nursing supervisor and for LPNs. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management.
251. Throughout her employment, inmates in close management custody regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at Pollock. This occurred both when she was required to attend to inmates in close management housing and in the medical unit. Inmates stood naked on the toilets in the cells masturbating so that Pollock and other female nurses could not avoid seeing them. Inmates in close management custody have masturbated at her while in the lobby of the medical unit. Other inmates confined in the isolation or Apink@ rooms in the medical unit
- 49 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 50 of 65
building faked psychiatric emergencies to get into the rooms so that they could harass Pollock and the female nurses by masturbating at them.
252. While exposing themselves and masturbating, the inmates regularly made sexually degrading and demeaning comments to Pollock such as AYou know you want this,@ AI know you want this big, black dick,@ AI want to eat your pussy,@ and the like. The inmates also shouted these and similarly sexually degrading and demeaning comments at Pollock and other female nurses at Martin CI while they were walking to and from the close management housing to make sick calls and dispense medication.
253. Pollock and other members of the medical staff at Martin CI searched for ways to remedy this sexual harassment. They asked that inmates be brought up on Aoutside@ charges. This was never done. She and the other female nurses were told to write DRs, which they did. However, the DRs appeared to disappear or were rejected. In some cases, Pollock was assisted by Correctional Officers in writing DRs, but this had no effect.
254. Pollock and the other female nurses complained about this sexual harassment to officials at Martin CI and were told in response that if they could not handle it they should quit. Pollock was reminded that she worked in a prison and that the close management cells were the inmates= Ahouse.@
255. The Department did not give Pollock any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
256. The harassment described above occurred during Pollock=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting.
- 50 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 51 of 65
Vesna Poirier 257. Plaintiff Vesna Poirier was employed by the Department as a Senior RN at Martin
CI from September 2000 to July 2001, when she voluntarily resigned. 258. Poirier=s duties as a Senior RN included dispensing medication and responding to
medical emergencies and sick calls to inmates in the close management housing as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary of the medical unit at Martin CI. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management.
259. Throughout her employment at Martin CI, inmates in close management custody regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at Poirier. The inmates regularly made emergency calls for medical assistance that were faked for the purpose of getting Poirier and other female nurses to come to the close management house so that the inmates could sexually harass them by exposing themselves and masturbating at them.
260. While-and in addition to-exposing themselves and masturbating at Poirier, inmates regularly made sexually degrading and demeaning comments to Poirier, such as ASuck on this,@ AI wanna fuck you,@ AI wanna lick your pussy,@ and the like.
261. The sexual harassment was so intense that on occasion female nurses were unable to go into close management housing. When Poirier went into close management housing, she tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to not look around, because there were always inmates masturbating at her and positioning themselves so that she could not avoid seeing them while they did so. On one particular night shift, Poirier spent the entire shift responding to emergency calls in close management; inmates masturbated at her each time she responded.
262. Poirier would never enter close management housing without a Correctional
- 51 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 52 of 65
Officer escort. She was once told by a security official that if she could not go into the unit by herself she should not work there. She responded that she was a civilian and that the security was provided for her.
263. Inmates in close management custody knew that they could get out of close management housing and into the medical unit if they cut themselves and would do so. They would be placed in the isolation or Apink@ rooms on Asuicide watch@ which required Poirier and the other nurses to continually observe the inmates. The inmates used this as an opportunity to masturbate at Poirier and other female nurses. When Poirier began working at Martin CI, the nurses had put up screens on the windows of the doors of the Apink@ rooms. This allowed them some relief from the sexual harassment by inmates. However, the Department later prohibited the nurses from doing this.
264. Poirier and the nurses met once with the warden to discuss the sexual harassment. The warden suggested that the nurses were being unreasonable and told them that they should either wait for the inmate to stop masturbating or skip the inmate and come back to him when he was finished.
265. Poirier and the other female nurses wrote numerous DRs on inmates for masturbating. At the meeting described above, she and the nurses asked the warden about the status of their DRs. They were told only that the DRs were Aunder investigation.@ Some of the DRs she wrote were rejected, because Poirier used the term Amasturbation@ rather than describe in pornographic detail the manner in which the inmate was masturbating.
266. The Department did not give Poirier any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
- 52 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 53 of 65
267. The harassment described above occurred during Poirier=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Poirier resigned, because she could no longer tolerate the sexual harassment described above. Susan Black
268. Plaintiff Susan Black has been employed by the Department as a Senior RN at Martin CI at various times from 1987 to present.
269. Black=s duties as a Senior RN include dispensing medication and responding to medical emergencies and sick calls to inmates in the close management housing as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary of the medical unit at Martin CI. She also monitors all infectious diseases, including HIV inmates. Her duties require regular contact with inmates in close management custody.
270. Throughout her employment at Martin CI, inmates in close management custody have exposed themselves and masturbated at Black. Virtually at any time she went into the close management housing, inmates masturbated at her. The inmates often stood up on the toilets or sinks in their cells so that they could be better seen by Black and masturbated at her. In one instance an inmate masturbated at her from the toilet in his cell, ejaculated on a piece of paper and showed it to her, saying Athis is for you.@ She wrote a DR on him but never heard anything further.
271. Close management custody inmates also faked suicidal complaints so that they would be placed in the isolation cells in the infirmary where they exposed themselves and masturbated at Black and other female nurses.
- 53 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 54 of 65
272. While exposing themselves and masturbating at her, as well as at other times, the inmates made sexually degrading and demeaning comments to Black, such as AHi, Miss Black, I=ve got a great big black dick for you,@ AI want to suck your pussy,@ ALet me stick this dick up your ass,@ AOh! I=m coming, I=m coming. This is for you,@ AI smell pussy,@ AWhy don=t you take a bath some times? Your pussy smells like fish,@ AWhat=s the matter, you ain=t had no good dick in a while? I=ve got some good dick for you,@ and the like.
273. Black wrote numerous DRs on these inmates. She was never told whether they went through and was never called upon to testify or otherwise tell what happened. She felt it was a waste of time to write DRs, because often the DRs were sent back to her to redo, allegedly because she had not filled them out correctly. In some cases, the DRs were returned multiple times.
274. The Department did not give Black any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
275. The harassment described above occurred during Black=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Donna Pixley
276. Plaintiff Donna Pixley was employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Martin CI from March 1999 to July 2001.
277. Pixley=s duties as a Senior LPN included dispensing medication on a daily basis and responding to medical emergencies and sick calls to inmates in the close management housing as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary of the medical unit at Martin CI. Her
- 54 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 55 of 65
duties required regular contact with inmates in close management. 278. Throughout Pixley=s employment at Martin CI, inmates in close management
custody regularly exposed themselves and masturbated at her. This occurred regularly when she was making daily medication passes or rounds. When she or other female nurses arrived in the close management housing unit B, inmates would call out Awork call@ which was a signal to other inmates that a nurse was present and to expose themselves and masturbate at her. While they exposed themselves and masturbated at her, the inmates made sexually degrading and demeaning comments, such as AI can smell your pussy,@ and Abitch, you need to take off that jacket. We need to see some ass,@ Alook nurse, I got something for you@ and the like. Inmates accused Pixley of having sexual relationships with Correctional Officers. Anytime Pixley dropped something for which she had to bend over the inmates would make sexually degrading and demeaning comments about her body. As a result Pixley tried never to bend over and further always wore a lab coat.
279. Inmates would routinely fake medical emergencies in order to expose themselves and masturbate at Pixley when she responded.
280. Inmates would claim they were suicidal in order to be placed in the isolation or Apink@ rooms in the infirmary. There they exposed themselves and masturbated at Pixley and the female nurses who were required to continually watch them.
281. Pixley wrote numerous DRs on these inmates. However, the DRs never seemed to achieve anything and she ultimately gave up.
282. Pixley and other nurses met with the warden and explained to him the problems. The warden said they would be addressed; however, nothing changed.
- 55 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 56 of 65
283. The Department did not give Pixley any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
284. The harassment described above occurred during Pixley=s employment at Martin CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Paula LaCroix
285. Plaintiff Paula LaCroix has been employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Martin CI since August 1999.
286. LaCroix=s duties as a Senior LPN include dispensing medication and responding to medical emergencies and sick calls to inmates in the close management housing as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary of the medical unit at Martin CI. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management.
287. Throughout LaCroix=s employment at Martin CI, inmates in close management have exposed themselves and masturbated at her on a daily basis. The inmates stand naked on toilets and masturbate so that she has to see them while she waits in the control unit and as she administers medications or as she goes to each cell to visually assess the condition of each inmate.
288. LaCroix has written numerous DRs on close management inmates, but the inmates were never punished for masturbating in her presence. Though she was not encouraged by administrative officials to write the DRs, she continued to do so in an effort to try to get rules enforced that required that inmates be dressed for sick call, for medication passes, and for medical rounds.
- 56 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 57 of 65
289. LaCroix and other nurses were also sexually harassed by close management inmates who were receiving medical treatment in the medical unit. Inmates masturbate in direct view of the nursing station.
290. While they expose themselves and masturbate at her, the inmates regularly make sexually degrading and demeaning comments to LaCroix, such as AI smell your pussy@ and ADon=t you want some of this?@
291. Recently, as LaCroix was being sexually harassed, she tried to alert her security escort so that he could witness the offense. She was finally able to do so by moving the Correctional Officer to her other side. The officer ended up in front of the cell-door window just as the inmate ejaculated on it. The officer did not write a DR on that inmate.
292. The Department did not give LaCroix any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
293. The harassment described above occurred throughout LaCroix=s employment at Martin CI and continues to occur. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Olivia Crisafi
294. Plaintiff Olivia Crisafi was employed by the Department as a Senior LPN at Glades CI from January 2001 until April 2001.
295. Crisafi=s duties as a Senior LPN included dispensing medication and responding to medical emergencies and sick calls to inmates in the close management housing as well as attending to inmates in the infirmary of the medical unit at Glades CI. Her duties required regular contact with inmates in close management.
- 57 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 58 of 65
296. During Crisafi=s employment at Glades CI, male inmates in close management custody routinely exposed themselves and masturbated at her while she was doing her rounds in the close management dorms. On one occasion in close management housing, an inmate called Crisafi over to his cell, allegedly to see something on his leg. The inmate masturbated at her. She told the Correctional Officer accompanying her that she would not treat the inmate. The officer only laughed. On another occasion, an inmate masturbated at her outside the nurses= station in the medical unit building.
297. While they exposed themselves and masturbated, the inmates made sexually degrading and demeaning comments to Crisafi such as ADamn, you=re fine@ and the like.
298. Crisafi did not write DRs on any of the inmates but told the charge nurse, and the inmates= behavior was witnessed by Correctional Officers.
299. The Department did not give Crisafi any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
300. The harassment described above occurred during Crisafi=s employment at Glades CI. She did nothing to welcome the conduct, and she found it offensive and physically disgusting. Jean Garrett
301. Plaintiff Jean Garrett is employed by the Department as a RN Specialist at Lake CI. She has been so employed since January 4, 2002.
302. Garrett=s duties include assessing patients, responding to medical and psychiatric emergencies, and dispensing medications to male inmates in close management custody. Her duties require regular contact with male inmates in close management custody. She and the other nurses at Lake CI are required to make daily rounds of the close management inmates and
- 58 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 59 of 65
to visually inspect all of them within their areas of work. 303. Throughout Garrett=s employment, specifically beginning within the first two weeks
of her employment at Lake CI, male inmates have regularly exposed their genitals and masturbated at her and the other female nurses. While doing so, the inmates frequently abused her and other female nurses there with sexually degrading and demeaning comments, such as, AI=m going to slide my dick in your mouth and your ass,@ and about her Ared pussy@ as well as exposing a penis while saying, AThis is for you.@
304. Isolation cells are directly behind the nurses= station, and the medication room has direct view of all the cells. Garrett and other nurses have requested one way screens but management told them, AIt=s not in the budget.@ Inmates stand on their commodes, sinks, and mattresses to be seen while they masturbate at the nurses.
305. On numerous occasions, Garrett and the other nurses at Lake CI have informed the Department of the sexual harassment they have suffered and have sought relief.
306. Garrett has written DRs on inmates who have exposed themselves to her and masturbated at her. The DRs have been filed with the prison security at Lake CI.
307. One Lt. Stafford has made comments to Garrett like, AYou knew you were in a male prison when you started here; now you will have to deal with it.@ Other statements by correctional officers include, AWomen shouldn=t be here in the first place,@ and, ASome women ask for it.@
308. Until approximately March 2002, well after the underlying administrative complaints in this case were filed by other putative class representatives, did the Department give Garrett or the other nurses any training to prepare her for or to address sexual harassment by inmates.
- 59 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 60 of 65
309. The harassment described above has occurred throughout Garrett=s employment at Lake CI and continues to occur. Garrett has done nothing to welcome the conduct, and she has found it offensive and physically disgusting.
Count I (Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 and Florida Civil
Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes) 310. The Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 309. 311. This claim is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent. 312. All Plaintiffs and the class are women and each is a Aperson aggrieved@ under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. 313. The Department is an Aemployer@ of the Plaintiffs and the class under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. 314. The acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment described herein were done on account of the Plaintiffs= sex. 315. The acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment described hereinabove are severe and pervasive and have affected and continue to affect the terms and conditions of the Plaintiffs= employment. 316. The acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment described hereinabove were unwelcome and offensive to the Plaintiffs. 317. The Department knew or should have known of the acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment described hereinabove, and at all times relevant to this action, the inmates
- 60 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 61 of 65
referred to herein were in the custody and control of the Department and the officials of the Department referred to hereinabove were agents of the Department and were acting in the course and the scope of their authority.
318. The foregoing acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment violate the Plaintiffs= right to be free from sex discrimination and sexual harassment under the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
319. As a direct result of the foregoing acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, the Plaintiffs have lost wages and other employment benefits and/or have suffered emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.
320. The foregoing acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment are continuing in nature.
Count II (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.) 310. The Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 309. 311. This claim is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent. 312. All Plaintiffs and the class are women and each is an “individual” and Aemployee@ under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. 313. The Department is a “person” and an Aemployer@ of the Plaintiffs and the class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.. 314. The acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment described herein were done
- 61 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 62 of 65
on account of the Plaintiffs= sex. 315. The acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment described hereinabove are
severe and pervasive and have affected and continue to affect the terms and conditions of the Plaintiffs= employment.
316. The acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment described hereinabove were unwelcome and offensive to the Plaintiffs.
317. The Department knew or should have known of the acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment described hereinabove, and at all times relevant to this action, the inmates referred to herein were in the custody and control of the Department and the officials of the Department referred to hereinabove were agents of the Department and were acting in the course and the scope of their authority.
318. The foregoing acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment violate the Plaintiffs= right to be free from sex discrimination and sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.
319. As a direct result of the foregoing acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, the Plaintiffs have lost wages and other employment benefits and/or have suffered emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.
320. The foregoing acts of sex discrimination and sexual harassment are continuing in nature.
Jury Demand 321. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the following relief:
- 62 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 63 of 65
(a) That the Court certify this matter as a class action pursuant to the provisions of subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certify the Plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel;
(b) That the Court declare that the Department=s practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.;
(c) That the Court enjoin the Department from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs and usages set forth herein;
(d) That the Court order the Department to enforce and implement policies, practices and procedures to remedy the unlawful practices complained of herein;
(e) That the Court enter judgment awarding the Plaintiffs and the class lost wages and other employment benefits and/or compensatory damages for emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish; (f) That the Court enter judgment awarding the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys= fees and costs and expenses of suit; (g) That the Court enter judgment awarding prejudgment interest as allowed by law; and (h) That the Court order such other and further relief as is just and proper.
Dated this 28th day of March 2006.
- 63 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 64 of 65
s/ C. Wes Pittman C. WES PITTMAN Fla. Bar No. 220507 Pittman & Perry, P.A. 432 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, FL 32401 (850) 784-9000 (850) 763-6787 (fax) s/ John C. Davis JOHN C. DAVIS Fla. Bar No. 0827770 Law Office of John C. Davis 623 Beard Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 (850) 222-4770 (850) 222-3119 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs
- 64 -

Case 5:06-cv-00056-RS-MD Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 65 of 65
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Second Amended Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial has been electronically filed using the CM/ECF system which will send an electronic notice and copy to Edwin R. Hudson, Esq., Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A., PO Drawer 1049, Tallahassee, FL 32302, and to John C. Davis, Esq., P.O. Box 3855, Tallahassee, Florida 32315 this 28th day of March, 2006.
s/ C. Wes Pittman C. WES PITTMAN Fla. Bar No. 220507 Pittman & Perry, P.A. 432 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, FL 32401 (850) 784-9000 (850) 763-6787 (fax)
- 65 -

 
 2007 WL 5067903 (S.D.Fla.) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Fort Pierce Division.
Melanie BECKFORD, Susan Black, Tita de la Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Paula Lacroix, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Vesna Poirier, Michelle Pollock, Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, and
Lee Wascher, Plaintiffs, v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State of Florida, Defendant.
No. 06-14324-CIV-MARTINEZ-LYNCH. August 31, 2007.
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order / Directive Regarding PlLintiffs’ Electronic Discovery Requests
Respectfully submitted, Lee E. Muschott, Florida Bar No. 0175107, Attorney E-mail address: petemuschott@aol.com, Law Office of Lee E. Muschott, Laurel Professional Park, 2940 South 25th Street (34981-5605), Post Office Box 2520 (34954), Ft. Pierce, Florida, Telephone: (772) 461-2891, Facsimile: (772) 461-3591, Edwin R. Hudson, Florida Bar No. 0355798, Attorney E-mail address: ehudson@henryblaw.com, Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A., 2508 Barrington Circle (32308), Post Office Box 14079 (32317-4079), Tallahassee, Florida, Telephone: (850) 222-2920, Facsimile: (850) 2240034, Laura Beth Faragasso, Florida Bar No. 654604, Attorney E-mail address: lbfaragasso @henryblaw.com, Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A., 2508 Barrington Circle (32308), Post Office Box 14079 (32317-4079), Tallahassee, Florida, Telephone: (850) 222-2920, Facsimile: (850) 224-0034, Attorneys for Defendant.
Defendant, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (DOC), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) and (c), moves the Court for the entry of a protective order and/or order directing the course of electronic discovery, including the establishment of appropriate time frames for response, and in support thereof, states:
1. Plaintiffs have served to DOC the request for production of electronic data which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. In summary, the request seeks all e-mail, attachments to e-mail, and other non-email electronic data within DOC from June 1, 1996 to date,1 which address any aspect of close management inmate “gunning” or masturbation; any aspect of hiring nonsecurity female staff from any private staffing agency for work at any all-male prisons within DOC’s Region IV; any mention of the names of such employees who worked at close management all-male prisons in Region IV,2 and any litigation hold directives to preserve the requested data.
3. The parties met by telephone conference call on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, to discuss the content and scope of the discovery request; the feasibility of DOC providing the data requested; and the burden to DOC of doing so - i.e., the time, expense, and staffing required to comply with the request. Present for the conference call were counsel for Plaintiffs and DOC; DOC’s e-mail administrator, Mr. Jerry Williams, and Plaintiffs technology expert, Mr. Adam Sharp.
4. The parties agreed that Plaintiffs’ request l(d) and 2 (d), all e-mails or other electronic data mentioning the names of nonsecurity female nurses supplied by outside staffing agencies, would have to be narrowed to searches for the names of the individual plaintiffs and the staffing agencies, as it would be impossible to search for names of unknown or unspecified employees.
5. Mr. Williams explained to Plaintiffs the manner in which e-mails and other DOC data are archived, deferring to another DOC employee, Mr. Michael Maddox, for more specific information regarding non-email electronic data; the steps required for the searches requested by Plaintiffs; and opined that it would take months and a tremendous amount of staff resources to run the searches requested.

6. Specific information regarding the feasibility, process and burden of these searches is provided in the sworn statements of Mr. Williams and Mr. Maddox, attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively, and may be supplemented with additional information.
7. In the course of the meeting, Mr. Williams explained that although instructed to the contrary, some DOC employees may not save all data to a server, but rather, may save only to the hard drive of their personal computer or laptop computer, thus requiring a manual instead of an automated search of each of DOC’s 12,000* computers.
8. In response to this information, Plaintiffs have now additionally requested an inventory of all computers on which the requested data might reside. It is obviously impossible to know which computer might contain such information without first searching the computers.
9. Plaintiffs’ counsel have opined that the burden and expense to DOC of the electronic data discovery is irrelevant and immaterial. In Plaintiffs view, DOC has an absolute duty to produce as requested, regardless of the breadth and burden of the request.
10. DOC has not begun to conduct the requested searches and is therefore unable to provide a privilege log at this time. However, DOC hereby preserves its right to assert any privilege cognizable at law which attaches to any of the data sought by Plaintiffs, including without limitation, the work product privilege, the attorney-client privilege, the ongoing criminal investigation privilege, the confidentiality of in formation such as home addresses and social security numbers of DOC personnel, and privileges related to the potential compromise of security within DOC’s institutions.
11. While possible to undertake the discovery efforts requested by Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs’ request for more than 11 years worth of electronic data asks for information which is inaccessible within the definition of Rule 26(b)(2)(B) because of the undue burden and cost associated with its production.
12. DOC seeks an order from the Court, following an evidentiary hearing if necessary, narrowing the scope and temporal boundaries of Plaintiffs’ request, shifting the cost of production to Plaintiffs, and extending the time for response to the narrowed discovery request to that which is reasonable for such a massive undertaking.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
DOC recognizes that as with paper discovery, the presumption in electronic discovery is that the responding party will bear the reasonable costs of production. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D. NY 2003). However, both decisional authority and Rule 26 recognize that it is within the court’s discretion to shift the costs of discovery when the requested data is not reasonably accessible, either because it is literally impossible to retrieve or because of undue burden or cost. Rule 26(b)(2)(B) and (C); Zubulake, supra. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that the burden or expense of discovery is “undue” when it “outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.” The Advisory Committee comments to the December 1, 2006, Rule 26 amendment which addresses electronic discovery suggest seven factors for consideration in balancing the costs and benefits of desired discovery: (1) the specificity of the discovery request;
(2) the quantity of information available from other and more easily accessed sources;
(3) the failure to produce relevant information that seems unlikely to have existed but is no longer available on the more easily accessed sources;
(4) the likelihood of finding relevant, responsive information that cannot be obtained from other, more easily accessed sources;
(5) predictions as to the importance and usefulness of the further information;

(6) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and
(7) the parties’ resources.
See also, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280, 284 (S.D. NY 2003).
One court has cogently addressed the particular burdens and difficulties encountered by governmental entities which must respond to voluminous electronic data requests. In McPeek v. Ashcroft, 202 F.R.D. 31, 34 (D. DC 2001), the court opined as follows in a case involving a demand for searches of backup systems:
[A] a strict cost-based approach ignores the fact that a government agency is not a profit-producing entity and it cannot be said that paying costs in this case would yield the same “profit” that other foregone economic activity would yield. Additionally, the government, which has no fewer rights than anyone else, has to insist that its employees do the restoration lest confidential information be seen by someone not employed by the government you has no right to see it. The reality, therefore, is that a government employee will be diverted from his ordinary duties to search backup tapes. When employees are thus diverted from their ordinary duties, the function of the agency suffers to the detriment of the taxpayers. Moreover, if government agencies are consistently required to pay for the restoration of backup tapes, they may be sorely tempted not to have such systems.
The same rationale applies to DOC as to the Department of Justice, the defendant in the McPeek case.
CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL In accordance with Local Rule 7.1, the undersigned certifies that she conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the subject matter of the this motion on Tuesday, August 28, 2007. Although the parties were successful in cooperatively narrowing and refining the search terms to a limited extent, Plaintiffs’ counsel advised that the expense and burden of responding to the electronic discovery request was one which DOC must exclusively bear. The parties are therefore unable to agree regarding the cost-shifting concerns raised in this motion.
WHEREFORE, in the Defendant, Florida Department of Corrections, respectfully request the Court to enter an order narrowing the scope or temporal boundaries of Plaintiffs’ request, shifting the cost of production to Plaintiffs, and extending the time for response to the narrowed discovery request to that which is reasonable for such a massive undertaking.
Respectfully submitted,
/sLee E. Muschott
LEE E. MUSCHOTT
Florida Bar No. 0175107
Attorney E-mail address: petemuschott@aol.com
Law Office of Lee E. Muschott
Laurel Professional Park

2940 South 25th Street (34981-5605) Post Office Box 2520 (34954) Ft. Pierce, Florida Telephone: (772) 461-2891 Facsimile: (772) 461-3591 /s Edwin R. Hudson EDWIN R. HUDSON Florida Bar No. 0355798 Attorney E-mail address: ehudson@henryblaw.com Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A. 2508 Barrington Circle (32308) Post Office Box 14079 (32317-4079) Tallahassee, Florida Telephone: (850) 222-2920 Facsimile: (850) 224-0034 /s Laura Beth Faragasso LAURA BETH FARAGASSO Florida Bar No. 654604 Attorney E-mail address: lbfaragasso@henryblaw.com Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A. 2508 Barrington Circle (32308) Post Office Box 14079 (32317-4079) Tallahassee, Florida Telephone: (850) 222-2920 Facsimile: (850) 224-0034

Attorneys for Defendant

Appendix not available.

Footnotes

1

Plaintiffs’ action focuses on the behavior of close management inmates at Martin Correctional Institution (MCI), all of whom were

removed from MCI in 2002.

2

MCI is but one of 16 correctional institutions in Region IV.

 
 2007 WL 5067904 (S.D.Fla.) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
Melanie BECKFORD, Susan Black, Tita De La Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Paula Lacroix, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Vesna Poirier, Michelle Pollock, Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith and Lee
Wascher, Plaintiffs, v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State of Florida, Defendant.
No. 2:06-CV-14324-JEM. September 19, 2007.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order
Respectfully submitted: C. Wes Pittman (Florida Bar Number: 220507), Attorney E-mail Address: wes@pittmanfirm.com, Pittman & Perry, 432 McKenzie Avenue, Panama City, FL 32401, (850) 784-9000, (850) 872-1969 (fax), John C. Davis (Florida Bar Number: 827770), Attorney E-mail Address: jdavis623 @ earthlink.net, Law Office of John C. Davis, 623 Beard Street, Tallahassee, FL 32303, (850) 222-4770, (850) 222-3119 (fax), Attorneys for Plaintiffs Beckford et al.
Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order as follows:
This case was originally filed by 29 plaintiffs with the EEOC and Florida Commission on Human Relations in August 2001 and with the circuit court in Washington County, Florida, in April 2002. The 14 Plaintiffs in this case (nurses and a classification officer - all non-security personnel) charge the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) with tolerating and fostering a sexually hostile environment under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendant has allowed a sexually hostile environment to exist by failing to remedy the practice of male close management and confinement inmates masturbating at (“gunning” in the prison slang used by the Defendant, its employees and the inmates) and making sexually harassing comments and gestures toward the Plaintiff each time they make their daily rounds in the close management and confinement units at the prison. The case was previously certified as a class action in the state court in Washington County. It was removed in early 2006 to the federal court in the Northern District of Florida, which decertified the class and transferred the cases of the 14 Plaintiffs to this Court.
The Plaintiffs have propounded requests for production of electronic discovery on the DOC. The discovery requests are attached to the Defendant’s motion for protective order. The request are limited to e-mails and other documents which specifically mention the terms “masturbation,” “gunning,” and any other term the DOC or its employees use synonymously with masturbation. The request is further limited in that it seeks this information only for Region IV (in which each of the Plaintiffs worked) and then only with respect to “gunning” at prison facilities in Region IV that house close management inmates. According to an affidavit submitted by the DOC in case there are only 5 prisons in Region IV that have housed close management inmates: Martin CI, Everglades CI, Charlotte CI, Okeechobee CI, Hardee CI. See affidavit of Rusty McLaughlin attached as Exhibit B. Thus, the request only seeks these narrowly defined documents for 5 prisons in Region IV.
The request also seeks any litigation hold directives that may have been issued by the DOC. Such directives would be required under the common law of spoliation as well as § 60Y-5.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, which requires employers to maintain and preserve all records pertaining to a discrimination complaint once it is filed.
The DOC contends that responding to request is too burdensome in that it would “take months and a tremendous amount of staff resources to run the searches requested.” In support of this contention it has submitted two affidavits of DOC employees. Based upon this it seeks a protective order limiting the scope of the requests, shifting the cost of producing the discovery to the Plaintiffs, and extending the time for it to respond. It also contends the documents have confidential and privileged information.

The DOC does not anywhere dispute the relevance of this discovery obviously because it is patently relevant. An element of a sexual harassment claim based on direct liability is whether the employer knew of the harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action to remedy it. Miller v. Kenworth of Alabama, 277 F.3d 1269, 1287 (11th Cir. 2002). In the case of indirect or vicarious liability, the employer can also defend based on whether the employer took reasonable measures to correct the harassment. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275 at 2292-93 (1998); Frederick v. Sprint/United Management Co., 246 F.3d 1305, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2001). The DOC defended against the claims of 13 other plaintiffs, also nurses like the Plaintiffs in this case, in the Northern District on this basis. That case was tried in January 2007 and the jury returned a verdict and the court entered judgment for all of the Plaintiffs in the total amount of $990,000, which the district court upheld against the DOC’s Rule 50 motion. The case subsequently settled for the amount of $1,300,000.
For the following reasons and based upon the affidavit of Adam Sharp attached hereto, the Court should reject these arguments and order the Defendant to respond to the discovery at its own cost.
1. Electronic Discovery Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure the presumption is that the responding party bears the expense of complying with discovery requests. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978). The courts have developed a two step process in considering electronic discovery requests. First, the court must determine whether the data sought is accessible. Peskoff v. Faber, 240 F.R.D. 26, 31 (D.D.C. 2007). Id. If it is accessible, then the responding party must produce the data at its expense. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B). As state in Peskoff, “[i]t cannot be argued that a party should ever be relieved of its obligation to produce accessible data merely because it may take time and effort to find what is necessary. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280, 283-84 (S.D.N.Y.2003).” Id. If the court determines the data is inaccessible, the responding party is still not relieved of the burden and cost of producing it unless it can show undue burden and expense. Id. In this second step of determining whether the responding party has shown undue burden and expense and who should ultimately bear the burden of producing the discovery, the courts have balanced the costs and benefits of the discovery. Id. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 list the several factors to be balanced: “the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.”
2. The Discovery Should Be Produced Because the Data Is Accessible
The DOC must produce the data requested and bear the burden of doing so in this case because it is accessible. Attached as Exhibit B is the affidavit of Adam Sharp, the principal of E-Hounds, Inc., which specializes in computer forensic services, including e-discovery and computer data recovery. Mr. Sharp attended the telephone conference alluded to in the DOC’s motion and questioned Mr. Williams, whose affidavit is submitted by the DOC in support of its motion. As stated in Mr. Sharp’s affidavit, the data at issue is “live data,” which means that, while the data may not be in use, it can be easily accessed by the DOC. Mr. Williams’ affidavit does not dispute this. Mr. Sharp goes on to describe in detail the relative ease with which the data can be searched for the specific e-mails requested. As he demonstrates and contrary to the DOC’s representations that it would take tremendous time and effort to search the data, the actual man-hours needed to perform the search would be 1 hour and 10 minutes. All of the additional time would be machine hours. These machine hours could be drastically reduced by employing multiple computers to conduct the searches. The review of the data for privileged information would only need to be undertaken after the searches were complete and responsive documents were identified. Moreover, there is a confidentiality order in place in the Northern District case, which Plaintiffs are willing to have applied to this case. The DOC has previously produced confidential documents under this order without any problems.
Finally, as to data that is accessible on portable and personal computers, the DOC claims that its employees defied its own policies and procedures by failing to its server e-mails that may exists on portable computers. This is a species of the argument of the parricidal criminal defendant who throws himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan. The DOC should not be rewarded and the Plaintiffs punished for the DOC’s failure to police and enforce its own policies and procedures. Further, as Mr. Sharp opines the specter of 1200 computers needing to be searched is a red herring. There is no reason why key systems could be identified that would limit the scope to be searched to a manageable level.

3.

Even If the Data Were Inaccessible (Which It Is Not), Balancing the Costs and Benefits, the DOC Should

Bear the Cost of Production

As noted above and not disputed by the DOC, the data is accessible. However, even it were found to “inaccessible,” a balancing of the costs and benefits of discovery weighs strongly in favor of the DOC, not the Plaintiffs, bearing the cost of producing the discovery.

a. The Needs of the Case: The information is clearly of substantial relevance to the case and discovery closes in December. Production of the information will help advance the case and the potential for settlement. This factor weighs in favor of the DOC’s bearing the cost of production.

b. The Amount in Controversy: As shown by the verdict, judgment and settlement in the Northern District case, which involved one fewer plaintiff, the amount in controversy is substantial. This factor weighs heavily in favor of the DOC’s bearing the cost of production.

c. The Parties’ Resources: The Plaintiffs are individual nurses (LPNs and RNs) and one former classification officer. The DOC is one of the largest, if not the largest, state agency. Clearly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of the DOC’s bearing the cost of production.1

d. The Importance of the Issues at Stake in the Action: The DOC is one of the largest, if not the largest, state agency. It employs thousands of citizens across the state, many of whom are women. Its health care professionals, in particular nurses, are largely women. The issue of sexual harassment is of substantial public importance. This factor weighs in favor of the DOC bearing the cost of production.

e. The Importance of the Discovery in Resolving the Issues: As noted in (a) above the discovery is of substantial relevance. It goes to proving an element of the Plaintiffs’ claims as well as refuting and/or establishing a defense of the DOC’s. Knowledge of the practice of “gunning” by the DOC personnel and whether the DOC and its personnel took any action to correct it or even took it seriously goes to the heart of the Plaintiffs’ case. This evidence will bear directly on these issues. This factor weighs heavily in favor of the DOC’s bearing the cost of production.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court should deny the DOC’s motion and require the DOC to produce the discovery requested at its own costs and expense.

Respectfully submitted:

s/C. Wes Pittman

C. WES PITTMAN (Florida Bar Number: 220507)

Attorney E-mail Address: wes@pittmanfirm.com

Pittman & Perry

432 McKenzie Avenue

Panama City, FL 32401

(850) 784-9000

(850) 872-1969 (fax)

s/ John C. Davis

JOHN C. DAVIS (Florida Bar Number: 827770) Attorney E-mail Address: jdavis623 @ earthlink.net Law Office of John C. Davis 623 Beard Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 (850) 222-4770 (850) 222-3119 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Beckford et al.
Appendix not available.
Footnotes 1 The DOC cites McPeek v. Ashcroft, 202 F.R.D. 31 (D.D.C 2001), in support of treating governmental defendants differently from other litigants. First, as explained in Mr. Sharp’s affidavit, unlike McPeek, the DOC does not have to restore backup tapes. The data at issue is accessible, “live data.” Moreover, as noted by the very same court in Peskoff v. Faber, McPeek is distinguishable from this case because, unlike it, this is not a case “where the anticipated cost of doing the forensic search will dwarf the final recovery.” Peskoff v. Faber, --- F.R.D. ---, 2007 WL 2416119 *6 (D.D.C. Aug. 27, 2007). Finally, to the extent McPeek treats governmental litigants any differently than other litigants, it should be rejected. Governmental litigants stand equal before the law as all other persons. See e.g., Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil), Basic Instruction 2.3.

 
 Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2007 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 06-14324-CIV-MARTINEZ/LYNCH

MELANIE BECKFORD, SUSAN BLACK, et al., Plaintiffs,

tJ fiLED by

D.C.

v.

OCT - ~ 2007

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLA.,

CLARENCE MADDOX
CLERK U. S. 015T. CT. S. O. OF FLA.

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------_/

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER/DIRECTIVE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY REQUESTS (DE 238)

THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon the above referenced

Motion. Having reviewed the Motion, the Response thereto, and the

Reply, this Court finds as follows:

1. The Plaintiffs' Response (DE 240) presents a persuasive

argument why the Defendant's Motion should be denied. The parties

have endeavored to narrow both the subject matter and

geographical scope of the discovery search, and the results of

that effort are reasonable. To this, the Plaintiffs present the

affidavit of their electronic discovery expert who addresses the

Defendant's concerns in detail.

2. It also appears that these discovery requests should

not be new to the Defendant. This and related litigation has been

underway since 2001, giving more than fair notice of the need to

research and preserve relevant information.

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2007 Page 2 of 2 3. It does not appear however that the Defendant has begun
the process of searching for the information the Plaintiffs request. This Court reminds the parties of the need to complete all of their discovery obligations in time before the upcoming discovery deadline.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this
~ of October, 2007.
~~~H, J
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: Lee E. Muschott, Esq. C. Wes Pittman, Esq. Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 252 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2007 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 06-l4324-CIV-MARTINEZ/LYNCH
MELANIE BECKFORD, SUSAN BLACK, et al.,

DEC 102007
ClARENC~ MADDOX ~lERr' U 5 015T CT.
" - ' -S-[)' - ' - " .:)F CU'., - - -

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLA.,

Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 247) AND DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME FOR COMPLIANCE (DE 248)

THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon the above referenced

Motion. Having reviewed the Motion, the Response thereto which

contains the Defendant's Request for Additional time, and the

Reply, this Court finds as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendant still has

not fulfilled its discovery obligations. This is despite nearly

half a year's time to do so, and an Order of this Court

specifically reminding the Defendant of the need for it to act

more expeditiously. 2. The Defendant explains that it has devoted significant

resources to the project, but ultimately it fails to state good

cause for why the Plaintiffs still have received no discovery.

This Court can only surmise that discovery would have been

finished by now had it begun the process in earnest when the

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 252 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiffs first requested it. 3. For these reasons this Court is granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion and compelling the Defendant to complete production by a date certain. The discovery deadline falls on December 15, 2007. In order to give the Defendant the benefit of some additional time, the Defendant shall have an additional week, up through December 21, 2007, to complete production. This Court stresses, however, that this extension of time only applies to the discovery subject of the pending Motion to Compel. For any other extensions of time or for any enlargement of the instant extension of time, the parties must seek such relief from the District Court.
4. This Court is cognizant of the fact that it may be difficult for the Defendant to complete the discovery within two weeks' time. The Defendant therefore should coordinate with the Plaintiffs in order to find ways to simplify and expedite discovery production, including taking advantage of the already executed confidentiality agreement or some type of hold-harmless agreement, for example, for a procedure for handling mistakenly disclosed information.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. The Defendant shall complete its discovery obligations by December 21, 2007. The Defendant's Request for Additional Time is
Page 2 of 3

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 252 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2007 Page 3 of 3 DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this
;'~~day of December, 2007.
cc: Lee E. Muschott, Esq. C. Wes Pittman, Esq. Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 1 of 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Ft. Pierce Division
Case Number: 06-14324-CIV-MARTINEZ-LYNCH
MELANIE BECKFORD; SUSAN BLACK; TITA DE LA CRUZ; CHARLENE FONTNEAU; LINDA JONES; PAULA LACROIX, JOYCE MEYER; SUSHMA PAREKH; DONNA PIXLEY; VESNA POIRIER; MICHELLE POLLOCK; LOURDES SILVAGNOLI; JANET SMITH; and LEE WASCHER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendant's Motions for Summary
Judgment against Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford (D.E. No. 61), Susan Black (D.E. No. 69), Tita de
la Cruz (D.E. No. 73), Charlene Fontneau (D.E. No. 82), Linda Jones (D.E. No. 105), Paula
LaCroix (D.E. No. 107), Joyce Meyer (D.E. No. 55), Sushma Parekh (D.E. No. 62), Donna
Pixley (D.E. No. 66), Vesna Poirier (D.E. No. 71), Michelle Pollock (D.E. No. 74), Lourdes
Silvagnoli (D.E. No. 81), Janet Smith (D.E. No. 85), and Lee Wascher (D.E. No. 99).
The Court prefaces this discussion by noting one point about the docket entry numbers
that appear in this Order. The Plaintiffs initiated this action in 2002, when they filed a class

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 2 of 20
action suit against the Defendant Department of Corrections ("DOC") in the Circuit Court for Washington County, Florida, alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex. At that time, the Plaintiffs' class was made up of twenty-nine women who had worked for DOC or were still working for DOC at male prison facilities throughout the State of Florida. The DOC removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, and the district court decertified the class on November 9, 2006, giving rise to a trio of smaller cases in the Northern, Middle and Southern Districts.
All the documents that had been filed in the class action suit up to that point, which include the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' depositions, the Defendant's motions for summary judgment and the Plaintiffs' responses in opposition to those motions, were collectively transferred into this District's docketing system as docket entry number 214. The individual documents were re-Iabeled as exhibits to that first docket entry.
However, to facilitate identification of the documents that were filed prior to transfer, the Court references all documents according to the number that they were assigned at the time of filing, rather than using their exhibit number under docket entry 214. The Defendant's motions for summary judgment are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. After careful consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Defendant's motions should be granted in part and denied in part.
I. Relevant Facts The Plaintiffs are suing their former employer, the DOC, for allegedly fostering a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes
-2-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 3 of 20
("FCRA").' More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that while they were employed at the DOC's
Martin Correctional Institution, they were subjected to sexual harassment by inmates in the close
management dorms and confinement units of the male prison. Close management units are areas
where inmates who abuse the rights of other inmates or are otherwise unable to follow prison
rules are housed to segregate them from the general prison population. The Plaintiffs, who were
mainly nurses or health officers,2 assert that their work brought them into regular contact with
inmates in close management custody or other confinement units such as isolation cells in the
prison infirmary. As a result, they allege that they were subjected to a steady stream of sexual
harassment which ranged from obscene and sexually offensive comments and gestures to
indecent exposure and "gunning," a practice in which inmates masturbate in the presence of
female staff. They allege further that the DOC had knowledge of this harassment, but allowed it
'The Plaintiffs allege in Count I of their Second Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 14) that the Defendant has violated the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes ("FCRA"). However, their reference to the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 is misleading. When the Legislature of the State of Florida adopted the FCRA in 1992, it amended Sections 760.01 of the Florida Statutes to read: "[s]ections 760.01-760.11 and 509.072 [760.10] shall be cited as the "Florida Civil [Human] Rights Act of 1992 [1977]." 1992 Fla. Laws ch. 177. Thus, the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 does not provide the Plaintiffs with a separate cause of action for sexual discrimination; it is simply the statutory predecessor to the FCRA. Accordingly, the Court analyzes the Plaintiffs' claims solely in terms of the FCRA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Because the Florida legislature patterned the FCRA after Title VII and Florida courts have analyzed FCRA claims by reference to Title VII case law, however, there really is no meaningful distinction between the Plaintiffs' FCRA and Title VII claims. Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11 th Cir. 1998); Singh v. Green Thumb Landscaping, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1133, n.2 (M.D. Fla. 2005). Therefore, the Court's analysis of the Plaintiffs' Title VII claims applies equally to the Plaintiffs' FCRA claims.
2Twelve of the Plaintiffs worked at Martin Correctional Institution as Registered Nurses (RN) or Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN): Melanie Beckford, Susan Black, Tita de la Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Paula La Croix, Joyce Meyer, Donna Pixley, Vesna Poirier, Michelle Pollock, Lourdes Silvagnoli, and Lee Wascher. Plaintiff Sushrna Parekh also worked in health care, serving as a Senior Physician/Chief Health Officer at Martin Correctional Institution. Plaintiff Janet Smith worked as a Classification Officer at Martin Correctional Institution where she was charged with keeping inmates apprised of matters that related to their custody status, including eligibility for gain time, job opportunities and monitoring disciplinary hearings. Although Janet Smith did not conduct daily medical rounds in the close management units as most of her co-Plaintiffs did, nonetheless, her duties also required that she visit inmates in the close management units on a regular basis.
-3-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 4 of 20
to go unchecked, fostering a hostile and abusive work environment. The Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief.
The Defendant has moved for summary judgment with respect to four different issues, but not all of the issues apply to each of the fourteen Plaintiffs. Accordingly, to facilitate discussion of the Defendant's motions, the Court briefly identifies each of these issues below before it discusses the standards of review and delves into a more detailed analysis of the Defendant's arguments.
Failure to Establish a Prima Facie Case for Hostile Work Environment The Defendant argues that six of the fourteen Plaintiffs - Melanie Beckford, Tita de la Cruz, Linda Jones, Sushma Parekh, Michelle Pollock, and Lee Wascher - have failed to establish one of the five elements that are required for a prima facie case of hostile work environment. That is, they have failed to show that the environment of sexual harassment which existed in the close management units of Martin Correctional Institution was sufficiently severe and pervasive, in both subjective and objective terms, to alter the terms and conditions of their employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment. See Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that the employee himself must perceive the harassment to be sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment, and his perception must also be objectively reasonable). For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court disagrees and finds that the Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on this issue.
No Basis for Employer Liability under FaragherlEllerth Affirmative Defense The Defendant argues that it is entitled to assert an affirmative defense with respect to the
-4-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 5 of 20
claims of Plaintiffs Tita de la Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Michelle Pollock, and Lourdes Silvagnoli because these Plaintiffs have failed to show that they utilized the anti-harassment procedures available to DOC employees. Consequently, the Defendant argues that it lacked knowledge of the Plaintiffs' complaints and thus, it cannot be held liable as an employer in accord with the rulings in Faragher v. City ofBoca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court disagrees and finds that the Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on this issue.
Failure to Establish Damages The Defendant argues that thirteen of the fourteen Plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence that they sustained any specific recoverable damages from the sexual harassment that they experienced at Martin Correctional Institution. As a result, the Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on the claims of Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford, Susan Black, Tita de la Cruz, Linda Jones, Paula La Croix, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Vesna Poirier ,Michelle Pollock, Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith and Lee Wascher. For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court disagrees and finds that the Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on this basis.
Lack of Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they are no longer employed by the DOC. The Defendant asserts this argument against all fourteen Plaintiffs and all fourteen Plaintiffs concede that they are, indeed, no longer employed by DOC. For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court agrees and finds that the Defendant
-5-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 6 of 20
is entitled to summary judgment on this one issue. II. Legal Standard of Review
A motion for summary judgment should be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). By its very terms, this standard provides that "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there will be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).
An issue of fact is "genuine" if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586. It is "material" ifit might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. As the United States Supreme Court has cautioned, in considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party and not make credibility determinations or weigh the sufficiency of the evidence. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. 530 U.S. 13 (2000) (noting that the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law is the same as that for granting summary judgment). Thus, the only issue that the court considers on a motion for summary judgment is whether the plaintiffs evidence has placed material facts at issue.
If the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party must establish all
-6-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 7 of 20
essential elements of the claim or defense in order to obtain summary judgment. See United States v. Four Parcels ofReal Prop. in Greene and Tuscaloosa Counties, 941 F. 2d 1428, 1438 (11 th Cir. 1991). The moving party "'must support its motion with credible evidence ... that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial.'" Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,331 (1986) (Brennan, J., dissenting)). "If the moving party makes such an affirmative showing, it is entitled to summary judgment unless the nonmoving party, in response, 'come[s] forward with significant, probative evidence demonstrating the existence ofa triable issue offact.'" Four Parcels ofReal Prop. in Greene and Tuscaloosa Counties, 941 F. 3d at 1438 (quoting Chanel, Inc. v. Italian Activewear ofFla., Inc., 931 F.3d 1472, 1477 (11 th Cir. 1991)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
When the non-moving party bears the burden of proof, the moving party does not have to "support its motion with affidavits or other similar material negating the opponent's claim." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (emphasis in original). To the contrary, the moving party may discharge its burden in this situation by showing the Court that "there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 324. Once the moving party discharges its initial burden, a non-moving party who bears the burden of proof must "go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
III. Analysis A. Do the Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief? Because the question of standing is a threshold matter, the Court addresses this argument
-7-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 8 of 20
first, deferring consideration of the Defendant's other arguments until it resolves the question of whether the Plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they are no longer employed by DOC.
The Court notes, at the outset, that this fact is not in dispute. All fourteen Plaintiffs concede that they are no longer employed by DOC, and as a result, all fourteen Plaintiffs have stated in their individual responses to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment that they decline to address this issue. In order to claim injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate that there is a real or immediate threat that he/she will be wronged again. City ofLos Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983). Thus, as the Supreme Court has advised, a plaintiff must show --"a 'likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.'" !d. (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 502 (1974).
Accordingly, where a plaintiff asks a court to enjoin her former employer from committing future discriminatory acts in violation of Title VII, she must allege and/or provide factual support for the claim that the former employer will subject her to future discrimination. Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, 130 F.3d 999, 1007 (1Ith Cir. 1997). Otherwise, as the Eleventh Circuit has stated, the plaintiff lacks standing to obtain injunctive relief. In view of these facts, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief and the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this issue as a matter oflaw. Because the Plaintiffs are also seeking damages, however, the resolution of the case cannot be decided on the basis of this issue alone.
B. Have the Plaintiffs Established a Prima Facie Case for a Hostile Work Environment? Title VII states that it is unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge
-8-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 9 of 20
any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." !d. The phrase "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" protects "the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women" including sexual harassment. Meritor Savs. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57,64-67 (1986). See also Gupta v. Fla. Bd. ofRegents, 212 F. 3d 571,582 (11 th Cir. 2000).
The courts recognize two types of sexual harassment claims: "(1) quid pro quo, which are 'based on threats which are carried out' or fulfilled, and (2) hostile environment, which are based on 'bothersome attentions or sexual remarks that are sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.'" Id. (quoting Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 751). In this case, the Plaintiffs have alleged a hostile work environment claim. To support such a claim, each plaintiff must establish each of the following five elements:
(1) that she belongs to a protected group; (2) that she has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature; (3) that the harassment was based on her sex; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) a basis for holding the employer liable. Gupta, 212 F. 3d at 582. The Defendant argues that six of the fourteen Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the harassment was sufficiently severe, from both a subjective and objective perspective, to alter the terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford, Tita de la Cruz, Linda Jones, Sushma Parekh, Michelle Pollock, and Lee Wascher cannot demonstrate one of the five elements that define a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim under Title VII.
-9-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 10 of 20
Additionally, the Defendant argues that several of these same Plaintiffs and a number of their co-Plaintiffs have failed to establish a basis for employer liability, which is yet another one of the five elements that define a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim. More specifically, the Defendant argues that the DOC cannot be held liable in this type of case where the Plaintiffs' do not allege they were subjected to a discriminatory employment action, unless the Plaintiffs show that they utilized the anti-harassment procedures available to DOC employees. According to the Defendant, Plaintiffs Tita de la Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Michelle Pollock, and Lourdes Silvagnoli have failed to make this type of showing.
As a result, the Defendant argues that it is entitled to assert what is known as the FaragheriEllerth affirmative defense. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807 (holding that an employer who is alleged to be vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of one of its supervisors may be relieved of liability if it can demonstrate that: (a) the employer exercised "reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior" and (b) the employee "unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. It)
The Court addresses each of these issues in tum. B. (1) Was the harassment sufficiently severe and pervasive?
In determining whether harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of a person's employment, the Supreme Court has advised courts to consider four factors: (1) the frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct rises is "physically threatening or humiliating" or whether it is limited to offensive
-10-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 11 of 20
comments; and (4) whether the conduct "unreasonably interferes with the employee's job performance." Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 US. 17,23 (1993). Courts should not view these factors in isolation, but should examine the conduct in context under the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the harassment is actionable. Mendoza, 195 F. 3d at 1246.
Additionally, the harassing conduct should be evaluated from both a subjective and objective perspective. Mendoza, 195 F. 3d at 1247. In other words, "the plaintiff must show both that a reasonable person would find the environment 'hostile or abusive' and that she actually did find the environment to be offensive." Dees v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., 168 F.3d 417,422 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Harris, 510 US. at 21).
Analyzing the Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford, Tita de la Cruz, Linda Jones, Sushma Parekh, Michelle Pollock, and Lee Wascher's claims according to these factors, the Court finds that their deposition testimony clearly establishes that they each perceived their work environment to be hostile and abusive.3 There is no requirement that a plaintiff present evidence of concrete psychological harm to demonstrate that she perceived her work environment to be hostile. As the Supreme Court has cautioned, "[t]he effect on the employee's well-being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required." Harris, 510 US. at 22.
Likewise, the Court also finds that a reasonable person would undoubtedly perceive the
3See the following depositions and affidavits or declarations: Beckford Deposition (D.E. No. 125, #4-5 at 34: 7-25); Beckford Affidavit, (D.E. No. 122 at 4, ~15); de la Cruz Deposition (D.E. No. 125 at #7, #9 at 32: 7-20; 51: 1-6; 60: 1-15); Jones Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #7-8 at 37: 22-25; 42: 2-16, 24-25; 43: 1-18; 45: 5-17); Parekh Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #2-3 at 43: 11-22; 62: 20-24); Parekh Affidavit (D.E. No. 124, #3-4 at 2, ~~ 4-8; 3, ~ 15); Pollock Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #5-6 at 52: 1-19); Wascher Deposition (D.E. No. 122, #5-6 at 17: 13-25; 29: 89; 29: 15-21,24-25; 30:1; 37: 23-25).
-11-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 12 of 20
Plaintiffs' work environment to be hostile and abusive given the barrage of sexually offensive comments, gestures, exhibitionist behavior and gunning that awaited the Plaintiffs when they entered the close management units. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not addressed a hostile work environment case where the employees' claims deal with sexual harassment by inmates in a correctional setting, the Ninth Circuit has addressed such a claim in the case of Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court finds that this ruling is directly on point.
In Freitag, the Plaintiff was a female security officer for a state correctional institution who alleged, like the Plaintiffs in this case, that she had been routinely subjected to exhibitionist masturbation by male inmates. !d. at 532. The Defendant had argued that prison employers should be uniquely exempt from liability for sexual harassment under Title VII given the inherently hostile nature of correctional settings and the fact that inmates are in custody for having breached social norms. Id. at 538. However, the Ninth Circuit wisely refused to carve out an exception for correctional institutions under Title VII, noting that "[n]othing in the law suggests that prison officials may ignore sexually hostile conduct and refrain from taking corrective actions that would safeguard the rights of the victims, whether they be guards or inmates." Id. at 539. This Court agrees.
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that exhibitionist masturbation was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute abuse, even though the Plaintiffs first complaint to prison administrators only detailed three incidents of masturbation. !d. at 540. Nevertheless, the Defendant argues that it cannot be held liable for the offensive conduct of the close management inmates, citing to a series of decisions in which correctional officers brought hostile work environment claims based upon harassment
-12-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 13 of 20
by inmates.4 The Court notes, however, that the Eleventh Circuit has stated that employers may
be found liable for the harassing conduct of non-employees if the employer knew or reasonably
should have known that the conduct was occurring, but failed to take prompt corrective action.
See, e.g., Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., 324 F.3d 1252, 1258, n.2 (l1th Cir. 2003) (noting that an
employer may be held liable for the harassing conduct of its customers if it knew about the
conduct and failed to promptly address it). See also 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e) (2009)(providing
that "an employer may be held liable for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual
harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agent or supervisory
employees) knows of should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and
appropriate corrective action).
The Plaintiffs in this case have testified in their depositions and affidavits to a regular
4The Court has examined each of these decisions - Slayton v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 206 F.3d 669,677 (6th Cir 2000), Powell v. Morris, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1017 (S.D. Ohio, 1999), and Hicks v. Alabama, 45 F. Supp. 2d 921 (S.D. Ala. 1998). However, the Court is not persuaded that these decisions support the Defendant's argument. For example, the Defendant notes that the Slayton court held that "'[i]t is without doubt that inmates' conduct, without more, is an insufficient predicate for a hostile work environment claim." See, e.g., (D.E. No. 73) (quoting Slayton, 206 F.3d at 677). Nevertheless, the Slayton court upheld a jury verdict for a female officer who had been subjected to sexual harassment by male inmates where "the institution fail[ed] to take appropriate steps to remedy or prevent illegal inmate behavior." Slayton, 206 F.3d at 677. Similarly, the Defendant quotes the Powell court's observation that "[I]t is absurd to expect that a prison can actually stop all obscene comments from its inmates ... people who have been deemed unsuited to live in normal society." See, e.g.,!d. (quoting Powell, 37 F. Supp. 2d at 1017). However, the Powell court also recognized that prisons may be liable for sexual harassment where they fail to take "proper preventative and remedial steps with regard to inmate behavior." Powell, 37 F. Supp. 2d at 1017. Finally, the plaintiffs in the Hicks case, unlike the Plaintiffs in the instant case, were female correctional officers who had received training in dealing with exhibitionist masturbation by inmates and had been warned that this type of conduct would occur in advance. Hicks, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 926-27. Additionally, the Hicks court ultimately found that the employer was not liable on the plaintiffs' hostile work environment claims because the plaintiffs failed to identify any remedial measure which the prison could have used to curtail the inmates' offensive conduct, but deliberately withheld. !d. at 933. Thus, none of the case which the Defendant cites actually support the proposition that a prison cannot be held liable to its employees for the sexually harassing conduct of its wards or inmates.
-13-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 14 of 20
pattern of exhibitionist masturbation.s They have also testified that they were not warned about
the nature of the work environment before they accepted the employment, that they were not
given any training in dealing with inmates under close management custody, and that they made
repeated complaints to supervisors or correction officers within the close management units and
filled out disciplinary reports when they subjected to gunning, but their complaints and disciplinary reports were largely ignored.6 Given these facts, the Court cannot say that "there is
an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case" on this issue. See Celatex, 477
u.s. at 324. Accordingly, the Defendant has not met its burden for summary judgment against
Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford, Tita de la Cruz, Linda Jones, Sushrna Parekh, Michelle Pollock, and
Lee Wascher's on the issue of whether their work environment was both subjectively and
objectively hostile and abusive. B. (2) Is the Defendant relieved afliability by the FaragheriEllerth affirmative defense?
The FaragherlEllerth defense requires an employer prove: "(1) that the employer
exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior and (2) that the
plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective
opportunities provided by the employer, or to otherwise avoid harm." Faragher, 524 U.S. at
SSee the following depositions and affidavits or declarations: Beckford Deposition (D.E. No. 125, #4-5 at 21: 23-25; 22: 1-15; 23: 15-2); Beckford Affidavit (D.E. No. 122 at 2, ~~ 4-6); de 1a Cruz Deposition (D.E. No. 125 at #7, #9 at 32: 7-20;); Jones Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #7-8 at 37: 22-25; 42: 2-16,24-25; 43: 1-18; 45: 5-17); Parekh Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #2-3 at 21: 16-22; 22: 5-14; 32: 1-14); Parekh Affidavit (D.E. No. 124, #3-4 at 2, ~~ 4-8); Pollock Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #5-6 at 52: 1-19); Wascher Deposition (D.E. No. 122, #5-6 at 17: 1325; 18: 1-7; 38: 5-19).
6See the following depositions and affidavits or declarations: Beckford Deposition (D.E. No. 125, #4-5 at 26: 1-3; 27: 14-25; 35: 7-13:); Beckford Affidavit (D.E. No. 122 at 3, ~~ 9-11, ~ 14;); de 1a Cruz Deposition (D.E. No. 125 at #7, #9at41: 21-23;42: 8-9;61: 13-25;62: 1-11); Jones Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #7-8 at 25: 14-16; 49: 2-25, 50: 1-23; 43: 1-18; 45: 5-17); Parekh Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #2-3 at 4: 14-23; 23: 7-18; 24: 6-18; 25: 5-16; 48: 20-25; 49: 1-19); Parekh Affidavit (D.E. No. 124, #3-4 at 3, ~ 9-10, ~ 14); Pollock Deposition (D.E. No. 121,#5-6at30:8-25;31: 1-10); Wascher Deposition (D.E. No. 122,#5-6at27: 13-20;31: 17-25;32:8-10).
-14-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 15 of 20
807; Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765 (same). "Both elements must be satisfied for the defendant-employer to avoid liability, and the defendant bears the burden of proof on both elements." Frederick v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 246 F. 3d 1305, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001).
The Defendant asserts that it had a formal process for pursuing employment and workrelated complaints of harassment, but Plaintiffs Tita de la Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Michelle Pollock, and Lourdes Silvagnoli have failed to show that they took advantage of this process. Thus, the Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.
The Court disagrees for a number of reasons. As a threshold matter, the Court is not persuaded that the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense even applies in this case. Both the Faragher and Ellerth cases dealt with situations where an employer in a Title VII suit was subject to vicarious or indirect liability for the harassment of an employee by a supervisor but the victimized employee had not suffered a tangible employment action.7 See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 780,807; see also Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 746, 764-65. The Supreme Court held that in cases of indirect liability, the defending employer is entitled to assert an affirmative defense. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807; Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 764. Although the Plaintiffs in the instant case do not allege that they suffered a tangible employment action such as a demotion or firing, they are not proceeding against their employer on theory of indirect or vicarious liability for supervisory conduct. Rather, they allege that the Defendant is directly liable for the harassing conduct of its inmates or wards because it negligently permitted them to engage in tortious conduct. (d.E. No.
7Indeed, the Defendant acknowledges that the Faragher case arose in the context of a vicarious liability claim. See. e.g., (D.E. No. 73 at 10).
-15-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 16 of 20
14). As the Eleventh Circuit observed in Dees v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., 168
F3d 417, 422 (11 th Cir. 1999), an employer may be held liable for sexual harassment under either one of two theories; direct liability or indirect/vicarious liability. Nevertheless, regardless of whether employer liability is alleged to be direct or indirect, if the employer had notice of the harassment, then it can be held liable. Id. at 422 (11 th Cir. 1999).
However, assuming arguendo, that the Defendant is entitled to assert the FaragherlEllerth affirmative defense in this case, the Court finds that the Defendant has failed to meet its burden for summary judgment. As the Court noted above, there are two elements that must be established under this defense, and the defendant employer bears the burden of establishing both elements. Frederick, 246 F. 3d at 1313. To reiterate, the Defendant must show that (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing conduct by the close management inmates and (2) that the Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of DOC's preventative or corrective policies or measures, or "to otherwise avoid harm." Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807; Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765 (same).
The Plaintiffs have presented evidence to dispute the Defendant's assertion that it had a formal sexual harassment process or policy for dealing with inmate abuse. According to the deposition testimony of DOC's designated expert on DOC employment policies, James Upchurch, the DOC's sexual harassment policy dealt with sexual harassment by other employees and did not address sexual harassment by inmates. (D.E. No. 126 at 44; 4-12, 14-25; 46-48. 49: 17-25; 50: 1-2). Additionally, the Plaintiffs have testified in their depositions and affidavits that they repeatedly filed disciplinary reports on inmates who had exposed themselves or masturbated
-16-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 17 of 20
in front of them, and attempted to implement their own corrective measures such as putting up screens to block the inmates' view, but that their supervisors largely ignored these reports and prohibited them from taking their own corrective measures, and/or largely refused to enforce a policy requiring that inmates be clothed when medical personnel arrived.8 Thus, this material fact remains very much in dispute and summary judgment is not appropriate.
Moreover, the Defendant has not cited to any evidence in the record which would show that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment by close management inmates. The burden to demonstrate this fact rests with the Defendant. Because, the Defendant has failed to establish the requisite elements of the FaragheriEllerth affirmative defense, the Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment against Plaintiffs Tita de la Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Michelle Pollock, and Lourdes Silvagnoli.
C. Have the Plaintiffs Established Damages? The Defendant argues that thirteen of the fourteen Plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence that they sustained specific injuries as a result of the inmates' sexual harassment. Thus, according to the Defendant, these Plaintiffs simply did not suffer any damages. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor with respect to the claims of the Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford, Susan Black, Tita de la Cruz, Linda Jones and Paula La Croix,
8See the following depositions and affidavits or declarations: de la Cruz Deposition (D.E. No. 125 at #7, #9 at 36: 4-25; 40: 21-23; 43: 18-25); Fontneau Deposition (D.E. No. 124, #10 at 22: 15-23; 23-25; 29: 15-23; 38: 1219; 46: 3-11; 50: 1-6, 10-21); Fontneau Declaration (D.E. No. 124, #10 at 3, ~~ 9-11); Jones Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #7-8 at 49: 2-25; 50: 1-23; 53: 18-23; 67: 1-9; 55-56); Parekh Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #2-3 at 23: 7-18; 24: 6-18; 25: 5-16; 33: 7-22; 48: 20-25; 49: 1-9); Parekh Affidavit (D.E. No. 124, #3-4 at 3, ~ 9); Pixley Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #3-4 at 29: 9-10,15-16,21-23; 30: 10-20; 33: 1-12; 38-40); Pixley Affidavit (D.E. No. 124, #4-5 at 2, ~~ 6-7); Pollock Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #5-6 at 30: 8-25; 31: 1-10); Silvagnoli Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #78 at 31: 6-25; 32: 1-14; 38: 9-39; 43-44; 47: 8-13; 50: 5-18; 66: 1-3 ).
-17-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 18 of 20
Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Vesna Poirier, Michelle Pollock, Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith and Lee Wascher.
The Plaintiffs correctly point out, however, that they are entitled to general compensatory damages under both Title VII and the FCRA and that general compensatory damages "may be inferred from circumstances as well as proved by testimony." See Ferrill v. The Parker Group, 168 F. 3d 468,476 (l1th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gore v. Turner, 563 F.3d 159, 164 (5th Cir. 1977)); see also Akouri v. State ofFlorida Dep't. ofTransp., 408 F. 3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover, a plaintiff need not proffer expert witness testimony concerning her pain and suffering; her own testimony of humiliation can be sufficient to establish grounds for general compensatory damages. See Marable v. Walker, 704 2d 1219, 1220 (l1th Cir. 2005) (holding that a plaintiffs testimony about feeling embarrassed and humiliated was sufficient in and of itself to entitle him to compensatory damages). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit's Pattern Jury Instruction for Title VII hostile work environment claims states that compensatory damages "cover both the mental and physical aspects of injury - - tangible and intangible".... and "no evidence of the value of such intangible things as emotional pain and mental anguish .. need be introduced." Instruction 1.2.2 - Title VII - Civil Rights Act Claims, Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) 2005.
The Court finds that all thirteen of the aforementioned Plaintiffs have testified to experiencing humiliation or some form of pain and suffering as a result of their hostile work environment. For example, nearly all of these Plaintiffs testified that they felt humiliated when the inmates made sexually degrading comments, and degraded, violated or overcome with anger
-18-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 19 of 20
and a sense of shame when the inmates exposed themselves and engaged in gunning behavior.9
Similarly, a number of these Plaintiffs testified to feeling demoralized when they found that there
was no follow-through on their complaints and the disciplinary reports that they filed on the
inmates' behavior were rejected. lo Additionally, twelve of these thirteen Plaintiffs testified to
experiencing various forms of mental anguish such as intrusive thoughts, anxiousness, marital
troubles, and lack of interest in sex, which they attributed to the stress of their hostile work
environment. II Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford, Susan Black,
Tita de la Cruz, Linda Jones, Paula La Croix, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Donna Pixley, Vesna
Poirier, Michelle Pollock, Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith and Lee Wascher have offered
evidence of their individual damages and the Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on
this basis.
9See the following depositions and affidavits or declarations: Beckford Deposition (D.E. No. 125, #4-5 at 34:7-10); Beckford Affidavit (D.E. No. 122 at 4,~ 15); Black Deposition (D.E. No. 125, #5-6 at 60: 15-21); de la Cruz Deposition (D.E. No. 125 at #7, #9 at 32: 7-20; 51: 1-6); Jones Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #7-8 at 37: 22-25); LaCroix Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #8-9 at 67: 24-25; 68: 1-3,23-25; 72: 17-19); Meyer Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #10: 59: 16-22); Parekh Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #2-3 at 43: 11-22); Parekh Affidavit (D.E. No. 124, #3-4 at 3, ~ 15); Pixley Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #3-4 at 40: 1-6); Pixley Affidavit (D.E. No. 124, #4-5 at 1-2, ~~ 3-5); Poirier Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #4-5 at 38: 9-10; 64: 17-18; 72: 23-25; 73: 17-18); Silvagnoli Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #7-8at51:9-18;63: 15-21); Smith Deposition (D.E. No. 121,#9-lOat35: 1-9;36:9-16); Wascher Deposition (D.E. No. 122, #5-6 at 17: 13-25; 18: 1-7; 37: 23-25).
\OSee the following depositions and affidavits or declarations: Beckford Deposition (D.E. No. 125, #4-5 at 25-26); Black Deposition (D.E. No. 125, #5-6 at 59: 19-25; 60: 1-12); de la Cruz Deposition (D.E. No. 125 at #7, #9 at 60: 1-15); Jones Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #7-8 at 49: 2-25; 50: 1-23); Meyer Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #10 at 54: 7-9; 66-67); Parekh Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #2-3 at 24:6-18; 25;5-16; 48: 20-25); Poirier Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #4-5 at 33-36; 38: 9-10); Pollock Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #5-6 at 30; 8-25; 31: 1-10); Silvagnoli Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #7-8 at 66:1-3); Smith Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #9-10 at 36: 9-16).
IISee the following depositions and affidavits or declarations: Beckford Deposition (D.E. No. 125, #4-5 at 34:20-22); Black Deposition (D.E. No. 125,#5-6at49: 17-21;50;7-21,25;51; 1-16); delaCruzDeposition (D.E. No. 125 at #7, #9 at 50: 6-25; 51: 23-24; 52: 1-17; 59: 11-25; 60: 1-25); Jones Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #78 at 69: 16-24; 70-72); LaCroix Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #8-9 at 67; 24-25; 68:1-3, 23-25; 69: 7-21); Meyer Deposition (D.E. No. 120, #10 at 59: 3-4; 60: 16-25; 61-64); Parekh Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #2-3 at 42: 14-17; 62: 20-24; 63: 2-12); Poirier Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #4-5 at 21; 64-65; 73: 3-7, 17-18); Pollock Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #5-6 at 52; 1-19); Silvagnoli Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #7-8 at 32-34; 38-39); Smith Deposition (D.E. No. 121, #9-10 at 33: 17-23; 34: 6-14, 24-25; 35); Wascher Deposition (D.E. No. 122, #5-6 at 30: 4-19).
-19-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2008 Page 20 of 20

In light of the foregoing, and for the reasons that the Court cited at calendar call on April 24, 2008,12 it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs Melanie Beckford (D.E. No. 61), Susan Black (D.E. No. 69), Tita de la Cruz (D.E. No. 73), Charlene Fontneau (D.E. No. 82), Linda Jones (D.E. No. 105), Paula LaCroix (D.E. No. 107), Joyce Meyer (D.E. No. 55), Sushma Parekh (D.E. No. 62), Donna Pixley (D.E. No. 66), Vesna Poirier (D.E. No. 71), Michelle Pollock (D.E. No. 74), Lourdes Silvagnoli (D.E. No. 81), Janet Smith (D.E. No. 85), and Lee Wascher (D.E. No. 99) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. They are GRANTED to the extent that the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. In all other respects, the Defendant's motions for summary judgment are DENIED.
?, DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, May 2008.

Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Lynch All Counsel of Record

JOSE/~. MARTINEZ UNI~D STATES D STRICT JUDGE

12The Court infonned the parties at Calendar Call how it would be ruling on the Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and briefly explained its reasons, advising the parties that it would follow the bench ruling with a formal written order.
-20-

 
 Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Ft. Pierce Division
Case Number: 06-14324-CIV-MARTINEZ-LYNCH
MELANIE BECKFORD; SUSAN BLACK; TITA DE LA CRUZ; CHARLENE FONTNEAU; LINDA JONES; PAULA LACROIX, JOYCE MEYER; SUSHMA PAREKH; DONNA PIXLEY; VESNA POIRIER; MICHELLE POLLOCK; LOURDES SILVAGNOLI; JANET SMITH; and LEE WASCHER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
----------------------------~/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or
In the Alternative New Trial (D.E. Nos. 382, 383). The above-captioned case went to trial before
a jury commencing on April 29, 2008, and the jury found the Defendant liable on Counts I and II of
the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 14), which allege violations ofthe Florida Civil
Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes and Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. The jury awarded each Plaintiff damages in the amount of $45,000.00,
and the Court entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
I. Standard
Rule 50(b) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure provides that a party may renew a motion

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 2 of 9
for judgment as a matter oflaw after the entry ofjudgment following a jury verdict. Fed. R. Civ. P 50(b). Rule 50(b) also provides that the movant may request a new trial at this time under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In deciding whether to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of a jury trial, a court applies many of the same standards that it uses to evaluate pretrial motions for summary judgment. See Berman v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 160 F.3d 697, 701 (11 th Cir. 1998). Thus, as is the case with a motion for summary judgment, on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, "a court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. The court should grant the motion only if it finds that "reasonable people exercising impartial judgment could not arrive at a contrary verdict."!d. "[T]he court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). "Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe." Id. at 151.
Rule 59 provides that the "court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues--and to any party-- ... after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). "As ... in the context of judgments as a matter oflaw, courts are generally not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable." Aronowitz v. Health-Chern Corp., 513 F.3d 1229, 1242 (11 th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted).
-2-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 3 of 9
II. Analysis Defendant has raised several grounds for overturning the jury's verdict in this case. For the
reasons discussed below, the Court finds that these do not provide sufficient grounds for granting Defendant's motion. A. Defendant's liability for harassment by inmates
Defendant renews its argument, raised in its motion for summary judgment, that because it is legally obligated to house inmates, and because inmates' offensive behavior cannot be wholly eliminated, it should not be liable for harassment by the inmates. As discussed in this Court's ruling on Defendant's motion for summary judgment, however, this argument is not persuasive.
The Eleventh Circuit has stated that employers may be found liable for the harassing conduct of non-employees if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was occurring, but failed to take prompt corrective action. See, e.g., Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., 324 F.3d 1252, 1258, n.2 (lith Cir. 2003) (noting that an employer may be held liable for the harassing conduct of its customers ifit knew about the conduct and failed to promptly address it); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (e) (2009) (providing that "an employer may be held liable for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agent or supervisory employees) knows ofshould have known ofthe conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action."). Although the Eleventh Circuit has not spoken on the subject, many courts, even those cited by Defendant, have held that "a corrections department can be held liable for inmate sexual harassment directed at female employees, particularly when it is shown that the department refused to take appropriate corrective action." Garrett v. Dep't of Corrections, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1297 (M.D. Fla. 2008); accord Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528,
-3-

--- ----------------------
Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 4 of 9
539 (9th Cir. 2006); Slayton v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Services, 206 F.3d 669,677 (6th Cir. 2000); Powell v. Morris, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1011,1017 (S.D. Ohio, 1999). Defendant's argument that holding it liable under Title VII for sexual harassment by inmates is the equivalent of holding them strictly liable for inmate behavior is without merit. This Court and the other courts that have held corrections departments may be liable for harassment by inmates have not ruled that corrections departments are required to eliminate all harassing behavior by inmates, merely that they must "take appropriate corrective action," Garrett, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 1297, or, in the words ofthe verdict form before the jury, "exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly" sexual harassing behavior. (D.E. Nos. 366-79) (emphasis added); see also Freitag, 468 F.3d at 539 ("[n]othingin the law suggests that prison officials may ignore sexually hostile conduct and refrain from taking corrective actions that would safeguard the rights of the victims, whether they be guards or inmates."); Slayton, 206 F.3d at 677 (holding a corrections department liable when "the institution fail[ed] to take appropriate steps to remedy or prevent illegal inmate behavior."). There was sufficient evidence at trial that Defendant failed to take reasonable and prompt corrective action to remedy sexual harassment. B. Harassment based upon sex
Defendant has asserted that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they suffered harassment because of their sex, because there was evidence at trial that inmates sometimes harassed male corrections employees. Sexual harassment under Title VII must be based upon the Plaintiffs' sex. Gupta v. Fla. Ed. ofRegents, 212 F. 3d 571,582 (11 th Cir. 2000). In this case, however, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the harassment was because of Plaintiffs' sex.
The fact that inmates masturbated at the Plaintiffs, rather than merely making sexual remarks
-4-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 5 of 9
or performing actions less indicative of sexual arousal, provides evidence that the harassment was because of Plaintiffs' female gender. "A harasser may well make sexually demeaning remarks and putdowns to the plaintifffor sex-neutral reasons, ... but he is far less likely to make sexual advances without regard to sex." La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 302 F.3d474, 480 (5th Cir. 2002). No male employees testified that they were masturbated at or "gunned." Furthermore, the evidence clearly showed that females were disproportionately targeted for harassing behavior by the inmates, and Defendant acknowledged that there was testimony that Defendant followed up on complaints by male corrections officers more often than complaints by female nurses. That evidence was sufficient to find that the harassment was because of Plaintiffs' sex.
c. Availability of corrective measures
Defendant next asserts that the verdict should be overturned because the Plaintiffs did not prove that the correction actions that Defendant could have taken would have worked. In support of this argument, Defendant cites cases which refer to speculative evidence! being insufficient to show discriminatory animus. See, e.g., Slusherv. Arlington County, 673 F. Supp. 752, 753-54 (E.D. Va. 1987). Defendant has not cited any cases requiring Plaintiffs to prove the effectiveness of corrective measures that Defendant declined to take. Defendant has also not cited to any cases holding that such proof is an element of a hostile environment sexual harassment claim, nor is the Court aware of any. See Gupta, 212 F. 3d at 582 (listing elements of a hostile environment claim).
As discussed above, Defendant's liability in this case is premised upon their failure to take
! Although Defendant did not object at trial that Plaintiffs expert, Ron Andrews, gave speculative testimony regarding measures Defendant could have taken, Defendant's rely on this in their motion. Defendant's failure to object in trial operates as a waiver, however. Christopher v. Cutter Laboratories, 53 F.3d 1184, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 1995).
-5-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 6 of 9
appropriate steps and promptly implement corrective action, not their failure to control utterly all aspects of inmate behavior. See, e.g., Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., 324 F.3d 1252, 1258, n.2 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting that an employer may be held liable for the harassing conduct of its customers if it knew about the conduct and failed to promptly address it); Slayton v. Ohio Dept. ofYouth Services, 206 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that a corrections department may be held liable for failure to take corrective steps). In this case, there was evidence that Defendant failed to enforce its own rules requiring that inmates be dressed, that Plaintiffs were discouraged from writing disciplinary reports and their reports and complaints were largely ignored, and Defendant prohibited the measures the nurses themselves took to remedy the situation, such as erecting screens. This evidence is sufficient to show that Defendant failed to take prompt remedial action to prevent the harassing behavior. D. Defendant's Faragher defense and proposed jury instruction
Defendant argues both that this Court should have instructed the jury on the Faragher defense and that this Court should grant Defendant judgment as a matter of law on the Faragher defense. The Faragher defense is an affirmative defense that may be raised only by an employer who is being held indirectly or vicariously liable for sexual harassment. Faragher v. City ofBoca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 764 (1998). Plaintiffs proceeded with this case under a theory of direct liability, instead of indirect liability. "Direct liability arises when the employer either knew or should have known of supervisory harassment but failed to take remedial action." Howard v. City ofRobertsdale, 168 Fed. Appx. 883, 889 (l1th Cir. 2006); see also Dees v. Johnson Control, 168 F.3d417, 421 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that an employer is directly liable for harassment where the employer "either intended, or negligently
-6-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 7 of 9
permitted, the tortious conduct to occur."). In this case, the jury was instructed that, in order to find the Defendant liable, they had to find that Defendant knew or should have known ofthe harassment, which is consistent with the requirements for direct liability. See (D.E. No. 363 - Jury Instructions); Dees, 168 F.3d at 422; Howard, 168 Fed.Appx. at 889. Because the Plaintiff proceeded with, and the jury was instructed for, direct liability, and because the Faragher defense is not available in cases of direct liability, the Court was correct not to instruct the jury on Faragher. Thus, the lack of a Faragher instruction is not grounds for a new trial.
Even had the Faragher defense been applicable, however, Defendant would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon it. As the Eleventh Circuit stated in Dees, "in regard to both the direct liability standard and the employer's affirmative defense to vicarious liability, the employer's notice of the harassment is of paramount importance; if the employer had notice of the harassment (which is required for direct liability but not required for vicarious liability), then it is liable unless it took prompt corrective action." Dees, 168 F.3d at 422. This is because the Faragher defense requires an employer prove: "(1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior and (2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage ofany preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer, or to otherwise avoid harm." Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807; Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765. There was ample evidence before the jury that, despite notice of the harassment in the form of actual or constructive knowledge, Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior. Thus, judgment as a matter oflaw on the Faragher defense is not warranted. E. Limited Sequestration
Defendant argues that it is entitled to a new trial because the Court denied its motion for
-7-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 8 of 9
limited sequestration ofthe Plaintiffs. Defendant wished each Plaintiff sequestered until after until she testified. Defendant does not cite any authority for the proposition that plaintiffs in a sexual harassment case should not be permitted to hear each other's testimony. Plaintiffs testified at length about their own experiences and adequately established their respective Title VII claims. Thus, the Court does not find this a reasonable basis for a new trial. F. Admission of the Washington Correctional Institute letter
Defendant argues that it is entitled to a new trial because the Court permitted introduction of a letter prepared by nurses, not Plaintiffs, who worked at the Washington Correctional Institute, complaining ofthe same type of harassment suffered by Plaintiffs at their institute. The letter was probative evidence of knowledge at a high level of the Department of Corrections that the type of harassment Plaintiffs complained of was occurring in correctional institutes. The Court disagrees with Defendant that the prejudicial effect ofthis letter outweighed its probative effect. Its admission does not justify discarding the jury's verdict. G. Defendant's proposed modification of pattern jury instruction
Defendant requested that the Eleventh Circuit Standard Jury Instruction 1.2.2 be modified to read as follows:
It should be remembered that the Plaintiffs chose to work in a correctional facility. Anyone who works in a prison, particularly in a position with frequent inmate contact, must expect some off-color interactions. Prison employees inherently assume the risk of some rude inmates. It is absurd to expect that a prison can actually stop all obscene comments and conduct from its inmates - people who have been deemed unsuited to live in normal society. Defendant has not, however, demonstrated that the Eleventh Circuit's patternjury instruction was inadequate. The pattern jury instruction directs the jury to find liability only if a supervisor permitted the harassment and only if the plaintiff did not directly or indirectly invite or solicit the
-8-

Case 2:06-cv-14324-JEM Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2009 Page 9 of 9
harassment. This is more suitable for this case than the Defendant's proposed instruction, which misleadingly instructs the jury that it is "absurd" to expect a prison to stop "all" obscene comments, despite the fact that the prison's failure to stop all obscene comments is not the basis for liability asserted by Plaintiffs. This Court's use of the pattern jury instruction is not a sufficient reason to disregard the jury verdict and direct a new trial.
Finally, with respect to Defendant's last contention, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative New Trial (D.E. No. 382, 383) is DENIED. 2. This case is CLOSED and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
22 DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this day of February, 2009.

Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Lynch All Counsel of Record

MARTINEZ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-9-

 
 Beckford v. Department of Corrections, State of Fla., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2009)
2009 WL 2905727 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Fort Pierce Division.
Melanie BECKFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant. No. 06–14324–CIV. | Sept. 8, 2009.
Attorneys and Law Firms Carl Wesley Pittman, Pittman & Perry, Panama City, FL, John Clark Davis, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiffs. Edwin Robert Hudson, Laura Beth Faragasso, Henry Buchanan Hudson Suber & Carter PA, Tallahassee, FL, James Orrin Williams, Jr., Williams Leininger & Cosby, West Palm Beach, FL, Lee E. Muschott, Office of Lee E. Muschott, Fort Pierce, FL, for Defendant. Opinion
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSE M. MARTINEZ, District Judge. *1 THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Frank J. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Resubmitted 418). The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Expert Fees, and Litigation Expenses (D.E. No. 427). No objections have been filed. Being fully advised in the premises, it is ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Lynch’s Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. 427) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that 1. Plaintiff’s Resubmitted Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Expert Fees, and Litigation Expenses (D.E. No. 418) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiffs $372,812.50 in attorney’s fees and $29,859.89 in expenses, for a total of $402,672.39. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami Florida, this 3 day of September, 2009.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S RESUBMITTED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPERT FEES, AND LITIGATION EXPENSES (DE 418)
FRANK J. LYNCH, JR., United States Magistrate Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon the above Motion. Having reviewed the Motion, the Defendant’s Response, the Reply, and the various attachments thereto, this Court recommends as follows:
1

Beckford v. Department of Corrections, State of Fla., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2009)
1. This Court set out both the basis for the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to a fee and cost award and the “lodestar” reasonable fee standard in its prior Report and Recommendation (DE 412) on the matter. A major dispute at that time concerned the Plaintiffs’ inclusion of fees and costs incurred (and already recovered) in a separate case. The District Court, upon ruling on the Report and Recommendation and the Plaintiff’s objections thereto, permitted the Plaintiffs to resubmit their fee request after eliminating already compensated time and deducting the time and expense for the initial motion. Lastly the District Court permitted Mr. Spriggs and Mr. Pittman to charge $350 and $300, respectively, based on the Defendant’s consent to those hourly rates.
2. The Plaintiffs now seek $404,887.50 in attorney and paralegal fees. They present no argument demonstrating the reasonableness of their fee request, namely, the 639.1 work hours they are claiming. Instead they contend that the reasonableness of their fee request already has been accepted and now is the law of the case:
The Plaintiffs further submit that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the Court’s Order adopting it in part constitute a determination that the Plaintiffs are entitled to all attorney’s fees, without reduction, sought by them for [the time not excluded by those rulings.] This is mandated by the failure of the Defendant to object to any part fo the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
However the prior rulings never reached the question of whether the claimed hours were reasonable under the lodestar standard. Instead all that the prior Report and Recommendation answered was what kind of hours are compensable in the first place. In addition to rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for double-billing, as mentioned above, this Court found no per se bar against hours incurred by multiple counsel or for travel. The purpose of the Report and Recommendation was to narrow the issues down as far as possible in order to facilitate settlement or, failing which, to simplify re-briefing. Indeed, had this Court found the non-excluded hours reasonable, there would have been little need for these further proceedings.
*2 3. The Plaintiffs leave their fee request unsubstantiated, and the Defendant raises several objections. First the Defendant objects to the continued inclusion of hours that should have been deducted pursuant to the resubmission instructions. The Defendant also objects to the time the Plaintiffs’ counsel spent on their objection to the first Report and Recommendation despite the District Court’s instruction to “deduct all hours and expenses incurred in litigating the present motion.” Of the hours that do fall within the District Court’s parameters, the Defendant raises several additional objections. The Defendant objects to the significant amount of time that both of the Plaintiffs’ two lead attorneys bill for conferring with each other, time which it considers duplicative if not excessive. The Defendant objects to billing for purely clerical tasks such as the printing of pleadings, document preparation, and equipment preparation; work done clearly after the trial period; and otherwise vague entries or unsupported time.
4. By its reckoning the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs’ billing should be reduced by at least $32,075.00, and the Plaintiffs concede this reduction. The Defendant, who has greater personal knowledge and experience with this litigation, reached this amount after conducting its own review of the Plaintiffs’ billing records. Consequently this Court sees no need to address whether further reductions are warranted. Lastly the Defendant asks for a fee reduction given the various defects in the resubmitted motion. Albeit non-compliant with the resubmission instructions, the Defendant proffers no other evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant a reduction for punitive reasons. The Defendant’s request therefore is denied.
5. This Court turns next to the Plaintiffs’ expense request. The Defendant objects to vague and excessive cost items such as for “bulk mailing”; overhead costs such as for envelopes and office IT service; and atypical legal research expenses. This Court sustains these objections since these cost items exceed even the broad definition of litigation expense. However this Court overrules the Defendant’s objection to the electronic discovery expert fee since the expert’s services were valuable to the case’s prosecution.
6. Based on the Defendant’s figures, this Court finds the Plaintiffs entitled to recover a total of $372,812.50 in attorney and paralegal fees and a total of $29,859.89 in expenses.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court recommends to the District Court that the Plaintiffs’ Resubmitted Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Expert Fees, and Litigation Expenses be GRANTED, in part, for a total of $402,672.39.
The parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of this Report and Recommendation within which to file objections, if any, with the Honorable Jose E. Martinez, the United States District Judge assigned to this case.
2

Beckford v. Department of Corrections, State of Fla., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2009) DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 3d day of February, 2009.
3

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-14324

1 of 21

APPEAL, FJL, MEDIATION, RECOUT, REF_DISCOV
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft. Pierce) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−14324−JEM

Beckford et al v. Department of Corrections, et al Assigned to: Judge Jose E. Martinez Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr Case in other court: USCA, 09−11540−G
USCA, 09−14903−G Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/13/2006 Date Terminated: 05/15/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Melanie Beckford

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman Pittman &Perry 432 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, FL 32401 850−784−9000 Fax: 850−872−1969 Email: wes@pittmanfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clark Davis 623 Beard Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 850−222−4770 Fax: 222−3119 Email: john@johndavislaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Charlene Fontneau

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tita De La Cruz

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lee Wascher

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Clark Davis

Case: 2:06-cv-14324 Plaintiff Linda Jones
Plaintiff Joyce Meyer
Plaintiff Sushma Parekh
Plaintiff Lourdes Silvagnoli
Plaintiff Janet Smith
Plaintiff Michelle Pollock

2 of 21

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by

Case: 2:06-cv-14324
Plaintiff Vesna Poirier
Plaintiff Susan Black
Plaintiff Donna Pixley
Plaintiff Paula LaCroix
V. Defendant Department of Corrections

3 of 21

Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Carl Wesley Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clark Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Edwin Robert Hudson Henry Buchanan Hudson Suber &Carter PA 2508 Barrington Circle

Case: 2:06-cv-14324
Defendant State of Florida

4 of 21

PO Box 14079 Tallahassee, FL 32317−4079 850−222−2920 Fax: 850−224−0034 Email: ehudson@henryblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Beth Faragasso Henry Buchanan Hudson Suber &Carter PA 2508 Barrington Circle PO Box 14079 Tallahassee, FL 32317−4079 850−222−2920 Fax: 850−224−0034 Email: lbfaragasso@henryblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Orrin Williams , Jr. Williams Leininger &Cosby 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401−5014 561−615−5666 Fax: 615−9606 Email: jwilliams@wlclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee E Muschott Office of Lee E. Muschott 2940 S 25 Street Fort Pierce, FL 34981 772−461−2891 Fax: 461−3591 Email: PeteMuschott@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maura McNay Burgreen Williams Leininger &Cosby 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401−5014 561−615−5666 Email: mburgreen@wlclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Edwin Robert Hudson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/13/2006

# Docket Text
214 Case transferred in from Northern District of Florida; Case Number 5:06cv56−RS. Electronic file consisting of documents numbered #1 thru #213, including transfer order and docket sheet received, filed by Plaintiffs, Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh.(Attachments: (1) Exhibit: Docket sheet pages #1 thru #15 and (2) Exhibit: Docket sheet pages #16 thru #28)(cga)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

5 of 21

11/30/2006
12/05/2006 12/18/2006 12/20/2006 12/28/2006 01/19/2007

Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2006 (cga). (Entered: 11/20/2006)
215 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. Responses due by 12/14/2006 (Davis, John) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
216 Order Requiring parties to meet and file Joint Scheduling Report and Proposed Order and directing parties to file certificates of interested parties. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 12/5/06. (lk) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
217 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Department Of Corrections. Responses due by 1/3/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed Order Granting Motiont to Appear Pro Hac Vice)(Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
218 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
219 NOTICE by Department Of Corrections Certificate of Interested Parties (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
220 REPORT REGARDING Joint Scheduling Report by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

6 of 21

02/22/2007 02/22/2007 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 04/05/2007
04/06/2007
04/09/2007
04/12/2007 04/17/2007 05/14/2007

LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Davis, John) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
221 NOTICE by State Of Florida Notice of Filing Defendant's Initial Disclosures (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
222 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Lists of Exhibits and Witnesses pursuant to Joint Scheduling Report (Davis, John) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
223 ORDER FOR STATUS REPORT UPON CASE TRANSEFERRED FROM ANOTHER DISTRICT. Status Report due by 4/17/2007.Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/04/07.(lk) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
224 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr for Discovery, ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation; 15 days to appoint mediator. Calendar Call set for 4/24/2008 01:45 PM in Miami Division before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Jury Trial set for 4/28/2008 in Miami Division before Judge Jose E. Martinez.Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/4/07.(lk) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
225 Notice of Instruction to Filer Regarding Pro Hac Vice Motion. Pursuant to 2B in the Administrative Procedures, a motion to make a limited appearance must be filed in the conventional manner along with the applicable filing fee. LOCAL COUNSEL IS INSTRUCTED TO 1. FILE A NOTICE TO STRIKE DE# 217 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Department Of Corrections, AND 2. CONVENTIONALLY FILE AN ORIGINAL MOTION TO MAKE A LIMITED APPEARANCE ALONG WITH THE APPLICABLE FILING FEE. (lc2) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
226 Notice of Instruction to Filer Regarding Pro Hac Vice Motion. Pursuant to 2B in the Administrative Procedures, a motion to make a limited appearance must be filed in the conventional manner along with the applicable filing fee. LOCAL COUNSEL IS INSTRUCTED TO 1. FILE A NOTICE TO STRIKE DE# 215 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Janet Smith,, Susan Black,, Linda Jones,, Sushma Parekh,, Melanie Beckford,, Charlene Fontneau,, Tita De La Cruz,, Lee Wascher,, Joyce Meyer,, Lourdes Silvagnoli,, Michelle Pollock,, Vesna Poirier,, Donna Pixley,, Paula LaCroix, AND 2. CONVENTIONALLY FILE AN ORIGINAL MOTION TO MAKE A LIMITED APPEARANCE ALONG WITH THE APPLICABLE FILING FEE. (cw) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
227 NOTICE of Striking 215 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Janet Smith,, Susan Black,, Linda Jones,, Sushma Parekh,, Melanie Beckford,, Charlene Fontneau,, Tita De La Cruz,, Lee Wascher,, Joyce Meyer,, Lourdes Silvagnoli,, Michelle Pollock,, Vesna Poirier,, Donna Pixley,, Paula LaCroix, by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
228 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice and for Waiver of Requirement that Local Counsel Reside in the District for Attorney Carl Wesley Pittman, Filing Fee $75, Receipt #958064. (cw) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
229 STATUS REPORT of Parties per April 4, 2007 Order by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Department Of Corrections, State Of Florida, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
230 NOTICE by Department Of Corrections of Filing Supplemental Authority With Respect to Defendant's Pending Motions for Summary Judgment (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

7 of 21

05/14/2007 05/15/2007 05/15/2007 05/31/2007 06/08/2007 06/19/2007 07/06/2007 08/31/2007 09/04/2007 09/19/2007
10/01/2007 10/04/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/29/2007
12/03/2007 12/03/2007
12/07/2007

232 Notice of Supplemental Authority with respect to pending Motions for Summary Judgment by Department Of Corrections, State Of Florida [See Image at DE #230] (ls) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
231 NOTICE by Department Of Corrections re 230 Notice (Other) of Filing Corrected Certificate of Service for Document No. 230 (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
233 Notice of Docket Correction: re 230 Notice (Other) filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Wrong Event Selected; Correction: Re−docketed by the Court. (ls) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
234 NOTICE of Striking 217 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Department Of Corrections, by Department Of Corrections (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
235 MOTION to Make Limited Appearance/to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorneys Laura Beth Faragasso and Edwin R. Hudson, Filing Fee $150, Receipt #961128. (cw) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
236 ORDER granting 235 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 6/19/07. (lk) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
237 ORDER granting 228 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 7/6/07. (hd) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
238 MOTION for Protective Order /Directive Regarding Plaintiffs' Electronic Discovery Requests by Department Of Corrections. (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
239 NOTICE by Department Of Corrections re 238 MOTION for Protective Order /Directive Regarding Plaintiffs' Electronic Discovery Requests −Notice of Filing Affidavit of Michael Maddox (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
240 RESPONSE in Opposition re 238 MOTION for Protective Order /Directive Regarding Plaintiffs' Electronic Discovery Requests filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
241 REPLY to Response to Motion re 238 MOTION for Protective Order /Directive Regarding Plaintiffs' Electronic Discovery Requests filed by Department Of Corrections. (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
242 ORDER denying 238 Motion for Protective Order Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch Jr. on 10/4/07. (cga) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
243 NOTICE by Department Of Corrections of Appearance (Williams, James) Modified on 11/29/2007 (ls). "Wrong Event Used, Re−docketed as Entry ( 244 ); Notice of Attorney Appearance". (Entered: 11/28/2007)
244 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by James Orrin Williams, Jr on behalf of Department Of Corrections [See Image at DE #243] (ls) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
245 NOTICE of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer: re 243 Notice (Other) filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Wrong Event Selected; Correction=Redocketed as Notice of Attorney Appearance. Instruction to Filer=In the future please select the proper Event; (ls) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
246 NOTICE of Change of Address by John Clark Davis (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
247 First MOTION to Compel Response to Request for Documents regarding electronic discovery by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. Responses due by 12/17/2007 (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
248 RESPONSE to Motion re 247 First MOTION to Compel Response to Request for Documents regarding electronic discovery and Request for Additional Time for Compliance filed by Department Of Corrections, State Of Florida. Replies due by

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

8 of 21

12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/10/2007
12/10/2007 12/21/2007
12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/26/2007 12/26/2007 01/02/2008 01/03/2008
01/07/2008 01/11/2008 01/15/2008 01/18/2008

12/14/2007. (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
249 AFFIDAVIT signed by : John Huff. re 248 Response to Motion, by Department Of Corrections, State Of Florida. (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
250 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
251 REPLY to Response to Motion re 247 First MOTION to Compel Response to Request for Documents regarding electronic discovery Response to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Request for Additional Time for Compliance filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
252 ORDER granting 247 Motion to Compel denying 248 Request for additional time for compliance.Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch Jr. on 12/10/07. (cga) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
253 RESPONSE in Opposition re 250 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
254 ORDER denying 250 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery ;Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 12/20/2007. (bs) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
255 CONSENTED MOTION for Confidentiality Regarding Personal and Medical Information by Department Of Corrections. (Muschott, Lee) Modified on 12/27/2007 (ls). (Entered: 12/21/2007)
256 CONSENTED MOTION Regarding Production of Electronic Data re 252 Order on Motion to Compel by Department Of Corrections. (Muschott, Lee) Modified on 12/27/2007 (ls). (Entered: 12/21/2007)
257 REPORT REGARDING Production of Electronic Data by Department Of Corrections. (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
258 ORDER granting 255 Motion for confidentiality regarding personal and medical information. Court to enter separate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch Jr. on 12/26/07. (cga) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
259 Confidentiality Order re: discovery materials.Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch Jr. on 12/26/07.(cga) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
260 Notice of Mediation Hearing before Mediator, Rodney Romanofiled by Department Of Corrections. Mediation Hearing set for 2/13/2008 08:30 AM (Williams, James) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
261 NOTICE of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer: re 260 Notice of Mediation Hearing filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Mediator not added to case. Instruction to Filer= Please remember to add the mediator to the case in the future (tp) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
262 ORDER granting 256 Motion for enlargement of time to comply with discovery production order.Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 1/4/08. (lk) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
263 REPORT REGARDING Electronic Production Orders and Limitation of Disclosure by Department Of Corrections. (Muschott, Lee) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
264 Notice of Mediation Hearing filed by Rodney G. Romano. Mediation Hearing set for 2/13/2008 08:30 AM (tb) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
265 Notice of Pendency of Other Action by Department Of Corrections (Williams, James) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

9 of 21

01/18/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/23/2008 01/24/2008 01/25/2008
01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008
02/04/2008

266 NOTICE by Department Of Corrections of Providing Copies of Motions for Summary Judgment, accompanying Memoranda, and Related Filings to Judge's Chambers in Miami (Muschott, Lee) Modified on 1/22/2008 (ls). (Entered: 01/18/2008)
267 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 265 Notice of Pendency of Other Action filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Wrong Event Selected; Instruction to Filer=In the future please select the proper Event, i.e. Notification of Ninety Days Expiring; (ls) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
268 NOTICE by State Of Florida Notice of Non−Availability (Muschott, Lee) Modified on 1/23/2008 (ls). "Wrong Event Used, Re−docketed as Entry 269 ; Notice of Unavailability". (Entered: 01/22/2008)
269 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY by State Of Florida for dates of 3/3/2008 through 3/8/2008 and 5/22/2008 through 6/4/2008 [See Image at DE #268](ls) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
270 NOTICE of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer: re 268 Notice (Other) filed by State Of Florida, Error: Wrong Event Selected; Correction=Redocketed as Notice of Unavailability. Instruction to Filer=In the future please select the proper Event; (ls) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
271 Defendant's MOTION to Sever Claims of Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 21 or, Alternativ ely for 'separate Trials Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42 (b) and Memorandum of Law in Support by Department Of Corrections. Responses due by 2/7/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through H# 2 Exhibit I through M)(Williams, James) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
272 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 271 Defendant's MOTION to Sever Claims of Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 21 or, Alternativ ely for 'separate Trials Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42 (b) and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Document Unreadable/Sideways; Instruction to Filer=File a Notice of Striking Docket Entry and Refile the Document correctly; (ls) Modified on 1/25/2008 (ls). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
273 ORDER STRIKING 268 Notice (Other) filed by State Of Florida,, 269 Notice of Unavailability filed by State Of Florida, Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 1/25/08.(lk) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
274 NOTICE of Striking Docket Entry 272 by Department Of Corrections (Williams, James) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
275 Defendant's MOTION to Sever Claims of Plaintiff's Pursuant to Fed,.R.Civ.Pro.21, o, Alternatively for Separate Trials Pursuant to Fed,.R.Civ.Pro.42(b) and Memorandum of Law in Support by Department Of Corrections. Responses due by 2/8/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through H# 2 Exhibit I through M)(Williams, James) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
276 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 274 Notice of Striking filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Document Unreadable/Sideways; Instruction to Filer=File a Notice of Striking Docket Entry and Refile the Document correctly; (ls) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
277 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 275 Defendant's MOTION to Sever Claims of Plaintiff's Pursuant to Fed,.R.Civ.Pro.21, o, Alternatively for Separate Trials Pursuant to Fed,.R.Civ.Pro.42(b) and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; Instruction to Filer=In the future please select all applicable Reliefs; (ls) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
278 First MOTION Allow Plaintiffs De La Cruz, Meyer, Pollock and Silvagnoli to appear at mediation via telephone by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 02/04/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

10 of 21

02/04/2008
02/05/2008
02/06/2008 02/06/2008
02/07/2008 02/08/2008
02/22/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/05/2008 03/06/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008

279 Notice of Supplemental Authority on Issue of Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh (Davis, John) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
280 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 278 First MOTION Allow Plaintiffs De La Cruz, Meyer, Pollock and Silvagnoli to appear at mediation via telephone filed by Janet Smith,, Susan Black,, Linda Jones,, Sushma Parekh,, Melanie Beckford,, Charlene Fontneau,, Tita De La Cruz,, Lee Wascher,, Joyce Meyer,, Lourdes Silvagnoli,, Michelle Pollock,, Vesna Poirier,, Donna Pixley,, Paula LaCroix, Error: Wrong Event Selected; Instruction to Filer=In the future please select the proper Event, i.e. Motion to Appear; (ls) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
281 ORDER granting 278 First MOTION to Allow Plaintiffs De La Cruz, Meyer, Pollock and Silvagnoli to appear at mediation via telephone Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 2/5/08. (ail) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
282 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 278 First MOTION Allow Plaintiffs De La Cruz, Meyer, Pollock and Silvagnoli to appear at mediation via telephone and Motion for Reconsideration of Order Entered February 6, 2008 filed by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B − Notices of Mediation)(Williams, James) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
283 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 282 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Two or More Document Events Filed as One; Instruction to Filer=In the future please select all applicable Events; (ls) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
284 RESPONSE in Opposition re 275 Defendant's MOTION to Sever Claims of Plaintiff's Pursuant to Fed,.R.Civ.Pro.21, o, Alternatively for Separate Trials Pursuant to Fed,.R.Civ.Pro.42(b) and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
285 REPORT of Mediation Disposition: Impasse(tb) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
286 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File to Conduct Limited Discovery by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
287 MEMORANDUM in Support re 286 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File to Conduct Limited Discovery filed by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
288 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 286 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File to Conduct Limited Discovery filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Wrong Event Selected; Instruction to Filer=In the future please select the proper Event, i.e. Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; (ls) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
289 RESPONSE to Motion re 286 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File to Conduct Limited Discovery Proposed Order On Defendant's Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery filed by Department Of Corrections. Replies due by 3/13/2008. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
290 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 289 Response to Motion, filed by Department Of Corrections, Error: Proposed Order/Exhibit Docketed as Main Document; Instruction to Filer=File a Notice of Striking Docket Entry and Refile the Document correctly; (ls) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
291 NOTICE of Striking re 289 Response to Motion by Department Of Corrections (Williams, James) Modified on 3/10/2008 (ls). [Added relationship to DE #289] (Entered: 03/07/2008)
292 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Williams, James) Modified on 3/10/2008 (ls). (Entered: 03/07/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

11 of 21

03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008
03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008
03/31/2008
03/31/2008
03/31/2008

293 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Ronald McAndrews Testimony by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
294 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Behavior at Institutions other than Martin Correctional Institution by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
295 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Hearsay Testimony by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
296 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of any Prior Litigants against the Department of Corrections by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
297 MOTION in Limine Regarding Subsequent Remedial Measures by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
298 MOTION in Limine on References to Former Department of Corrections Secretary Crosby by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
300 ORDER denying as moot 286 Motion for Leave to File, denying 292 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 3/14/08. (gp) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
299 NOTICE by Department Of Corrections re 293 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Ronald McAndrews Testimony Notice of Filing Testimony of Ronald McAndrews in Support of Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Ron McAndrews' Testimony Relating to the Laws of the State of Florida and Appropriate Training for Nurses (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Pages 44 through 93)(Williams, James) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
301 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File One Day Beyond the Deadline the Motion for Limited Sequestration by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Motion for Limited Sequestrian)(Williams, James) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
302 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File One Day Beyond the Deadline the Motion in Limine to Exclude the Evidence of Evidence of any of the Plaintiffs' Claims or other DOC Related Issues by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion in Limine)(Williams, James) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
303 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 293 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Ronald McAndrews Testimony filed by Department Of Corrections. ERROR: Document has been scanned sideways. FUTURE documents need to be scanned correctly before uploading image into CM/ECF, it is not necessary to refile this document. (gp) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
304 RESPONSE in Opposition re 298 MOTION in Limine on References to Former Department of Corrections Secretary Crosby filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Rodney G. Romano, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
305 RESPONSE in Opposition re 297 MOTION in Limine Regarding Subsequent Remedial Measures filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
306 RESPONSE in Opposition re 294 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Behavior at Institutions other than Martin Correctional Institution filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

12 of 21

03/31/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008 04/02/2008
04/02/2008
04/04/2008 04/07/2008 04/09/2008 04/09/2008 04/09/2008 04/09/2008

307 RESPONSE in Opposition re 296 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of any Prior Litigants against the Department of Corrections filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
308 RESPONSE in Opposition re 295 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Hearsay Testimony filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
309 RESPONSE in Opposition re 293 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Ronald McAndrews Testimony filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
310 PRETRIAL STIPULATION by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
311 Statement of: Joint Neutral Summary of Claims and Defenses by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
312 RESPONSE in Opposition re 301 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File One Day Beyond the Deadline the Motion for Limited Sequestration filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
313 RESPONSE in Opposition re 302 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File One Day Beyond the Deadline the Motion in Limine to Exclude the Evidence of Evidence of any of the Plaintiffs' Claims or other DOC Related Issues filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
314 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Department Of Corrections. Amendment to 310 Pretrial Stipulation,. (Williams, James) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
315 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Calendar Call set for 4/24/2008 at 10:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Jose E. Martinez. (wh) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
316 RESPONSE in Opposition re 293 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Ronald McAndrews Testimony Relating to the Laws of the State of Fl. &Appropriate Training for Nurses and Memo of Law filed by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
317 RESPONSE in Opposition re 294 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Behavior at Institutions other than Martin Correctional Institution and Memo of Law filed by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Williams, James) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
318 RESPONSE in Opposition re 298 MOTION in Limine on References to Former Department of Corrections Secretary Crosby filed by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
319 RESPONSE in Opposition re 297 MOTION in Limine Regarding Subsequent Remedial Measures and Memo of Law filed by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

13 of 21

04/09/2008 04/09/2008 04/09/2008 04/17/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008
04/22/2008 04/22/2008
04/22/2008 04/22/2008

320 RESPONSE in Opposition re 296 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of any Prior Litigants against the Department of Corrections and Memo of Law filed by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Williams, James) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
321 RESPONSE in Opposition re 295 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Hearsay Testimony and Memo of Law filed by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1)(Williams, James) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
322 RESPONSE in Opposition re 302 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File One Day Beyond the Deadline the Motion in Limine to Exclude the Evidence of Evidence of any of the Plaintiffs' Claims or other DOC Related Issues Evidence of any Publicity and Memo of Law filed by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
323 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Jury Instructions 2 Days Beyond Deadline by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
324 PRETRIAL STIPULATION Second Amended by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
325 MOTION Authorization to use audiovisual equipment at trial by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Attachments: # 1)(Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
326 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh Designation of Deposition Testimony (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
327 WITHDRAWAL of Motion by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 325 MOTION Authorization to use audiovisual equipment at trial filed by Janet Smith,, Susan Black,, Linda Jones,, Sushma Parekh,, Melanie Beckford,, Charlene Fontneau,, Tita De La Cruz,, Lee Wascher,, Joyce Meyer,, Lourdes Silvagnoli,, Michelle Pollock,, Vesna Poirier,, Donna Pixley,, Paula LaCroix,. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
328 MOTION authorization to use audiovisual equipment at trial by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Attachments: # 1)(Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
329 WITHDRAWAL of Motion by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 328 MOTION authorization to use audiovisual equipment at trial filed by Janet Smith,, Susan Black,, Linda Jones,, Sushma Parekh,, Melanie Beckford,, Charlene Fontneau,, Tita De La Cruz,, Lee Wascher,, Joyce Meyer,, Lourdes Silvagnoli,, Michelle Pollock,, Vesna Poirier,, Donna Pixley,, Paula LaCroix, Second. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
330 MOTION authorization to use audiovisual equipment at trial by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Attachments: # 1)(Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
331 Proposed Jury Instructions by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

14 of 21

04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/23/2008
04/23/2008
04/24/2008 04/24/2008 04/24/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/28/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008

332 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 331 Proposed Jury Instructions, (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
333 Proposed Jury Instructions by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
334 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh of Filing Jury Instructions from Rudolph et al. v. Department of Corrections (Davis, John) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
335 NOTICE of Instruction to Filer: re 325 MOTION Authorization to use audiovisual equipment at trial filed by Janet Smith,, Susan Black,, Linda Jones, Sushma Parekh, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Joyce Meyer, Lourdes Silvagnoli, Michelle Pollock,, Vesna Poirier, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix. ERROR: Document Title (Pre−Trial Stipulation) Does Not Match Event (Motion) Selected; Instruction to Filer=File a Notice of Striking Docket Entry and Refile the Document correctly. (gp) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
336 ORDER: Granting 330 Joint Motion for Authorization to Use Audiovisual Equipment at Trial. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/24/2008. (wh) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
337 ORDER Denying 298 Motion in Limine Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/24/2008. (wh) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
338 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Telephonic Calendar Call held on 4/24/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5023 (wh) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
339 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 293 Motion in Limine. **Please see Order for Further Details** Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/24/08. (gp) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
340 ORDER: Denying 295 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Hearsay Testimony Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/25/2008. (wh) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
341 ORDER: Granting [301−1] Motion for Leave to File One Day Beyond the Deadline the Motion for Limited Sequestration. Re: [301−2] is Accepted as filed, however,said Motion is DENIED on the merits. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/25/2008. (wh) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
342 ORDER granting 302 −1 Motion for Leave to File ; Denying 302 −2 Motion to Exclude Evidence of Any Publicity of the Plaintiffs' ClaimsSigned by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/25/08. (gp) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
343 Proposed Voir Dire Questions by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
344 ORDER: Denying 296 Motion in Limine To Exclude Evidence of Any Prior Litigation Against The Department of Corrections Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/28/2008. (wh) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
345 ORDER: Denying 294 Motion in Limine Relating to Behavior at Institutions Other than Martin Correctional Institution Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/28/2008. (wh) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
346 ORDER: Denying 297 Motion in Limine Regarding Subsequent Remedial Measures Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/28/2008. (wh) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
347 ORDER:Denying as moot 271 Motion to Sever, Denying 275 Motion to Sever Claims Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 4/29/2008. (wh) (Entered:

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

15 of 21

04/30/2008 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 05/02/2008
05/05/2008 05/07/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/09/2008 05/12/2008 05/13/2008 05/13/2008 05/14/2008 05/14/2008 05/14/2008
05/15/2008

04/29/2008)
348 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial Day #1 begun on 4/29/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5023 (wh) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
349 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial Day #2 held on 4/30/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5023 (wh) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
350 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial Day #3 held on 5/1/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5023 (wh) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
351 TRIAL BRIEF on Admissibility of Letter Informing Secretary of Corrections of "Gunning" in CM Units by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
352 TRIAL BRIEF Defendant's Brief in Opposition to "Plaintiff's Brief on Admissability of Letter Informing Secretary of Corrections of "Gunning" in CM Units" by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
353 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial Day #4 held on 5/6/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598 (wh) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
354 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial Day #5 held on 5/7/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598 (wh) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
355 CORRECTED/JURY TRIAL MINUTES re: 354 Jury Trial − Held. Date Correction on Jury Trial Minutes. (wh) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
356 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 5/8/08.(gp) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
357 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial Day #6 held on 5/8/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598 (wh) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
358 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial Day #7 held on 5/9/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598 (wh) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
359 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial Day #8 held on 5/12/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598 (wh) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
360 Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Jose E. Martinez : Jury Trial completed on 5/13/2008. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598 (wh) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
361 CLERK'S NOTICE/AMENDING MINUTES OF CALENDAR CALL re 338 Calendar Call held on April 24, 2008. (wh) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
363 Court's Jury Instructions. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
365 Plaintiffs' Exhibit List by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh.. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
362 Exhibit and Witness List by Department Of Corrections, State Of Florida.. (lk) (Entered: 05/15/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324 16 of 21

05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008
05/16/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008 06/03/2008
06/13/2008
06/16/2008
06/16/2008

364 Notice of filing Jury Notes. (lk) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
366 VERDICT FORM for Melanie Beckford. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
367 VERDICT FORM for Paula Lacroix. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
368 VERDICT FORM for Charlene Fontneau. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
369 VERDICT FORM for Tita de la Cruz. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
370 VERDICT FORM for Lee Wascher. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
371 VERDICT FORM for Linda Jones. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
372 VERDICT FORM for Joyce Meyer. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
373 VERDICT FORM for Sushman Parekh. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
374 VERDICT FORM for Lourdes Silvagnoli. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
375 VERDICT FORM for Janet Smith. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
376 VERDICT FORM for Michelle Pollock. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
377 VERDICT FORM for Vesna Poirier. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
378 VERDICT FORM for Susan Black. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
379 VERDICT FORM for Donna Pixley. (gp) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
380 FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of the Each Plaintiff against the Defendant. Each Plaintiff is awarded the amount of $45,000.00. This Case is CLOSED and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 5/15/08.(gp) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
381 STIPULATION and ORDER PERMITTING withdrawal of ExhibitsSigned by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 5/15/08.(gp) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
382 Defendant's MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative New Trial by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
383 Alternative MOTION for New Trial by Department Of Corrections. See image DE 382 . (lk) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
384 NOTICE of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer: re 382 Defendant's MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative New Trial filed by Department Of Corrections. Error: Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief. Correction: Docketed "Motion for new trial", DE 383 . Instruction To Filer= In the future please select all applicable Reliefs. (lk) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
385 RESPONSE in Opposition re 382 Defendant's MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative New Trial, 383 MOTION for New Trial filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. Responses due by 7/3/2008 (Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
387 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses of Filing of Declarations of Williams R. Amlong and Erika Deutsch Rotbart in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses (Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

17 of 21

06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008
06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/19/2008

388 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses of Filing of Declaration of C. Wes Pittman and John C. Davis in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses (Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
389 AFFIDAVIT signed by : C. Wes Pittman in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses. re 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses, 388 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
390 AFFIDAVIT signed by : John C. Davis in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses. re 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses, 388 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit curriculum vitae, # 2 Exhibit Schedule of Hours, # 3 Exhibit Opinion in Rudolph et al. v. DOC, # 4 Exhibit Listing of Tme Deductions, # 5 Exhibit Curriculum Vitae of Kent Spriggs, # 6 Exhibit Curriculum Vitae of Alice Vickers, # 7 Exhibit Schedule of Experts and Fees)(Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
391 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 390 Affidavit,,, (First) of Filing Exhibit 8 to Declaration of John C. Davis (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
392 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 390 Affidavit,,, (Second) of filing Exhibit 8 to Declaration of John C. Davis (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
393 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 390 Affidavit,,, (Third) of filing Exhibit 8 to Declaration of John C. Davis (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
394 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 390 Affidavit,,, (Fourth) of filing Exhibit 8 to Declaration of John C. Davis (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit)(Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
395 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh of filing Plaintiff's Bill of Costs (Davis, John) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
396 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses filed by Charlene Fontneau, Melanie Beckford, Lee Wascher, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Linda Jones, Susan Black, Tita De La Cruz, Michelle Pollock, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Janet Smith, Vesna Poirier,

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

18 of 21

07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 08/11/2008
08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008

Lourdes Silvagnoli. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 6/19/08. (gp) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
397 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
398 ORDER granting 397 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 386 MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses Responses due by 8/4/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 7/3/08. (cga) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
399 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses by Department Of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
400 ORDER granting 399 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses Responses due by 8/11/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 7/31/08. (cga) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
401 RESPONSE in Opposition re 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses filed by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Gary Isaacs, # 2 Exhibit Plf's Complaint part 1, # 3 Exhibit Plf's Complaint part 2, # 4 Exhibit Def.'s Rejection of Plf's Claim of Atty Fee in Rudolph, # 5 Exhibit Desertification, # 6 Exhibit Rudolph Release, # 7 Exhibit Decleration of Wes Pittman part 1, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Wes Pitman part 2, # 9 Exhibit declaration Wes Pittman Part 3, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of John Davis part 1, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of John Davis part 2, # 12 Exhibit Declaration of John Davis part 3, # 13 Exhibit Declaration of John Davis part 4, # 14 Exhibit Plf's contract, # 15 Exhibit Rudolph Order, # 16 Exhibit Declaration of Gary Anton, # 17 Exhibit Rudolph Bill of Costs)(Williams, James) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
402 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 4/29/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 1 pages 1−154. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
403 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 4/30/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 2 pages 155−406. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
404 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 5/1/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 3 pages 407−531. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
405 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 5/6/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 4 pages 532−770. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
406 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 5/7/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 5 pages 771−996. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
407 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 5/8/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 6 pages 997−1203. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
408 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 5/9/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 7 pages 1204−1403. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
409 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 5/12/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 8 pages 1404−1512. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
410 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial held on 5/13/08 before Judge Jose E. Martinez. Court Reporter: Dawn Whitmarsh − phone number 305−523−5598, Volume 9 pages 1513−1519. (nc) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324 19 of 21

08/18/2008
09/05/2008
09/22/2008 10/02/2008 11/06/2008
12/01/2008 12/04/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 12/19/2008 01/05/2009 01/06/2009 01/22/2009

411 REPLY to Response to Motion re 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Davis, John) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
412 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 386 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Expert Fees and Costs and Expenses filed by Charlene Fontneau, Melanie Beckford, Lee Wascher, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Linda Jones, Susan Black, Tita De La Cruz, Michelle Pollock, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Janet Smith, Vesna Poirier, Lourdes Silvagnoli Objections to RRdue by 9/22/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 9/5/08. (cga) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
413 OBJECTION to 412 Report and Recommendations by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
414 RESPONSE/REPLY to 413 Objection to Report and Recommendations, filed by Department Of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Gary Anton)(Williams, James) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
415 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 412 Report and Recommendations. DENYING without prejudice 386 Motion for Attorney Fees, filed by Charlene Fontneau, Melanie Beckford, Lee Wascher, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Linda Jones, Susan Black, Tita De La Cruz, Michelle Pollock, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Janet Smith, Vesna Poirier, Lourdes Silvagnoli,. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 11/5/08. (gp) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
416 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorney's fees and Costs by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
417 Paperless ORDER granting 416 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiffs shall have until December 19, 2008, to file their amended motion for attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 12/4/2008. (lc2) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
418 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees Resubmitted by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. Responses due by 1/9/2009 (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
419 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 418 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees Resubmitted Declaration of C. Wes Pittman (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
420 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh re 418 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees Resubmitted Declaration of John C. Davis (Davis, John) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
421 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 418 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees Resubmitted by Department of Corrections. (Williams, James) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
422 ORDER granting 421 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 418 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees Resubmitted Responses due by 1/23/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 1/6/2009. (cga) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
423 RESPONSE in Opposition re 418 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees Resubmitted filed by Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

20 of 21

01/29/2009 01/29/2009 02/02/2009
02/03/2009
02/23/2009 02/25/2009 03/20/2009
03/20/2009 04/03/2009 09/04/2009 09/08/2009 09/08/2009

Affadavit of Gary Issacs, Esquire, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit Plaintif's Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiff's Attachment 5)(Williams, James) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
424 RESPONSE/REPLY Doc 423 DF Response in Opposition filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. (Davis, John) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
425 REPLY to Response to Motion re 418 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees Resubmitted filed by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh. [See Image at DE #424] (ls) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
426 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 424 Response/Reply (Other), Response/Reply (Other) filed by Charlene Fontneau, Melanie Beckford, Lee Wascher, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Linda Jones, Susan Black, Tita De La Cruz, Michelle Pollock, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Janet Smith, Vesna Poirier, Lourdes Silvagnoli. Error − Wrong Event Selected; Correction − Redocketed by Clerk as Reply to Response to Motion. Instruction to Filer − In the future, please select the proper event. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
427 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 418 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees Resubmitted filed by Charlene Fontneau, Melanie Beckford, Lee Wascher, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Linda Jones, Susan Black, Tita De La Cruz, Michelle Pollock, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh, Janet Smith, Vesna Poirier, Lourdes Silvagnoli Objections to RRdue by 2/23/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 2/3/09. (cga) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
428 ORDER denying 382 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying 383 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 2/23/09. (ail) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
429 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Maura McNay Burgreen on behalf of Department of Corrections (Burgreen, Maura) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
430 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Department of Corrections as to 380 Judgment, 428 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for New Trial Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number 235196. Within ten days of the filing date of a Notice of Appeal, the appellant must complete the Eleventh Circuit Transcript Order Form regardless of whether transcripts are being ordered [Pursuant to FRAP 10(b)]. For information go to our FLSD website under Transcript Information. (hh) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 430 Notice of Appeal, (hh) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
431 NOTICE of Receipt of NOA Transmittal Letter from USCA on 3/27/09 Re: USCA Case Number:09−11540−G for 430 Notice of Appeal, filed by Department of Corrections. (nc) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
432 ORDER adopting 427 Magistrate's Report and Recommendations; granting in part 418 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 9/3/2009. (tas) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
433 CERTIFICATE of Readiness transmitted to USCA re 430 Notice of Appeal, filed by Department of Corrections; USCA# 09−11540−G (nc) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
434 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals (Atlanta Office) Consisting of (3)Volumes of Pleadings,(9)Volumes of Transcripts and (1)Accordion Folders containing DE#'s 214,271,275,284,299,309,317,331,333,389−395,401,411,419,423 re 430 Notice of Appeal, (nc) (Entered: 09/10/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-14324

21 of 21

09/21/2009 09/22/2009
09/23/2009 09/25/2009
10/02/2009 10/02/2009 10/05/2009 10/06/2009
10/13/2009 10/16/2009 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 11/05/2009

435 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT FROM USCA re 430 Notice of Appeal, receipt of: COR/ROA USCA number 09−11540−G (nc) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
436 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Department of Corrections. Within ten days of the filing date of a Notice of Appeal, the appellant must complete the Eleventh Circuit Transcript Order Form regardless of whether transcripts are being ordered [Pursuant to FRAP 10(b)]. For information go to our FLSD website under Transcript Information. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Leininger, Carri) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docket Sheet and Order under appeal sent to US Court of Appeals re 436 Notice of Appeal, as to Florida Department of Corrections, State of Florida (nc) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
437 DUPLICATE NOTICE OF APPEAL by Department of Corrections and State of Florida re 432 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order Adopting Report and Recommendations; Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number 726367. Within ten days of the filing date of a Notice of Appeal, the appellant must complete the Eleventh Circuit Transcript Order Form regardless of whether transcripts are being ordered [Pursuant to FRAP 10(b)]. For information go to our FLSD website under Transcript Information. (nc) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
438 NOTICE of Receipt of NOA Transmittal Letter from USCA on 9/28/09, Re: USCA Case Number:09−14903−G for 437 Notice of Appeal, filed by Department of Corrections, State of Florida. (nc) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
439 Order from the 11th Circuit pursuant to Appellees' motion to file record excerpts is DENIED. The District Court Clerk's Office is directed to promptly transmit to this court the supplemental record on appeal consisting of the exhibits returned by the parties re 437 Notice of Appeal, 436 Notice of Appeal, : USCA Appeal# 09−11540−GG (nc) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
440 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Department of Corrections re 436 Notice of Appeal,. No Transcript Requested. (Leininger, Carri) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
441 NOTICE by Lourdes Silvagnoli, Janet Smith, Michelle Pollock, Vesna Poirier, Susan Black, Donna Pixley, Paula LaCroix, Melanie Beckford, Charlene Fontneau, Tita De La Cruz, Lee Wascher, Linda Jones, Joyce Meyer, Sushma Parekh of Filing Exhibits for Inclusion in the Record on Appeal and Request for Transmittal of Same to Court of Appeals (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1, # 2 Exhibit Attachment 2 part 1, # 3 Exhibit Attachment 2 part 2, # 4 Exhibit Attachment 3, # 5 Exhibit Attachment 4 part 1, # 6 Exhibit Attachment 4 part 2, # 7 Exhibit Attachment 5 part 1, # 8 Exhibit Attachment 5 part 2)(Davis, John) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
442 NOTICE of Filing Exhibits by Department of Corrections, State of Florida, pursuant to Appellate Court's Order (Exhibits attached) (nc) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
443 AMENDED NOTICE of Filing Exhibits pursuant to Appellate Court's Order by Department of Corrections, State of Florida (Exhibits attached) (nc) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
444 1st Supplemental transmitted to USCA re: 430 Notice of Appeal, filed by Department of Corrections, 437 Notice of Appeal, filed by Department of Corrections, State of Florida, 436 Notice of Appeal, filed by Department of Corrections USCA# 09−11540−G &09−14903−GG (jua) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
445 1st Supplemental Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals (Atlanta Office) Consisting of (1) Volume of Pleadings and (1) Envelope containing DE#'s 442 &443 of Department of Corrections Exhibits re 430 Notice of Appeal, 437 Notice of Appeal, 436 Notice of Appeal, USCA# 09−11540−G &09−14903−GG (jua) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
446 Appellant's Unopposed Motion to Consolidate 09−14903−GG &09−11540−GG is GRANTED re 430 Notice of Appeal, 437 Notice of Appeal, 436 Notice of Appeal, : USCA Appeal# 09−14903−GG (nc) (Entered: 11/05/2009)

 
 [PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

No. 09-11540 ________________________

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 07, 2010 JOHN LEY

D. C. Docket No. 06-14324-CV-JEM

CLERK

MELANIE BECKFORD, CHARLENE FONTNEAU, TITA DE LA CRUZ, LEE WASCHER, LINDA JONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

No. 09-14903 _____________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-14324-CV-JEM

MELANIE BECKFORD, CHARLENE FONTNEAU, TITA DE LA CRUZ, LEE WASCHER, LINDA JONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendants-Appellants. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________
(May 7, 2010) Before PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,* District Judge. PRYOR, Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents the question whether the Florida Department of Corrections can be liable, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for failing to remedy a sexually hostile work environment that male inmates created for female employees at Martin Correctional Institution. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). Melanie Beckford and 13 other women, all former non-security employees at Martin, complained that the Department failed to remedy sexually offensive conduct of inmates, including the frequent use of gender-specific abusive language and pervasive “gunning,” the notorious practice of inmates openly
* Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
2

masturbating toward female staff. At trial, a jury heard evidence of this harassment, considered the ability of the Department to mitigate the misconduct, and held the Department liable. On appeal, the Department presents four arguments: (1) the Department, as a matter of law, cannot be liable under Title VII unless its staff actively encouraged or participated in the harassment; (2) the female employees failed to prove that the inmates’ harassment was because of sex; (3) the district court should have instructed the jury about the affirmative defense recognized in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807–08, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2292–93 (1998); and (4) the district court should have severed the employees’ claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). We conclude that the jury was entitled to find the Department liable under Title VII because it unreasonably failed to remedy the sexual harassment by its inmates. We also reject the other arguments of the Department and affirm.
I. BACKGROUND Beckford and the 13 other former employees worked at Martin between 1999 and 2002. Beckford, Susan Black, Tita De la Cruz, Charlene Fontneau, Linda Jones, Paula LaCroix, Joyce Meyer, Donna Pixley, Vesna Poirier, Michelle Pollock, Lourdes Silvagnoli, and Lee Wascher worked as nurses; Sushma Parekh worked as a physician; and Janet Smith worked as a classification officer. Each of
3

the female employees worked in the “close management” housing dorms at Martin. The nurses entered the close management dorms each day to pass medication to inmates, answer sick calls, and respond to medical emergencies. The other former employees entered the close management dorms at least several times each week to perform similar duties or to discuss administrative matters with inmates.
According to James Upchurch, the director of security operations for the Department, the close management dorms house inmates who “have demonstrated by their behavior and the pattern of their behavior that they can’t be left in the general population because they pose too great a threat” to other inmates and staff. Martin houses close management inmates in several separate dorms. Each dorm comprises four quads, which contain individual inmate cells. Each single cell contains a bunk, sink, and toilet and has a solid door with a glass window. Each cell door contains a slot through which prison staff pass medication and food. Each close management dorm also contains a glass control room or bubble that sits in the middle of the dorm and provides staff a view of the quads. From the bubbles, staff can view each cell in a dorm.
While the women were employed at Martin, the close management inmates abused staff, especially female staff. David Harris, who served as assistant warden at Martin during the 1990s, testified that close management “inmates would throw
4

urine, throw feces on [male security] staff.” Sergeant Brian McDew, who worked as a corrections officer at Martin during the same period, testified that this behavior toward male staff did not happen “very often, but it happen[ed].” According to the testimony of the female employees, the inmates reacted especially poorly to the presence of female staff in the close management dorms. When the inmates saw female employees approaching one of the close management dorms, the inmates called the employees names—including cunt, whore, slut, and bitch—through the exterior cell windows and explained, in graphic detail, the sexual liberties that the inmates would take with the employees, if given the opportunity.
The inmates often instructed each other to “lock and load” when they saw female staff approaching one of the dorms. The inmates’ phrase “lock and load” referred to the most notorious conduct to which they exposed the female staff: gunning. That conduct involved exposing themselves and masturbating directly at staff.
The female employees testified to similar experiences. They testified that inmates gunned them from the inmates’ cells while the female employees were waiting in the close management dorm bubbles before working in the quads. To harass the women waiting in the bubbles, the inmates would stand, a nurse testified, “at their windows, hanging off the door jambs, standing on the toilets, on
5

rolled up mattresses” so that the female employees could see the inmates gunning through the cell windows. The inmates often would ejaculate on the cell windows and through the food slot or flap on the cell door, sometimes when female staff were standing at the door. The inmates masturbated when the female employees were completing paperwork in the dorms, and when the women saw inmates in the isolation room in the medical building.
The inmates also gunned the female employees when the women responded to medical emergencies in the close management dorms. Nurse Poirier testified that “99.9 percent of the time the emergencies were bogus. It was just for me to get down there for [the inmates] to have the entertainment for the evening.” Nurse Fontneau explained that the inmates faked emergencies and they “call[ed] because it was like hiring a call girl or a whore.” Nurse Pixley recalled an incident in which a male nurse responded to an emergency in a close management dorm. She testified that the male nurse “was back within five minutes because . . . the inmate cussed him out and said that he didn’t need medical. . . . [The inmate] asked him where is the female nurse.”
Each of the female employees testified about her own humiliating experiences with gunning. Nurse Meyer, for example, recalled being abandoned by a male security employee, Lieutenant Ferguson, while she was delivering
6

medication in a close management dorm. When Nurse Meyer was alone, “the inmates in the quad all started to scream and bang on the doors.” “[T]hey were hanging onto the door frames above the door and they were on their toilet and they were all masturbating.” Nurse Meyer estimated that “it was probably 15 inmates that they were ejaculating and everything on the windows.” Lieutenant Ferguson “totally ignored” Nurse Meyer’s calls for help, and when she confronted him later about the episode, he said, “‘[Y]ou were looking for it. I saw you, you were looking for it. You were asking for it.’” Nurse Meyer was scheduled to leave the Department at the end of that day, but she quit on the spot.
Gunning was a frequent phenomenon. At trial, the female employees estimated that when they were in the close management dorms, virtually “every one of” the inmates gunned. Nurse Beckford testified that the inmates used a “team effort” for gunning the female employees, and Nurse Jones described the inmates’ behavior as a “chain reaction.” The employees also presented evidence that virtually all the inmates participated in the misconduct and the inmates gunned only female staff, not the all-male security staff.
The female employees attempted to limit their exposure to inmate gunning. The employees tried to place screens in front of the windows of the isolation rooms and suggested papering cell door windows, but security personnel did not permit
7

those measures. The employees also suggested two-way mirrors for the nursing stations, but management rejected that idea as too expensive. The employees suggested that inmates be brought to the medical building so that the employees would not have to visit the dorms or that inmates be brought to a separate room in the close management dorms, but prison officials determined that staff shortages prevented these measures. The employees also suggested the use of pink uniforms to shame repeat gunners. Some of the employees wore baggy clothes; neck towels to disguise sweat, which inmates enjoyed seeing; sunglasses to avoid eye contact with inmates; and headphones to avoid the verbal harassment. It is unclear how successful these last measures were, as they sometimes generated additional harassment.
The female employees complained to prison management, including the warden, about the conduct of the inmates. The employees testified that they filed disciplinary reports regarding inmate harassment, including gunning. Several female employees testified that management ordinarily ignored these complaints. Captain Wiles, for example, once informed a complaining nurse that the inmates were in “their living room and they could do whatever they wanted.” Male employees encouraged the female employees to accept the gunning “as a compliment.” Other female employees testified that prison officials sometimes
8

punished inmates in response to the employees’ complaints of harassment. The female employees also presented evidence that management discouraged the nursing staff from filing disciplinary reports. In a formal memorandum circulated to the staff, Dr. David Thomas, the director of health services, explained that “it is far more appropriate for correctional officers and non-health services employees to do discipline reports and other forms of punishment.”
The Department maintained a sexual harassment policy, but the female employees testified that they understood the policy to cover only harassment by other employees and outside vendors who transacted with the Department, not inmates. At trial, the Equal Employment Opportunity investigator for the Department, Debbie Dawson, agreed that the policy, as explained to the female employees, did not cover harassment by inmates. Dawson also testified that, if the policy had covered harassment by inmates, the employees had fully satisfied the reporting requirements of the policy by complaining to prison management, the Florida Commission on Human Relations, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Eventually, the warden met with several female employees to discuss the harassment. After the meeting, the Department adopted a new “three minute rule,” which permitted employees to refuse service to an inmate who gunned the
9

employees for more than three minutes. A nurse testified that, after the adoption of the new rule, the gunning “got worse because the inmates knew they had three minutes and they used to say ‘you can’t refuse me, you got to wait.’” Another employee testified that the rule led the inmates to believe that “[t]hey ran the facilities.”
In 2001, the former employees in this appeal and others sued the Department in a Florida court. The female employees alleged that the Department violated state law by creating a hostile work environment and successfully sought class certification. In March 2006, the employees amended their complaint to add a claim under Title VII.
The Department removed the case to the Northern District of Florida, which later decertified the class and transferred the claims before us to the Southern District of Florida. Before trial, the Department moved to sever the employees’ claims under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 or Rule 42(b), but the district court denied that motion. The district court weighed the prejudice of a single trial against the costs of severance and ruled that joinder of the claims was warranted.
At trial, the Department asked the district court to instruct the jury on its Faragher affirmative defense, but the district court refused. The district court
10

explained that “the Faragher defense seems to me to be much more involved with supervisors and supervision and this is not that.” The district court instructed the jury to determine, “by looking at all the circumstances,” whether the plaintiffs proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employment environment at Martin was “hostile or abusive.” The district court further explained that “[i]f you determine that a particular plaintiff was in fact subject to a hostile or abusive work environment, you must then determine whether her employer created or permitted that hostile and abusive work environment.” The district court explained that the “Department of Corrections created or permitted a hostile or abusive work environment only if the department . . . failed to take corrective action reasonabl[y] calculated to address the inmate misconduct.” When determining whether the corrective action was reasonable, the jury was instructed to consider “the Department of Corrections’ ability to stop or mitigate the misconduct.” The district court required the jury to answer a special interogatory for each verdict that asked whether the employees proved that the “defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior in the workplace.” The jury returned a verdict against the Department and awarded each employee $45,000 in damages.
The Department moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and,
11

alternatively, for a new trial. The Department argued that it could not be liable for harassment by inmates unless Department employees encouraged or participated in the conduct and that the female employees had not proved employee encouragement or participation. The Department also argued that none of the harassment by inmates was based on sex and that the Department was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Faragher defense. The Department again contended that the district court should have instructed the jury on the Faragher defense. The district court denied the motion.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Three standards of review govern this appeal. We review de novo the decision to deny the Department judgment as a matter of law. Ross v. Rhodes Furniture, Inc., 146 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 1998). We will render judgment for the Department if “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for” the plaintiff employees. Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. “We review a district court’s refusal to give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Yeager, 331 F.3d 1216, 1222 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The failure of a district court to give an appropriate instruction is reversible error where the “requested instruction (1) was
12

correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the charge actually given; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important that failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to conduct his defense.” Id. at 1222–23 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e disturb a district court’s decision not to order separate trials only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1325 (11th Cir. 2000).
III. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion in four parts. First, we explain that the jury was entitled to find the Department liable for a hostile work environment because the Department unreasonably failed to remedy the harassment. Second, we explain that the jury was entitled to find that the harassment of female staff by inmates was based on sex. Third, we explain that the Department was not entitled to have the jury instructed about the Faragher defense. Fourth, we explain that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to sever the individual employees’ claims under Rule 42(b). A. The Department Can Be Liable for Sexual Harassment by Inmates. The Department argues that, as a matter of law, a prison cannot be held liable for sexual harassment by its inmates unless its employees participate in or encourage the harassment. Although the Department acknowledges that ordinarily
13

employers can be held liable for unreasonably failing to remedy harassment of employees by third parties, the Department argues that “[p]rison officials should be treated different from other employers.” We disagree.
It is well established that employers may be liable for failing to remedy the harassment of employees by third parties who create a hostile work environment. In Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., we held that an “employer may be found liable for the harassing conduct of its customers if the employer fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action in response to a hostile work environment of which the employer knew or reasonably should have known.” 324 F.3d 1252, 1258 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003). Uniformly, our sister circuits have applied the same rule that employers may be held liable under Title VII for harassment by third parties when that conduct creates a hostile work environment. See, e.g., Erickson v. Wis. Dep’t of Corr., 469 F.3d 600, 605 (7th Cir. 2006); Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2005); Turnbull v. Topeka State Hosp., 255 F.3d 1238, 1244 (10th Cir. 2001); Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420, 427 (3d Cir. 2001); Slayton v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 206 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2000); Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062, 1073–74 (10th Cir. 1998); Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Miranda-Velez, 132 F.3d 848, 854 (1st Cir. 1998); Crist v. Focus Homes, Inc., 122 F.3d 1107, 1108 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Noah D. Zatz, Managing the Macaw:
14

Third-Party Harassers, Accommodation, and the Disaggregation of Discriminatory
Intent, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1357, 1372–73 (2009).
In defense of that rule, Judge Easterbrook wrote, “Because liability is direct
rather than derivative, it makes no difference whether the person whose acts are
complained of is an employee, an independent contractor, or for that matter a
customer. Ability to ‘control’ the actor plays no role.” Dunn v. Wash. County
Hosp., 429 F.3d 689, 691 (7th Cir. 2005). Judge Easterbrook explained that
employees are not pawns whose conduct uniquely subjects an employer to liability
for their harassment of another employee while the employer is absolved of any
liability for the conduct of third-party harassers: “Employees are not puppets on
strings; employers have an arsenal of incentives and sanctions (including
discharge) that can be applied to affect conduct. It is the use [of] (or failure to use)
these options that makes an employer responsible—and in this respect [third
parties] are no different from employees. ” Id. To illustrate this point, Judge
Easterbrook famously used the colorful analogy of managing a macaw:
Indeed, it makes no difference whether the actor is human. Suppose a patient kept a macaw in his room, that the bird bit and scratched women but not men, and that the Hospital did nothing. The Hospital would be responsible for the decision to expose women to the working conditions affected by the macaw, even though the bird (a) was not an employee, and (b) could not be controlled by reasoning or sanctions. It would be the Hospital’s responsibility to protect its female employees by excluding the offending bird from its premises.
15

Id. A prison certainly has a larger arsenal of incentives and sanctions that would allow it to manage more rational beings like inmates than a hospital would have at its disposal to manage a macaw.
We refuse the invitation of the Department to treat inmates differently from other third-party harassers and prisons differently from other employers under Title VII. Several of our sister circuits have refused this invitation too and permitted liability for sexual harassment by inmates. See Erickson, 469 F.3d at 605–06; Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528, 538–39 (9th Cir. 2006); Weston, 251 F.3d at 427; Slayton, 206 F.3d at 677; see also Garrett v. Dep’t of Corr., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1297–98 (M.D. Fla. 2007). Like them, we reject the notion that “prisons are uniquely exempt from liability for sexual harassment under Title VII.” Freitag, 468 F.3d at 539. We agree that “[n]othing in the law suggests that prison officials may ignore sexually hostile conduct and refrain from taking corrective actions that would safeguard the rights of the victims, whether they be [employees] or inmates.” Id.
Contrary to the argument of the Department, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (1979), and similar precedents do not require that we exempt prisons from the requirements of Title VII. These authorities instead reconcile the competing demands of officials to maintain control of prisons and respect the
16

constitutional rights of prisoners and pretrial detainees. Id. at 547–48, 99 S. Ct. at 1878–79. Bell and similar precedents about the deference owed to prison officials in their control of inmates do not exempt prison officials from liability under Title VII when the source of harassment or discrimination of employees is inmates.
Our general rule of reasonableness regarding employer liability for thirdparty harassment under Title VII adequately respects the difficulties that prison officials encounter in controlling inmate conduct. Title VII does not require, on the one hand, that prisons prevent all manner of harassment at all cost and without regard to important penological interests. We recognize that there are practical and constitutional limits on what prisons can do to protect staff. Prisons cannot, for example, eject unruly inmates like businesses can eject rude customers. Cf. Dunn, 429 F.3d at 691. The Eighth Amendment also limits the sanctions that prisons can impose on abusive inmates, probably even inmates who create a sexually hostile work environment for prison employees. Cf. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. - - , 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2682 (2009) (Scalia, J., concurring). Although some harassment by inmates cannot be reasonably avoided, the Department, on the other hand, cannot refuse to adopt reasonable measures to curtail harassment by inmates.
The district court correctly applied the standard of reasonableness that governs employers under Title VII. The district court instructed the jury that “[i]f
17

you determine that a particular plaintiff was in fact subject to a hostile or abusive work environment, you must then determine whether her employer created or permitted that hostile and abusive work environment.” The district court explained that the “Department of Corrections created or permitted a hostile or abusive work environment only if the department . . . failed to take corrective action reasonabl[y] calculated to address the inmate misconduct.” The district court instructed that, in considering whether the corrective action was reasonable, the jury should consider “the Department of Corrections’ ability to stop or mitigate the misconduct.” The district court also required the jury to answer a special interrogatory for each verdict that asked whether “the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior in the workplace.”
At oral argument, the Department conceded that sufficient evidence entitled the jury to find that the Department unreasonably failed to remedy the harassment by the inmates, and we agree. A reasonable jury could have found that prison officials should have enforced the inmate dress policy, which required inmates to wear pants when female staff were in the close management dorms. According to an expert who testified at trial, enforcing this rule would have “discourage[d] th[e] gunning masturbation.” A reasonable jury also could have found that security personnel should have accompanied female staff while they were in the close
18

management dorms. A reasonable jury could have found that the Department should have required security officers to write disciplinary reports or permitted the female staff to report the misconduct of inmates. See Freitag, 468 F.3d at 541; Garrett, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 1292. Moreover, a reasonable jury could have found that prison administrators should have permitted the nurses to use screens at cell windows and in the bubble to prevent harassment. Freitag, 468 F.3d at 540–41; Garrett, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 1292–93. A reasonable jury also could have found that the prison should have treated masturbation toward female staff as the Department treated abuse of the all-male security staff and referred the incidents for outside prosecution. Freitag, 468 F.3d at 541 & n.6. A reasonable jury also could have found that the Department should have adopted a specific anti-gunning policy. Id. at 541; Garrett, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 1298.
The Department could reasonably have done any or all of these things to protect the employees at Martin. The Department instead sought a blanket exemption from an established requirement of Title VII. That strategy was misguided.
B. The Harassment of Employees by Inmates Was Based on Sex. Our recent en banc opinion in Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., forecloses the alternative argument of the Department that no reasonable jury could
19

have found that the conduct of the inmates was based on sex. 594 F.3d 798 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Department contends that the “inmates in close management confinement [were] equal opportunity harassers” and that the women “chose to work in a correctional facility that houses close management inmates [and] made a choice to work in an environment with the ‘worst of the worst,’” but these arguments fail. That the close management inmates are typically crude and even obscene does not mean that their harassment was indiscriminate. Id. at 810. The employees presented evidence that the inmates called them cunts, whores, bitches, and sluts, and we have ruled that these gender-specific and highly offensive epithets evidence sex-based harassment under Title VII. Id. The female employees also presented evidence that the inmates gunned only female staff, Garrett, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 1292 n.3, and, not surprisingly, our sister circuits agree that exhibitionist masturbation, especially gunning, is sex based and highly offensive conduct. See, e.g., Freitag, 468 F.3d at 540; see also Garrett, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 1298–99.
Title VII required the Department to adopt reasonable remedial measures to protect its female employees from the sexually hostile environment that the inmates created. The jury was entitled to find that the Department made almost no effort to protect its employees from this sex-based harassment. This record entitled
20

the jury to find the Department liable under Title VII. C. The District Court Did Not Err in Rejecting the Faragher Instruction. The Department argues that the district court should have instructed the jury
about the affirmative defense that the Supreme Court articulated in Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807–08, 118 S. Ct. at 2292–93. According to the Department, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could return a verdict in favor of the Department if the jury found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department exercised reasonable care to prevent or promptly correct any sexual harassment and the employees unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided. This argument fails for two reasons.
We agree with the district court that the Faragher defense was not available to the Department. By its own terms, the Faragher defense is available to employers who defend against complaints of “an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the [plaintiff] employee.” Id. at 807, 118 S. Ct. at 2293 (emphasis added). When, as here, employees complain of harassment by someone other than a supervisor, the Faragher defense does not apply. “One standard exists for harassment by supervisors and another for harassment by coworkers” and third parties. Erickson,
21

469 F.3d at 604. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it instructed the jury consistent with our precedent, see Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Dunn, 429 F.3d at 691, and refused to give the instruction that the Department requested.
Alternatively, the refusal of the district court to instruct the jury about the Faragher defense did not prejudice the Department. If it had received its requested instruction, the Department could have avoided liability if it had proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had taken reasonable preventive or corrective measures to address the harassment by the inmates, see Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807, 118 S. Ct. at 2293, but we know that the jury would not have found for the Department on that issue. The jury answered “yes” to special interrogatories that asked whether the Department “failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior in the workplace.” The “affirmative answer[s] to the[se] . . . interrogator[ies] indicat[e], without doubt,” how the jury would have found on a necessary element of the Faragher defense, and render any error in refusing the instruction of the Department harmless. Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (11th Cir. 2003).
D. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Refused to Sever the Employees’ Claims Under Rule 42(b).
The Department concedes that Rule 20(a) permitted the district court to join
22

the individual employees’ claims, but argues that the district court should have severed the claims under Rule 42(b) and ordered separate trials “to avoid prejudice” to the Department. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). The Department contends that it “suffered prejudice by the large number of claims, the sheer volume of information, and the inflammatory nature of the allegations.” The Department recognizes the “practical burdens that could result from conducting fourteen separate trials as opposed to a single large trial,” but maintains that “such burdens, if they manifest, cannot take precedence over the administration of justice and the right of the [Department] to a fair trial.”
At least four considerations persuade us that, on “the peculiar facts and circumstances of [this] case,” the district court did not abuse its discretion. Alexander, 207 F.3d at 1325. First, this litigation involved 14 plaintiffs, and we have affirmed refusals to sever that involved more plaintiffs. See id. (affirming refusal to sever in employment discrimination action involving 18 plaintiffs). Second, “in this case the potential for prejudice was minimized because of the core similarities” in the female employees’ claims. Id. Each employee sought to prove that inmates repeatedly gunned and verbally abused female employees, the Department knew of this gunning and harassment, the Department reasonably could have prevented or remedied this behavior, and the Department did not
23

respond to the harassment in ways that it reasonably could have. The defense of the Department, as it was explained to the district court and presented at trial, did not differ from claim to claim. Third, the district court was understandably concerned about delaying this litigation, which had been wending its way through state and federal court for more than five years, and “economy[ and] expedition” are relevant considerations under Rule 42(b). Id. Fourth, the district court sensibly considered that another district court had recently tried, successfully and in only five days, a nearly identical set of actions involving 12 female prison employees. The Department argues that “the volatile nature of the allegation[s] warranted severance,” but severance would not have changed the highly incendiary nature of the inmates’ conduct or the employees’ allegations. In the light of our precedents, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in trying these claims together.
IV. CONCLUSION The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
24