Civil Rights Division 

PROTECTING WOMEN’S RIGHTS
 

Reinvigorating Fair Housing Enforcement 

In 1974, Congress amended the Fair Housing Act to ban discrimination in housing based on sex, 

and the Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment is a form of prohibited sex 

discrimination. Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the United States has filed 

eight cases alleging that a landlord or a landlord’s agent has engaged in a pattern or practice of 

sexually harassing female tenants; three cases were filed in FY 2011 and one in FY2012 to date. 

The similarities in these cases are striking. The victims are typically low-income women with 

few housing options who are subjected to what the Division has found are repeated sexual 

advances and, in some cases, sexual assault by landlords, property managers, and maintenance 

workers. Case examples include: 

	 United States v. Peterson (E.D. Mich.) -- This case was filed on January 29, 2009, and on 

August 6, 2010, a jury in Detroit returned a $115,000 verdict. The United States 

presented evidence that Glenn Johnson, a maintenance worker, subjected six women to 

severe and pervasive sexual harassment, ranging from unwelcome sexual comments and 

sexual advances to requiring sexual favors in exchange for their tenancy. One woman 

testified that Johnson refused to give her keys to her apartment until she agreed to have 

sex with him. In addition, evidence showed that a Washtenaw County Commissioner 

who owned the properties knew that Johnson was harassing tenants but did nothing to 

stop it. The jury awarded damages to the six female tenants. On March 3, 2011, the 

court granted the United States’ motion for civil penalties and injunctive relief. 

	 United States v. Bailey (S.D. Ohio) -- This case was filed on January 31, 2011, alleging 

that Henry Bailey, the owner and manager of several residential rental properties in the 

Cincinnati area, engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting female tenants and 

prospective tenants to unwanted verbal sexual advances and unwanted sexual touching; 

entering the apartments of female tenants without permission and notice; granting and 

denying tangible housing benefits based on sex; and taking adverse actions against 

female tenants when they refused his advances. Trial is scheduled for 2012. 

	 United States v. Sorensen (E.D. Ca.) -- On March 25, 2011, the Civil Rights Division 

filed this suit, alleging that Rawland Sorensen, the owner and manager of more than 50 

properties in Bakersfield, CA, had engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting actual 

and prospective women tenants to discrimination on the basis of sex, including severe 

and pervasive sexual harassment. The suit alleges that Sorensen sexually harassed female 

tenants by making unwelcome sexual comments and advances; exposing his genitals to 

female tenants; touching tenants without their consent; granting and denying housing 

benefits based on sex; and taking adverse action against women who refused his sexual 

advances. 
Civil Rights Division 

PROTECTING WOMEN’S RIGHTS
 

Police Misconduct and Gender-Biased Policing 

The Division has the authority to investigate and file a civil suit if a law enforcement agency has 

engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct that deprives individuals of their rights. The 

Division’s pattern or practice investigation of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) 

marked the first time ever that the Justice Department found reasonable cause to believe that a 

police department had engaged in a pattern or practice of gender-biased policing. 

	 The investigation found a systemic failure to investigate violence against women, in 

violation of federal law. Specifically, the Division found that NOPD systematically 

misclassified large numbers of possible sexual assaults, resulting in a sweeping failure to 

properly investigate many potential cases of rape, attempted rape, and other sex crimes. 

	 Additionally, in situations where NOPD pursued sexual assault complaints, the 

investigations were seriously deficient, marked by poor victim interviewing skills, 

missing or inadequate documentation, and minimal efforts to contact witnesses or 

interrogate suspects. 

	 Investigative reports were replete with stereotypical assumptions and judgments about 

sex crimes and victims of sex crimes, including misguided commentary about the 

victims’ perceived credibility, sexual history, or delay in contacting the police. 

	 With respect to domestic violence, while the New Orleans Family Justice Center -- a 

federally funded center designed to provide comprehensive services to victims of 

domestic violence by integrating law enforcement, prosecution, civil legal services, and 

advocacy in one location -- has had a salutary effect on NOPD’s handling of domestic 

violence complaints, the investigation found significant weaknesses in Department 

policies and practices in responding to these cases. 

The Division is now working with the NOPD, city leaders, and community stakeholders to draft 

a blueprint for sustainable reform that will address these and other findings. 
 

Civil Rights Division 

PROTECTING WOMEN’S RIGHTS
 

Prosecuting Criminal Civil Rights Violations 

The Division protects the rights of women through its enforcement of the federal criminal laws 

prohibiting: violent and threatening conduct aimed at the providers of reproductive health 

services; human trafficking; and misconduct by those acting under color of law. 

Case Examples: 

	 On July 28, 2010, Donald Hertz of Spokane, Washington, pleaded guilty to violating the 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Hertz admitted that on June 23, 

2009, approximately three weeks after the murder of Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas 

physician who provided reproductive health services, Hertz anonymously contacted the 

Boulder Abortion Clinic and stated that two of his associates were driving to Boulder to 

kill members of a clinic employee’s family in order to make that employee suffer. 

	 On June 21, 2011, former Hickman County Deputy Sheriff Kenneth H. Smith, pleaded 

guilty today to violating the rights of two women. While investigating two domestic 

violence complaints, Smith told the victims he needed to photograph their exposed bodies 

to document injuries, including intimate areas of their bodies where no injury had 

occurred. Smith lied to the victims and claimed the photographs were necessary for the 

police investigation and prosecution. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 7, 2011. 

	 On March 24, 2011, Amador Cortes-Meza was sentenced to 40 years in prison on sex 

trafficking charges. Cortes-Meza was the ring leader of an organization that brought 10 

victims, including four juveniles, to the United States and forced them into prostitution. 

Civil FACE Act Enforcement 

The Department of Justice’s National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care 

Workers continues its work to protect reproductive health care providers, coordinating with 

various federal and local agencies and representatives from the national provider groups to best 

ensure the safety of providers and their patients. 

In addition to enforcement of the FACE Act’s criminal provisions, the Division enforces the 

Act’s civil provisions to protect patients and reproductive health care providers against violence, 

threats of force, and physical obstruction at reproductive health care facilities. 

	 Since 2009, the Section has opened 20 FACE investigations and has filed eight civil 

FACE complaints, which have already resulted in three consent decrees. 

Comparatively, in 2007, one civil FACE case was filed. In the preceding eight years, 

the Department did not file any civil FACE cases. 
Civil Rights Division 

PROTECTING WOMEN’S RIGHTS
 

Protecting the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons 

Using its authority under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), the Division 

is actively involved in protecting the constitutional rights of institutionalized women and girls. 

This work includes investigating conditions of confinement, including allegations of sexual 

abuse or misconduct, at institutions housing women and girls, as well as ensuring that when we 

obtain legal remedies requiring the provision of adequate medical and mental health care at 

institutions housing both male and female individuals, these remedies include health care 

specifically needed by women and girls. 

Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility – In January 2010, the Division issued a findings 

letter as a result of an investigation of the Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility (IJCF) in 

Indiana. At the time of the investigation, the facility housed all girls in the State’s juvenile 

justice system who had been committed to the Indiana Department of Correction. Our 

investigation included review by a consultant who specializes in girls’ juvenile justice issues. 

We found that the State failed to keep girls at IJCF safe by: 

o	 Failing to protect girls from staff sexual abuse and misconduct; 

o	 Failing to conduct adequate abuse and misconduct investigations; 

o	 Failing to provide adequate staffing; 

o	 Using inappropriate and excessive force; 

o	 Using isolation excessively and without adequate due process; 

o	 Failing to provide an adequate grievance system; 

o	 Failing to provide adequate programming, including training staff on issues 

specific to trauma that girls have suffered; and 

o	 Failing to provide adequate access to toilets. 

Among the most disturbing findings was the rampant sexual environment at the facility, 

including staff members making sexual advances toward girls. 

The Division’s findings were confirmed by a 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, 

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-2009, released on January 7, 

2010, which found that 22.8 % of girls at IJCF – who ranged in age from 13 to 19 at the time of 

the Division’s investigation – reported having experienced at least one incident of sexual 

victimization by another youth or staff member at the facility in the prior year. We also found 

deficiencies in the facility’s mental health care services, and that the facility failed to provide 

educational services to girls as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

Currently, the Section has 15 open CRIPA matters (including matters in the preliminary 

investigation stage) involving allegations of coercive sexual misconduct, of which 7 involve 

juvenile facilities. 
 

Civil Rights Division 

PROTECTING WOMEN’S RIGHTS
 

Expanding Equal Employment Opportunity 

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Division can sue state and local government employers 

that discriminate on the basis of sex. Since January 20, 2009, the Division has filed seven sex discrimination 

complaints. The lawsuits fall into several categories, including challenges to discriminatory physical standards 

or hiring practices and allegations of sexual harassment or pregnancy discrimination. 

Case Examples: 

	 U.S. v. Massachusetts Department of Corrections – In February 2012, the Department filed a 

settlement to resolve the Department’s allegations that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the 

Massachusetts Department of Correction violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by 

discriminating against female applicants for entry-level correction officer (CO) and correction 

program officer (CPO) positions at the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MDOC). The 

complaint had alleged that Massachusetts’s use of a physical abilities test to pre-screen and select 

applicants for CO and CPO positions with the MDOC disproportionately excluded female applicants 

since 2007 and was not job related and consistent with business necessity. The settlement agreement 

requires that Massachusetts no longer use the physical abilities test challenged by the United States 

and requires that Massachusetts develop a new lawful selection procedure that complies with Title 

VII. The settlement agreement, if approved by the court, also requires that Massachusetts pay 

$736,000 towards back pay to female CO and CPO applicants who were harmed by the hiring practice 

challenged by the United States and who are determined to be eligible for relief. 

	 U.S. v. Hertford County, NC, Public Health Authority – In March 2011, the Court entered a consent 

decree to resolve a claim that the Hertford County Public Health Authority rescinded an offer of 

employment and refused to hire a woman for a Health Educator Specialist position because of her 

pregnancy. The consent decree requires the Health Authority to implement policies prohibiting sex 

discrimination and clear procedures by which employees may submit complaints of sex 

discrimination. The Health Authority will provide mandatory training to all employees with 

supervisory and hiring responsibilities, and will pay the victim compensatory damages and back pay. 

	 U.S. v. Harrison County, ID – In June 2009, the Division reached a consent decree to resolve a suit 

against Harrison County Sheriff George Michael Deatrick alleging sexual harassment of two female 

employees, namely that Deatrick touched the women in a sexual and offensive manner and directed 

sexually-charged comments to them, among other allegations. The complaint further alleged that 

Deatrick retaliated against the women when, after they had filed discrimination charges against him 

with the EEOC, he presented himself in front of them with a drawn gun to intimidate and frighten 

them. 

The Division is also a member of the President’s National Equal Pay Taskforce, which enables the Division to 

enhance its collaboration with its sister agencies to better enforce the critical laws barring pay discrimination. 

Through the Task Force, the Division and its partner agencies have shared information, training and 

enforcement strategies, and have increased their focus on ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal 

work. 
 

 

 

Civil Rights Division 

PROTECTING WOMEN’S RIGHTS
 

Ensuring Equal Educational Opportunities: Title IX 

In the decades since its passage, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 has vastly expanded 

opportunities for girls to participate in sports and other educational activities, as well as protecting their 

right to be safe at school. The Division can enforce Title IX if the Department of Education refers a 

complaint to DOJ for litigation. The Division also can intervene in a private suit or file an amicus brief. 

In the past two years, the Division has filed amicus briefs in two Title IX athletics cases: 

	 Florida High School Athletics Association (FHSAA) – In July 2009, the Division filed an 

amicus brief in a case against the FHSAA, which had reduced the maximum number of 

competitions that a school could schedule while exempting 36,000 boys who played football and 

only 4,300 girls and 201 boys who participated in competitive cheerleading. After the court 

accepted the Division’s brief, FHSAA voted unanimously to rescind its policy. 

	 Quinnipiac University (QU) – In June 2010, the Division filed an amicus brief to provide 

guidance on what constitutes a genuine opportunity to participate in athletics under Title IX. 

Private plaintiffs alleged that QU failed to provide female students an equal opportunity to 

participate in varsity athletics and that QU had misrepresented its athletic participation numbers. 

In ruling for the plaintiffs, the court applied much of the guidance set forth in our brief. 

In 2010, the Division filed an amicus brief in a case challenging a discriminatory single-sex education 

program, Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board. In June 2011, following a decision by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the school board decided not to continue its challenged single sex 

program for the 2011-2012 school year. 

In addition, for the first time in nearly a decade, the Division has participated in Title IX cases involving 

sex-stereotyping discrimination: 

	 J.L. v. Mohawk Central School District – In this case, a 14-year-old male student was subjected 

to derogatory name-calling, physical threats and violence over two years because he exhibited 

feminine mannerisms. His case alleged violations of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause 

and Title IX. The Division moved to intervene, alleging that the District knew about the 

harassment but was deliberately indifferent in its failure to take corrective action. The settlement 

that the Division reached with the District requires, among other things, the retention of an expert 

consultant to review policies related to harassment and annual training of faculty and staff. 

	 Tehachapi Unified School District On July 1, 2011, the Departments of Justice and Education 

reached a settlement with the Tehachapi Unified School District in California to resolve an 

investigation into the harassment of student Seth Walsh. In September 2010, Walsh committed 

suicide at the age of 13. The investigation found that Walsh was targeted for harassment for more 

than two years because of his nonconformity with gender stereotypes. The harassment included 

escalating verbal, physical and sexual harassment by other students. Despite having notice of the 

harassment, the district did not adequately investigate or otherwise respond. The district agreed 

to take steps to prevent sexual and gender-based harassment at all of its schools, to respond 

appropriately to harassment, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment. 
Civil Rights Division 

PROTECTING WOMEN’S RIGHTS
 

Enforcing the Rights of Women with Disabilities 

Protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities is a priority for the Department of Justice. 

The Division’s efforts to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protect women 

with disabilities in a number of ways. 

For example: 

	 Project Civic Access – The Division conducts compliance reviews of programs for 

victims of domestic violence and domestic violence shelters under the ADA. The 

reviews, which are conducted under the Project Civic Access initiative, focus on 

important access issues such as the physical accessibility of domestic violence shelters to 

individuals with disabilities, including persons who use wheelchairs; the removal of 

communication barriers for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, or have low 

vision (e.g., the availability of sign language interpreters, documents in alternate formats 

such as Braille and large print, and wayfinding assistance); and the elimination of 

eligibility criteria that may screen out individuals with disabilities, including individuals 

with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities. When investigations reveal that entities are 

not in full compliance with ADA, the Department negotiates agreements in which 

covered entities are required to achieve full compliance. 

Domestic Violence: A total of 19 Project Civic Access agreements that include 

domestic violence provisions have been signed in the current Administration. 

Access to domestic violence programs and shelters has improved in diverse 

geographic areas throughout the United States, from California to Rhode Island 

and from North Dakota to Texas. 

	 Access to Health Services – Women with mobility disabilities, including women who use 

wheelchairs, often have been denied access to basic medical care because of inaccessible 

exam rooms, examination tables, and diagnostic equipment, as well as the lack of 

knowledge by medical providers and staff about how to administer certain types of 

examinations to patients with paralysis and other conditions that limit mobility. 

In July 2010, the Civil Rights Division partnered with the Department of Health 

and Human Services to publish technical assistance that describes equipment and 

techniques designed to improve access to medical care for individuals with 

mobility disabilities. The publication includes technical assistance on improved 

access for women with mobility disabilities to gynecological exams and 

mammography.