## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 07

- 2534 E R S OLL . H EN RYa nd T ERRIJ. L EW IS, P laint if fs -App el lants , v . M IL WAUK EE C OUN TY, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 04 C432

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Chief Ju dge

.

____________ A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 —D ECI DE D A UGUS T 20, 2008

____________
Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . In 1 9 9 7, M il w au kee C ou nt y’s J uveni l e Dete nti on Cente r i nsti tuted a pol i cy that re quir ed each unito fthe f aci l i ty to be staffed at al l ti m es by at l eas t o ne o ffi cerof the sam e s ex as the detai nees h ou se d on th at u n it. B ec au se th er e w er e fa r m or e m ale uni ts tha n femal e uni ts a t th e f ac i l i ty, thi s p oli cyha d the effe c t o f re d u c in g th e nu m b er of sh ifts av aila b le for fem ale2 N o. 07

- 2534 officers. E rsol H en ry and Terri Lew is, both fem ale offi cers at the f aci l i ty, br ought thi s a cti on i n the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t f orthe Easter n Dis tr ict of W i sco nsi n, al l egin g s ex d isc rim in at ion an d ret alia tio n in v iol a tio n of T itle VI I, 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e , etse q. A fter a be nch tr i al, the dist ri ct cour t concl ud ed that the gender

- speci fi c pol i cy w as base d o n a b o na fi de o cc upa ti o na l qua l i fi ca ti o n a nd tha t no o the r di s c r i mi na t i o n o r r e t a l i a t i on h a d o c c ur r e d; a c c o r di ng l y, i t en te r ed j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe C ou nty . F o r the re aso ns se t for th i n thi s o pini on, w e re ver se the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I

B AC KGR OUND A. A t the tim e relevant to this ap p eal, Ersol H en ry and Terri L ew i s wer e empl o y ed as J uv en i l e Cor r ec ti o ns Offi cers ( “J CO s”) atthe M i l w aukee County J uveni l e Dete nti on Cen t e r ( “ J DC” )

. Th e J DC, pa r t o f the W i s c o ns i n St ate J uveni l e J usti ce S yst em , i s a detenti on f aci l i ty desi gned to house t empor ar i l y j uv en i l es a wai tingj uv en i l e co urt proce edi ngs. The sta tutor y m i ssi on o fthe W i sc onsi n j uveni l e j usti ce s y s t e m i n c l u d e s , i n t e r a l i a , p u n i s h me n t, d e t e r r e n c e , a nd “th e d evelop m en t of com p eten cy in the j uv en il e offen d er, so th at he o r sh e i s m o r e ca pab l e o fl i vingpr o duct i ve l y a nd resp ons ibl y i n th e com m un ity. ” W is. Stat. § 938.0 1 (2)( c). The m i ssi on s tat em en t o fthe J DC , i n part i cul ar, st ate s tha tthe f a c i l i t y i s i nt e nd e d:N o. 07

- 2534 3 1. To se rve the c om m unity b y pr ovi ding car e f or young peopl e who, bec ause they re prese nt a dangerto th emse l ve s o r o th er s, c o ul d no t rem ain s afel y i n the co m m u n ity pen d ing the outc om e of a Juven il e C ou rt proce edi ng. 2. To ser ve the J uveni l e Courts by m ai ntai ni ng clo se su per vi si o n a nd o bs er va ti o n o fy o ung st er s an d ensuri ng the i r appearance in cour t. 3
. T o s e r v e th e d e t a i n e d y o u th b y p r o v i d i ng t he be stpo ss ibl e ca r e i n a n atm osph er e o ff ai r ne ss a nd d ign ity so th at th eir en c o u n t er w ith th e Ju ve n ile J usti ce S yst em can be a posi ti ve one. Tr. Ex. 10 21. M ostj uveni l es at the J DC ar e deta i n ed ther e f oro nl y a sh or t peri od ofti m e. The av er age l ength ofst ay i s t en days, al thoug h f ortho se j uveni l es aw ai ti ng the i r i ni ti al c ou rtappeara nces, the aver age st ay i s a pp ro xi m ate ly th r ee wee k s. J uv en i l es o fte n ar e det aine d f o r a s l i tt l e as o ne day. Occasi onal l y, a j uveni l e m ay be det ai ned ther e f or as long as on e year. I n 1 99 1, T hom as W an ta was a ppo i nt ed su per i nt en den t of t h e JD C . Th e fa c i l i t y t h at M r. W an ta inh er ite d in 1991 w as a poor l y- m ai ntai ned, ove r- cro w ded detent i on f ac i l i tyb u i l t f o r i ndi r ec t ( al so kno wn as l i ne ar ) s upe r vi si o n. The j uv en i l es wer e ho us ed i n ce l l s o n a l o ngha l l way, a nd JCO s w al k ed th e ha l l s m o ni to r i ngthe i nm at es fr o m the outsi de w i thout m uch i nter acti on. M r. W an ta bel i eve d that thi s ind i re ct for m o fsuperv i si on was a p oo r w ay to c ar e f o r a nd t o r eh ab i l i tat e j uv en i l es ; a cc o r di ng l y, he4 N o. 07

- 2534

O ne pod at the J D C w as res erved for fem ale s. The other 1 six po d s ho u sed m ale ju v en iles. advanced the i dea ofa new f ac ility betteradapted to a m etho d o fs upe r vi si o n i n which st affmem be r s an d i nm ate s would have cl ose r, m or e di re ct c ontac t. A s a res u lt of h is e ffor ts , a n e w , n o n -lin ea r j u ve n ile detenti on f aci l i ty w as com ple ted i n A pri l 19 96 . T h e new J DC conta i ns com m on ro om s, cl ass ro om s and re c re ati on ro om s w h er e t h e juv en iles sp en d th e m ajorit y of t h eir d aytim e h ou rs. A t night, how ever, the j uv en il es are confi ne d t o the i r l i v i nga r e a s , wh i c h a r e a s s i g ne d b ase d o n the i r s ex , a g e an d c l as si fi ca ti o n. The l i vi ng ar eas atthe new f aci l i ty ar e o rgan ize d i nto seve n si ngl e- sex “ pods. ” Each ca n acco m m odate between 11 and 22 j uveni l es of th e sam e s ex. Each pod consi sts o f 1 a num bero fi nd i vi du al cel l s, a contr olcent erdesk f ro m w hi ch the sta ffcan m oni torthe cel l s a nd co m m unica te w i th the pod vi a i nter com , and a c om m on area o r “day ro om ” with tabl es, chai rs and a tel evi si on. The i nd i vi du al cel l s e ach contai n a bed, a toi l et, a desk a nd a sm al l st or age ar ea. The enti re cel l, i ncl ud i ng the to i let, i s v i sibl e fro m th e outs ide th roug h a w ind ow i n th e celldoor. The j uv en i l es ar e m o ni to r ed ata l l t i m es b y J COs. Dur i ng th e fi r s t ( mo r n i n g ) a n d s e c o n d ( e v e n i n g ) s h i ft s , t wo J COs ar e as si g ne d to su per vi se ea ch po d. Dur i ng th e th ird (n igh t) s h ift, w h en th e ju v en iles are loc ke d ins id e t h eir cel l s a nd ge nera l l y a re as l eep, onl y one J CO i s a ssi gned to m oni tor ea ch pod. I n additi on t o the J CO s a ssi gned to pods, the J DC al so h as a m ale and a fem al e “ runner” o nN o. 07

- 2534 5

O ther than these new ly- adm it ted ju venile s, al l regular 2 sho w erin g tak es p lace o n th e seco nd shift. A lthoug h the j uv enil es general ly ar e confined to thei r cel ls at 3 n i g h t, ce l l oc c u p a n t s c a n, a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y d o , t a l k wi th J C Os th r ou ghthe i r do or s . S t a ffm e m be r s a r e pe r m i t t e d t o s peak w ith the j uv enil es through their do ors at night; how ever, th ey a r e n otperm it ted t o e nt e r the i nd i vi dua l c e l l s a tn i gh te x c e pt in an e m ergency. Ifthe y d o ente r the ce ll s a t n ig h t, an al arm wi l l s ou nd

. d u ty atall tim es . Th e ru n n er is a JC O w h o is re sp on sib le f orper f or m i ng the i ntake pro cedures f ornewly- ad m i tte d j uv en il es, in c lu d ing an y nec essary p at-d ow ns and sup ervi si on o fsho w er i ng duri ng the ni ght ho urs. A n ot her 2 st aff m em b er m on ito rs th e ce n tr al con tr ol c en te r a t a ll ti m es. The advent o fthe new f aci l i ty provi ded a n opportunity f orM r. W anta to shi ft the J DC ’ s m etho d ofsuperv i si on f ro m an i nd i re ct m odel to a dir ect m odeland to enco urag e J CO s t o have gr eat eri nter acti on with the j uveni l es they mon i t o r e d. Ac c o r di ng l y, i n 1 9 9 7, Mr
. Wan t a i ns t i t ut e d a ne w rol e m od e l/m en toring p rogram at the JD C

. Th e staff, i ncl ud i ng the J CO s, r ecei ved bas i c tr ai ni ng in m ento ri ng, ro le m od elin g a n d ch ild d ev elo p m en t in ord er to eq u ip th em to int er ac t m or e e ffec tiv ely w ith th e ju v en iles . In further ance ofthi s pro gr am , M r. W anta al so re quir ed that a s taffm em bero fthe sam e s ex be ava i l abl e o n each pod ata l l t i m es thr ou gh ou t t he da y a nd ni g htt o ment o r the j uveni l es. 3 Pri orto the m ove to the n ew faci l i ty, J CO s had be en ass i gne d t o s hi fts wi th o utr eg ar d t o the s ex o fthe o ffi ce r.6 N o. 07

- 2534

The rati o of m ale detainee s to fem ale detai nees at the J D C w as 4 bet ween4: 1 an d 6: 1 dur i ng the r el eva ntt i m e per i od. Si x ofthe pod s at the new JD C w ere res erved for m ale s; one w as reserv ed f or fem ales. M r. W anta’ s new pol i cy, how eve r, re quir ed that each pod be s taffed at al l t im es b y a t l eas t o ne J CO o fthe sam e s ex as the j uveni l es housed on the pod. Du ri ng the day s hi fts, whe n tw o JCOs s t a ffe d e a c h po d, o ne o fthe t wo J COs co ul d be o f th e o ppo si te se x; ho wev er, dur i ng th e nigh t s hi ft s , w hen onl y o ne J CO s t a ffe d e a c h po d, the s o l e J CO o n duty ha d t o b e of th e s am e s ex a s th e j uv en i l es i n the pod. Because the J DC house d fa r m or e m al e j uveni l es than fem ale j u ve n iles , M r. W an ta ’s s am e-s ex role m od el/ 4 m ento ri ng pol i cy aff or ded m al e J CO s m or e o pp or tuni ties f o r wo r kth a n th o s e a v a i l a b l e t o fe ma l e J C O s . T h e n i g ht shi ft was part i cul ar l y pr obl em ati c. I t was per cei ved as the e asi estshi ft; tho se offi cer s a ssi gned to i t r ece ived prem i um pay; and i t aff or ded the m osto pp or tuni ti es f oro ver ti m e. D uring the tim e of their em p loym en t as JCO s, M s. H en ry and M s. Lew i s pri m ar i l y work ed one ofthe day shi fts. Pri orto 1997, h owever, they each h ad ear ned a s ubstanti al am ou n t ofaddit i onali ncom e fro m vo l untaryo ver ti m e, predom i nantl y b y work i ng the ni ght s hi ft. A c cor ding to a co l l ecti ve bar gai ni ng ag re em ent, vol untaryo ver ti m e a t th e J DC t r adi ti o na l l y ha d bee n a ppo r ti o ne d a cc o r di ng to se n iorit y. E m p loy ee s w ith th e m os t s en iorit y c o u ld “put i n” f oro ver ti m e, and they w oul d rec ei ve the fi rs t op p or tu n itie s t o w or k t h eir p re fer re d sh i f ts . M s. L ew isN o. 07

- 2534 7

A t the ti m e of tr ial, despite the eff orts of M r. W anta, the sam e- 5 s e x o ve r t i m e po l i c y w as not be i ng f ol l owe d s t r i c t l y a tthe J DC. O n th e ad v i ce of cou nsel, the JD C b eg an allow ing fem ales to wor k i n m a l e po ds du r i ng the thi r d s hi ft, s o l ong as t he y ke pt the do ors betw een the pod s open. Tr. at 659. an d M s. Henr y wer e r el at ivel y s en i o r e m pl o y ee s, a nd the y o ft e n we r e ab l e t o wo r ko v e r t i me a tthe o l d J DC. A fterM r. W anta i nsti tuted the sa m e- sex pod pol i cy, how ever, f ar few er w om en w ere all ow ed to w ork the th ird sh ift b ec au se th er e w er e fa r few er fem ale p od s t h an m ale p od s a t t h e fa c ilit y . A s a res u lt of t h e s am e-s ex role m o del/ m en to r i ng p r o g r am, mos t o fthe a va i l ab l e ni g ht s h i ft s w i th p r e mi u m p a y w e r e r e s e r v e d f o r ma l e e mpl o y ee s. F emal e o ffi ce r s l i k e M s. H en r y an d M s. Lewi s no l o n g e r w e r e ab l e t o g e tth e s a me n u mb e r o fo v e r t i me h ou rs as th e y p re vio u sly h ad rec eiv ed . In st ea d , m ale em plo yee s with l ess se ni or i ty w er e al l owed to w or k these shifts. Consequentl y, M s. H enryand M s. Lew i s r ecei ved si gni fi cantl y l ess co m pe n sati on than theyhad re cei ved p r i o r t o t h e in st itu tio n of th e s am e-s ex role mo d e l / me n t o r i n gp r o g r a m. 5

B. Pr i o r t o th e i ns ti tu ti o n o fthi s po l i cy, M s. Henr y a nd M s. Le wi s ea chha d fi led an unr el at ed EEOC co m pl aint all eging har ass m ent a nd di scr i m i nati on i n the w or kpla ce. I n Octobe r of19 97, theyfi l ed additi onalgr i evance s re gar ding the s ex- speci fi c r equi re m en ts ofthe thi rd shi ft.8 N o. 07

- 2534 The pla i nti ff s a l l ege thattheysubse quently w er e t re ate d even m ore nega tively th an they had been treated before they fi l ed these co m pla i nts. M s. H enryte sti fi ed at tr i althatherH ead ofS hi ft, Bobby Bel l, bec am e a ggr ess i ve and thre ate ni ng tow ar d her after she b eg ano bj ec tingt o the J DC’ s se x-ba se d s hi ft as si g nm en ts a nd t o o th eri ns ta nc es o fa l l eg ed di sc r i m i na ti o n. S he a l so s ta te d tha t sh e o nc e wa s r emov ed f r o m the vo l unt ar y o ve r ti m e l i stf o r b eingt ard y b y j us t o ne m i nut e an d tha t s he w as c r i ti ci ze d i nf o r m al l y b y manag ementf o r minor thi ng s su cha s ea tinga s an dwi cha nd we a r i n ga s we a t e r a tw o r k

. S h e t e s t i fi e d th a to th e r e mplo yee s were not disc i pli ned orcr i ti ci zed f or s u ch m i nor i nfr acti ons. S he al so not ed thatherti m ecar d had been wri tt eno n i n r ed i nk, whi chs he f o und e m ba r r as sing, a nd that occa si on ally herti m ecar ds had been m i ssi ng al together

— an unusual occur re nce. M s. Lew i s t est i fi ed that, afterfilin g her EE OC char ges , he r doc to r ’ s no te s wer e no l o ng era cc ept ed wi th o ut questi on f orsi ck l eave purposes . Both pl ai nti ff s s tat ed that thei r m anage rs cal l ed them ve ryea rl y in the m or ni ngs on w eeken d s and on vac ation d ays w he n t h e m an agers knew that they woul d be unabl e t o w or k. They a l so ass er ted that, despi te re peated r equests , theyno l onge r w ere assigne d to w ork togeth er or to w ork at th e “easier” J CO posi ti ons w hi ch theyp re fer re d. Fi nal l y, they t est i fi ed that they w er e r eferred to as “tr oubl em ake rs ” a nd o ther dero gat or y t er m s bythei r m anage rs and fel l ow JCOs. U l ti m ate l y, M s. L ew i s a nd M s. H enrydeci ded to ta ke p os i ti ons i n differ ent depar tm ents because o fthi s a l l ege dN o. 07

- 2534 9 hara ssm ent. A l though theirhour l y pay r ate was gr eat er in these pos i ti ons than the i r hourl y r ate had bee n w h ile w or ki ng as J CO s, thei r tot ali ncom e was l ess bec ause they w er e unabl e t o geto ver ti m e pay i n thes e pos i ti ons.

C. M s. H en ry a nd M s. Le wi s br o ug htthi s ac ti o n i n the d ist ric t c ou rt . Th ey alleg ed th at, in vio lat ion ofT i t l e V II, th ey ha d been de nie d overtim e assignm en ts on th e third sh ift a t the J DC bec ause ofthei r sex. They a l so al l ege d that they w er e s ubj ecte d to a va ri etyo fo theri nd i gni ti es i n the wor k pl ac e o n a cc o unto fthe i r s ex a nd tha t th e d e fe n d a n t s h a d r e t a l i a t e d a g a i n s tth e m f o r fi l i n gc o mpl aint s o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. Befo re the dist ri ct c ourt, the C ou nty deni ed that M s. H enryand M s. L ew is had experi enced any hara ssm en t o n a c c ou n t o f th eir se x or in ret alia tio n for t h eir EE OC char ges . The County a dm i tte d that i t had as si gned p osit i o ns o n the thi r d s hi ft ba se d o n the e m pl o y ee s’ s ex ; h ow ev er , i t a ss er te d as a d efe n se th at its se x -b as ed cla ss ificati ons w er e a bo na fi de occupati onalqual i fi cati on (“B FO Q ”) p er m iss i b l e u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 20 00 e-2 (e). It bas ed this d efense l argely on th e testim ony of th e JDC ’s su p er in te n d en t, M r . W an ta , w h o t es tifie d th at, in h is pr ofess i onalj ud gm ent, a sam e- sex r ol e m odel/ m ento ri ng p ro gr am w oul d bestfaci l i tat e the r ehabi l i tat i ve g o a l s o fthe J DC. Aft era thr ee - dayb en cht r i al, the di st r i ctc o ur t co nclud ed that the sam e-sex staffing policy on th e third shift10 N o. 07

- 2534

w as a B FO Q

. I t foun d th a t “ [t]h e essen ce of the JDC ’s bus i ne ss i s t o ens ur e an d pr o m o te the c ar e, r eh ab i l i ta ti o n, sa fet y a n d se c u rit y of t h e juv en iles e n tr u st ed to its ca re .” R. 60 a t 11

. Ba se d o n Mr. W an ta’ s te st i m o ny, i t th enc o ncl ude d tha t “s ame g en derr o l e m o del i ngfur th er s th e tw in g oa ls of re h ab ilita tio n an d se c u rit y in th e juv en ile de t e nt i o n s e t t i ng, ” id

. at 4, and that “[s] am e gen d er shift as si g nm en ts s er ve t o pr o te ctthe pr ivacy i nt er es ts o fthe j uveni l e deta i nees, ” id

. at5. Final l y, r el ying on gener al stu d ies tha t het erosex ua l assa ults are stat isti cally m ore l i kel y than hom ose xual ass aul ts, the cour t f ou n d that “[s]a m e g ender shi ft a ssi gnm ents al so ser ve the g oal s o f ri sk m anage m ent a nd se curi ty. ” Id

. I n th e d is t r ict court’s vie w , th e “ alt er n at ive to p ro te c tin g a ga in st th is ri s k . .

. is to hi r e ana ddi ti o na l s ta ffmem be r f o r e ac h po d o n thi rd s hi fta ta n a pp r o xi mat e c o s to f$ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 p e r y ear . ” Id

. Acc o r di ng l y, i tf o un d tha tge nde r wa s a BF OQ f o r J COs w orking the third shift; there fore, the sex -based shift as sig n m en ts d id n ot vio lat e th e an ti-d isc rim in at ion p ro visio n s o f T itle V II. R egard ing the plaintiffs ’ oth er clai m s, th e d istri ct cou rt f ound that the al l ege dlyhar ass i ng in c idents di d not affec t th e te rm s an d c o ndi ti o ns o fthe i r e m pl o y m en t because theywere “tr i vi ali nconveni ences” thatdi d “not ri se to the l eve l of an adver se em plo ym ent a cti on. ” Id

. at7. I t a l so f ound that the al l ege d ret al i ato ryacti ons w er e no t m ate ri al l y a dvers e a cti ons that w oul d diss uad e a rea sonab l e e m plo yee fr om enga gi ng i n prot ecte d acti vi ty. Id

. a t 8. F i na l l y, the d istr i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e pl ainti ff s had fa il ed to dem onst ra te any c ausalco nnecti on be twe enthe i r g en dero r the i r EEOC c ha r g es a nd theN o. 07

- 2534 11 alle ge d h ar as sm en t. Id

. at9- 10. A c c or dingl y, i t deni ed th eir cla im s o f d isc rim in at ion an d ret alia tio n u n d er T itle V II. The dis tr i ct c ourtther ef or e e nter ed j ud gm ent in f avo r o fthe de fen dan ts o n May 31 , 2 00 7. M s. Henr y a nd M s . Le wi s t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

II DI S C US S I ON A. W e be gi n by set ti ng f or th the ge nera l pri nci ple s that m us t g o ve r n o urde ci si o n. Ti tl e VI Imake s i t unl aw ful f o r a n e mp l o y e r to “ l i mi t, s e g r e g a t e , o r c l a s s i fy h i s e mp loy ee s” ba se d on th eir s ex in a w ay th at w ou ld ad ve rs ely a ffe c tth e i r e mpl o y me n t
. 4 2 U. S

. C

. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) ( 2 )

. An excepti on e xi sts , however, wh en se x i s a bo na fid e o cc u p a t ion al q u alific at ion (“B FO Q ”) t h at is “r ea so n ab ly necess ar y t o the no rm al op erati on o fthatpart i cul ar busi ness orente rpri se. ” Id . § 20 00 e-2 (e); se e also Int’l U nio n, U nited A uto
. A erosp a ce & A gric
. Im plem ent Wo r k ers v. Johnson Co ntrols, Inc. , 499 U

. S. 187, 201 (1991 ); Tor r e s v. Wi s . D ep’ tof

He al t h & Soc i al Se r vs . , 85 9 F.2 d 15 23, 15 27 (7th C ir. 1988) (en ban c). Th e S up r e me Co ur th a s c a ut i o ne d thatthe BF OQ defe nse i s wri tte n n ar ro w l y a nd i s t o be r ead nar ro w l y. Int ’ l U ni on, 4 99 U. S

. a t 20 1. I t ha s m ad e cl ea r tha t th e defe nse i s “m eant to be an extr em el y nar ro w exce pti on t o the g ener alp ro hibi ti on o fdi scr i m i nati on o n the basi s o f12 N o. 07

- 2534

S ee al so E v erso n v. M ich . D ep t. of C or r., 39 1 F. 3d 73 7, 749 ( 6th 6 C ir . 20 0 4 ); R eed v. Co u n ty of C asey, 184 F. 3d 597, 600 ( 6th Cir

. 1 9 9 9 ); C ham bers v. Om aha G i rl s C l ub, Inc. , 83 4 F .2d 697 , 70 4 (8th C ir . 19 8 7 ); E dw ards v . D ep’ t of C orr. , 6 1 5 F
. S u p p . 8 0 4 , 8 0 9 ( M. D. A la . 19 8 5 ). sex. ” D ot har d v

. Rawli ns on , 433 U .S. 32 1, 33 4 (1 97 7). In D o tha rd, the C ou rt qu oted ap p rovingly the Fifth C ircuit’s f o r m ul at i o n in D i az v. P an Am e r i ca n Wor l d Ai r ways , 44 2 F. 2d 385, 38 8 ( 5th Ci r. 19 71) , that“d iscri m i nati on ba sed on s ex i s v al i d on l y when the es se nceo fthe busi ness op er at ion w ou ld be u n d er m in ed .” D o tha rd, 43 3 U.S

. at 333; see a lso To rres , 85 9 F
. 2d at 1527

. Em plo yer s be arthe burden ofes tabl i shi ng the affi rm ativ e d efe n se th at a p ar tic u lar qu alific a t i o n i s a B FO Q

. See M eacham v . K nolls A tom ic P ow erLab. , 12 8 S

. Ct. 23 95, 24 00- 01 (2008); E verso n v . M ich . D ep’t o f C o rr. , 39 1 F

. 3d 737, 74 8 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 4)

. Em pl o y er s al so b ea r the bur denofpr o ving that they coul d not r ear ra nge j ob re sponsibi l i ti es o r othe rwis e e l i m i nate the cl ash be tw een the busi ness necessit ies an d th e e m p loy m en t o p p or tu n itie s o f fem a le offi cer s. To rres v. Wis. D e p t
. o f H eal th & So cia l Serv s., 83 8 F. 2d 944, 95 3 n. 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ( re heard and re ver sed o n o th erg r o unds i n To rres , 859 F.2d 152 3). 6

B. Befo re the dist rict co urt, M i l w aukee County r el i ed on a s e r i e s o fc a s e s fr o m t hi s a nd o the r c i r c ui t s tha te xam in ed w h e t h e r se x co u ld be a B FO Q for offic er s in ad u ltN o. 07

- 2534 13 fem ale co rre c tio n al fa c ilitie s. See To rres , 85 9 F
. 2d at 1532 ; E verso n, 39 1 F.3d at 74 7-6 0; Robi no v. Ir anon , 14 5 F
. 3d 1109 , 11 10 -11 (9t h C ir. 19 98 ); Tha rp v. Io w a D ep’t o f C o rr . , 68 F. 3d 223, 226 (8th C ir. 1995). I n eac h of thes e ca s es, th e cou rt h eld th at th e g oa ls of se c u rit y, sa fet y, p riv ac y a n d reh ab ilitat i on co uld, i n so m e ci rcum stances, j usti fy s ex-base d ass i gnm ents i n fem al e pr i sons. M i lw au kee County su b m its th at, l ike th e s ex -sp ec ific s h ift a ss ign m e n ts in adul t femal e co r r ec ti o na l f ac i l i ti es , th e se x- spe ci fi c as si g nm en ts at issue h ere shou ld be u p he ld bec au se th ey are necess ar y t o prot ect the juv eni l es’ sa fetyand pri vacy and to furtherthe f aci l i ty’ s r ehabi l i tat i ve goa l s. I n To rres , w e d e t e r mi n e d th a tth e u n i q u e c i r c u msta nces of the fem al e pr i son at i ssue re quir ed pri son adm i ni str ato rs to “i nnovate and experi m ent. ” 8 59 F. 2d at 1529

. I n the cour se of our deci si on, w e no ted that, bec ause p ris on ad m in ist ra to rs in g en er al fa c e u n u su ally d ifficu lt chal l enges i n deal i ng with the “ perpl exi ng so ci ol ogi cal probl em s o fhow best to achi ev e the go al s o fthe penal functi on i n the cri m i nal j usti ce s yst em : to punish j ustl y, to deterfuture cri m e, and to r et u rn i m pri sone d perso ns to so c iet y w ith an im p ro ve d c h an c e o f be in g u se fu l, l aw- ab i di ng c i ti ze ns , ” pr i so n a dm i ni st r at o r s’ de ci si o ns m u st rec eiv e s om e d eg re e o f d ef e r e n c e. Id

. A ccor dingl y, al though the deci si ons ofpri son offi ci al s a re not acc ord ed as m uc h d efere nc e in Title VIIcases as they are i n const i tuti onalcas es, thei r deci sion s “ar e e nti tl ed to substa nti alweight w hen they are the p rod uc t of a reaso ned dec isio n-m a k ing pro cess , b as ed o n av ai l ab l e i nf o r m at i o n a nd ex p er ien c e.” Id . at 1 53 2 (e m p h as is a d d e d ); s e eal s o Rob i no ,14 N o. 07

- 2534 14 5 F .3d at11 10 ; Evers on , 3 91 F. 3d at 750. M i l w aukee C ou nty c o nt en ds th at, l i k e i n To rres , the ad m inistrators of t h e JD C w er e e n tit led t o su b st an tia l d efe re n c e in th eir dec i si o n t o i m pl ementa s ex - spe ci fi c po l i cy r eg ar di ng shi ft a ssi gnm ents. I n i ts vi ew , the goa l s and ci rcum sta nces o fthe j uv en i l e detent i o n c o nt ex t, whenc o m par ed to the femal e co r r ec ti o ns c o nt ex t, a r e equa l l y c o m pl ex a nd chal l engi ng. W e a gr ee that the a dm i ni str ato rs o fj uveni l e dete nti on f aci l i ti es, l i ke the a dm i ni str ato rs o ffem al e co rrecti onal f aci l i ti es, ar e e nt itled to substa nti aldefer ence w hen f a s h i o n i n gp o l i c i e s t o fu r th e r th e g o a l s o fth e f a c i l i t y . We do not ag re e, how eve r, thatthe disc re ti on a ccor ded to the s e i nd i v i du a l s i n e i the r c o nt e xti s e ffe c t i v e l y u nl i mi t e d. A d efe n d an t u ltim at ely m u st int ro d u c e s u fficie n t e vid en ce t o pr o ve tha t th e admi ni st r at o r ’ s j udg m en t

— that a par ti cul arse x cl ass i fica tio n i s r eas onabl y nec ess ar y t o the norm alo perat i on o fthe i nsti tuti on

— i s “the product o f a re as on ed d ec isio n -m ak in g p r oc es s, b as ed on av aila b le i nfo rm ati on a nd exper i ence. ” See To rres , 85 9 F
. 2d at 1532

. The dis tr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that the J DC ’ s pol i cy of ass i gni ng shi fts acco rdi ng to an em plo yee ’ s sex w as base d on i ts adm in istr ato r’ s r eas onabl e be l i efthatthe pol i cy woul d “ pr o m o te ” th e g o al s o f r eh ab i l i ta ti o n, se cur i tya nd pri vacy . R. 60 at 11. A l l o fthes e functi on s are , as the dist r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d, e s s e nt i a l to the m i s s i o n o fthe J DC. H ow ev er , Tit le V II’s st an d ar d is n ots a t i s f ied sim p ly b e c a us e a pol i cy pro m o tes an e sse nti alfuncti on o fan i ns t i t ut i o n. Al tho ugh s e x-b a s e d a s s i g nme nt s mi g htbe he l pf ul in p u rs u in g t h es e g oa ls, inord er to sa tis fy t h e a n ti-N o. 07

- 2534 15 disc ri m i nati on s tr i cture s o fTi tl e V II, M i l w aukee County m us t sh o w tha t th e co nt es te d se x cl as si fi ca ti o ns are
“ re as ona bly necessa ry . ” See To rres , 859 F.2d at15 27 (em p h as is in orig in al); se e also K im el v . Fla. Bd

. of Regents , 52 8 U.S

. 62 , 86 (2000) (noting that the “reason ably nec essary” stan d ard ofthe BFOQ defense i s “ a f arcr y fro m the ra ti onal bas is stand ard ”). W e m ust co ncl ud e that M i l w aukee County’ s co ntenti on that sex-base d assi gnm ents ar e rea s o n a bly necessa ryto achi eve thes e g oal s, atl eas t o n the thi rd shi ft, i s no t su p p or te d by th e re c or d be for e u s. T h e e m p lo y e r , M ilw au ke e C ou n ty , ha s t h e b u rd en to d em on st ra t e t h at it coul d not r ear ra n ge j ob re sponsibi l i ti es to el i m i nate or m i ni m i ze the c onfl i ct b etw een the i nm ate s’ pri vacy, secur i ty and rehab i l i tat i on i nter est s a nd the em p loy ees ’ rig h ts u n d er T itle V II. See To rres, 83 8 F
. 2d at 952 n. 6; C ha m bers v. Om ah a Gi r l s Cl u b, Inc. , 8 34 F. 2d 697, 70 4 ( 8th Cir

. 19 87)

. A l though r educing the num ber ofo pp osi te- sex sta ffo n the pods m ay help t o pr om ote se cur i ty, e ffi ci en t ris k m anage m ent a nd pri vacy, M i l w aukee County has f ai l ed to es tabl i sh that i ts pol i cy w as reaso na bly necessa ry f orthese goa l s. W e a dd re ss each pr offer ed j usti fi cati on i n tur n. The ev i den ce i n th e r ec o r d do es no t su ppo r t th e co nc l usi o n tha t th e j uv en i l es ’ s afety o r s ec ur i ty, o r the i ns ti tu
tio n ’s a b ility t o m an ag e ris k e ffec tiv ely , w as atall in j eopar dy beca use o fthe prese nc e o fo pp osi te- sex J CO s o n the t h ird s hi ft. The di str i ct c ourtco rr ectl y a sse rt ed that h et er os ex u al a ss au lts an d m isc on d u c t a re st at ist ica lly m or e l i kel y than hom ose xual att acks

. The r eco rd es tab-16 N o. 07

- 2534 l i shes, however, thatther e has notbee n a s i ngl e ins ta n ce ofst aff

- on- i nm ate se xual ass aul t a t the J DC , o n any shi ft, by ei thersex ; n orhas ther e be en a si gni fi cant pr obl em w i th f al se accusat i ons aga i nst the s taff

. Fur ther m or e, o ther safetypre cauti ons, such a s doo r al ar m s a nd the pres ence of sup er v isors, run ne rs and video ca m eras, curren tly are w or ki ng to pre vent actual and al l ege d secur i ty bre aches. Al th o u g h Mi l wa u k e e C o u n t y c o n t e n d s th a ta s t a ffme mberm ay be abl e to ci rcum vent the a l ar m sy ste m i n or der to e nt era j uv en i l e’ s cel l a t ni g ht, the r ec o r d c o nt ains no e vi dence thatthi s co nti ngency has o ccu rre d orwas l i k e l y t o o c c ura tthe J DC. M o r e funda m en ta l l y, M i l wauk ee Co unty o ffer ed no r e a s o ns wh y the n ume r o us a l t e r na t i v e s t o s a me- sex sta ffi ng sug ges ted bythe pla i nti ff s at tri al, such as i m provi ngthe a l ar m s y st em, i n s t a l l in ga d d i t i o n alc amer as , l ea ving th e do o r s o penb etwee n the po ds at ni g hto r i nc r ea sing the fre quency ofsuperv iso r p atr ol s, would not have m i ti gat ed any concern . Notabl y, M r. W anta tes ti fi ed at tr i althathe ha d not invest i gat ed the cos t o fany ofthes e op tions. H e d id assert th at ad d ing an ad d iti ona l staff m em b er on ea c h of th e p od s d u rin g t h e t h i rd sh ift w ou ld have b een prohibi ti vel y c ost l y; however, he di d not provi de any data on thi s p oi nt, and such an augm entat i on in p er so n n el c er ta in ly w as n otth e o n ly op tio n av aila b le to m in im ize th e a lre ad y-m in im al ris k of s ta ff-on -j u ve n ile sexualas saul t. The BFOQ defense extends o nl y t o thos e pol i ci es that ar e “ re aso nabl y nec ess ar y t o the no rm al op e r a t i on ” o f th e in st itu tio n, 42 U .S.C . 200 0e -2(e )(1) . I t does not e xcuse i nvest i gat i on o fand re l i ance up on a l ter na-N o. 07

- 2534 17

S ee, e. g., C ham bers , 834 F. 2d at 701 ( noti ng that “[ t] he em ployer 7 m u st de m on strate th at t h ere is a co m p elling nee d to m ain tain thatpr ac t i c e, an d t he pr ac t i c e c ann otbe j us t ifi ed b y r out i ne b u sin es s co n sid er a tio n s” (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed )). ti ves that i nvol ve m i nor additi onalco sts o r i nconveni ences. 7 M ilw au ke e C ou n ty ’s p ro ffer ed p riv ac y jus tific at ion is ev enmor e di ffi cul t to j us ti fy on the r ec o r d b efo r e us . The re cor d affi rm ati vel y s how s that the J DC al l ow ed J CO s o f th e o ppo site se x to moni to r the po ds dur i ngb o tho fthe dayti m e sh ifts. I t i s undis pu ted thatthe vastm aj or i ty of th e t i m e tha t the j uv en i l es wer e unc l o th ed o cc ur r ed dur i ng these dayti m e sh i fts. S how er i ng g ener al l y t oo k pl ace du ri ng the se con d shi ft, wh en m em ber s o fthe opposi te se x wer e per m i tt ed to s ta ffthe p od s. The o nl y s ho wer i ng that occur re d on the thi rd shi ft was m oni tor ed by one of th e r unner s who per f o r m ed th e i nt ak e pr o ce dur es . The ju v e n iles w ere p rovide d w ith p aj am as, w hich they w ere requ ired to w ear at nigh t. T he y ch an ged i nt o this attire o n the s ec o nd s hi ft, a nd the y c ha ng ed o uto fi t o n the fi rst shift

— again, w hile J C O s of t h e o p p osite sex w ere perm i tte d to vi ew them

. A lth ough M i l w aukee County p re se n te d te st im on y t h at th ird -sh ift JC O s o c c as ion ally view ed j uv en il es us ing the toil et, m astu rbating or oth erw i se acting o ut se xuall y, i t i s undis pu te d t h at thi s s i tuatio n oc c u rre d on th e firs t a n d se c on d sh ifts as w ell. This si tuati on i s there f or e v er y di ffer ent from cas es such as To rres , 8 5 9 F
. 2 d a t1 5 3 0 , a nd Evers on , 39 1 F. 3d at 75 3, whi chi nv o l ve d the pr es en ce o fm ale gua r ds i n the18 N o. 07

- 2534 ho us i nguni ts o fa l l

- femal e pr i so ns . I n To rres , we hel d that the s up er in tend ent r eas onabl y m ade a “pro fess i onal j udg m en t th atg i vingwomen pr i so ne r s a l i vinge nv i r o nm ent fre e fro m the prese nce o fm al es i n a posi ti on o f author i ty w as necess ar y t o f ost erthe goa lo fr eh ab i l i tati o n. ” 85 9 F
. 2d at1 53 0. I n Evers on , the cour t dete rm i ned th at, “giv en th e e n d em ic p ro b lem of se x u al a b u se in Mi c h i g a n ’ s fe ma l e f a c i l i t i e s ” a n d o th e r u n i q u e c i r c u msta nces, 39 1 F

. 3d at 761, the prese nce o fm al e guards, at an y t i m e, i n the hous i nguni ts was a thr ea t to “ th e secur i ty ofthe pri son, the safetyo fi nm ate s a nd the protect i on o fthe pri vacyr i ghts ofi nm ate s, ” id

. at 75 3. In Evers on a nd To rres , prison offici als perm itted no officers o fth e o p p o s i t e s e x t o g u a r d th e l i v i n gu n i t s a ta n y t i me be cau se the s pec i fi c ne eds o fthe i ns ti tu ti o ns a nd the pri son er s housed i n thos e insti tuti ons re aso nabl y r equir ed such a pol i cy. The sa m e- sex pol i cy w as ai m ed at a speci fi c co nd i ti on a nd was tai l ored to addres s that spe ci fi c co ndi ti o n. Th e pl an s wer e qui te c l ea r l y “ th e product o fa reaso ned deci si on- m aki ng pro cess , bas ed on avai l abl e info rm ati on a nd exper i en ce. ” To rres , 85 9 F
. 2d at 15 32
. Her e, b y c o nt r as t, we ar e f ac ed wi ththe f ac t th atthe J DC al l owed J CO s o fthe opposi te sex t o guar d the j uveni l es dur i ngtho se t i m es whenthe pr i va cyi nt er es ts o fthe j u v e n i l e s we r e mo s ti n j e o p a r d y . U n d e r th e s e c i r c u msta nces, we cannot saythat, with re sp ect to pri vacy c o n c e r n s , th e s a me - s e x p o l i c y i s th e p r o du c to fth e s a me sor t o fco m prehensi ve profess i onaldeci si on- m aki ng as ex hibi te d i n To rres a n d E vers on. T h e in c on sis te n c ies in i mpl e me n t a t i o n c a s ta s i g n i fi c a n td o u b to n wh e th e r t he po l i cyi s r ea so nabl y ne ce ss ar y t o a ch i ev e th e i ns ti tution’sN o. 07

- 2534 19

M s. H e n r y a n d M s. L e w i s t a k e i s s u e w i th th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s 8 d eterm inat i on thatr eh abi l i t at i on i s par tofthe “e s s en c e ofthe b u siness” o f the J D C

. T he y no te tha t neith er th e W i sc on sin re gul at i ons no r the J D C ’ s own m i s s i on s t at em en tm en t i ons the w or d “reh ab ilitation .” Th ey also a ssert tha t the ju v en iles are in the J D C for very briefperiods ofti m e, and, unli ke in a penal insti t u tion , reh ab ilitation in a sho rt-term d eten tion f acility is a futile g oa l. Bas ed o n i t s i nt er pre t at i on ofthe j uven i l e jus t i c e s t atut e and the J D C’ s m is si on st atem ent, as w el l as on tes ti m ony fr om M r. W anta and others , the dist rict court concl ud ed that rehabil it ation ind eed w as p art of the essenc e of the JD C ’s b u siness. W is consi n’ s ju v en il e j usti ce code requir es the j uv enil e j usti ce sy st e m to tak e actio n d irected at p ro v id ing the b est p ossib le c ar e f or the j uven i l es an d atpr eve nt i ng fut ur e delin qu en t beh avi or b y d eve l opi ng the i r abi l i t y t o l ea d pro duct i ve and resp on sible lives. W is. Stat. § 938 .01(2)( c), ( f)

. W iscon sin co u r ts also ha v e reco g niz ed the re ha b ilitativ e g oa ls o f the juv en ile ju s t i c e s y s t e m . S e e In r e Hez z i e R. , 58 0 N .W .2d 66 0 , 66 8 & n .4 ( W is
. 1 9 9 8 )

. Mr. W a nt a a nd o the r a dm i ni s t r a t or s t e s t i fi e d t hat the j uven i l es ’ t i m e at the J DC , ge ne ra l l y a re s ul t ofa crisis s i t u atio n, i s oft ena val uabl e oppor t uni t y f or i nt er ven t i on and (co n tin u ed ...) goa l o fpro tect i ng the pri vacyi nter est s o fthe j uven il es. The r e f o r e , o n thi s f a c t o r a s we l l, the r e c o r d r eve al s a f ai l ure ofpro ofo n the part ofM i l w aukee County. The Co unty a l so c o nt en ds th atsa m e- se x s ta ffi ngo n the thi rd shi ft i s nec ess ar y t o furtherthe JD C ’s m i ssi on o f r eh ab i l i ta ti o n. Co nt r ar y t o the s ubmi ss i o n o fthe pl ainti ff s, we ha ve no do ubttha t th e Cou nty i s co r r ec t i n s ta ting th atthi s g o ali s a ve r y i m po r ta ntg o alo fthe i ns ti tu ti o n. 820 N o. 07

- 2534

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 rehabil it ati on. Tr. at 623- 24. This evidence supp orts the dist ri ct c our t ’ s fi ndi ng thatr eh abi l i t at i on i s par tofthe “e ss en c e” of the J DC. See, e . g. , O ffi c e ofJ uven i l e J us t i c e and Del i nqu en c y Pr eve nt i on 9 (“ O JJD P ” ), D elin q u en cy P re v en tio n : D es k to p G u id e to G o o d Ju v en ile D et ent i on Prac t i ce ( Rous h ed. , 19 96 ) , R. 48 , Ex. 101 3 ( pra i s i ng th e v ir tu es o f d ir ec t su p er v isi o n o v er in d ir ec t su p er v isi o n ). The re cor d contains subst anti alte sti m ony f ro m M r. W an ta on th is fac to r. H e d es c rib ed th e ba sis for h is deter m i nati on that a r ole m odel/m ento ri ng pol i cy w as necess ar y t o the J DC ’ s r ehabi l i tat i ve eff or ts. Tr. at60 7-19, 63 4- 35 , 65 8- 60

. H e no te d th at, i n f o r m ul at i ngthe po l i cy, he had rel ied u pon hi s o w n experi ence w i th j uveni l e co rr ecti o ns , i nf o r m at i o n learned fr o m hi s at te nda nc e atv ar i o us sem i nars and com m i tte e m eet i ngs, hi s intervie w s with the j uveni l es and staffatthe JD C , consul tat i ons w i th ex per ts i n th e fi el d an d pr o fes si o na l l i te r atur e su ppo r ting su chpr o g r ams. Ea cho fthe se s o ur ce s s ug gest ed th atthe 9 dir ect ro l e m odel i ng/men t o r ing f or m o fsuperv i si on, r ather th an th e in d ire c t fo rm of su p er vis i o n, w as th e b es t a va ilabl e m etho d ofpro vidi ng ca re and re habi l i tat i on t o j uveni l es i n detenti on f ac ilities. M r. W anta, i n hi s pro fessi onalj ud gm ent, co ncl ud ed that i nsti tutio n ofthe dir ect role m od el/m en toring form of su p ervis io n w as ne cess ary to achi eve the J DC ’ s m i ssi on o fr ehabi l i tat i on. The f oundat i o n f o r h i s b e l i e fi s we l l e s t a b l i s he d in the r e c o r d. T h e c on c lu sio n th at th e e ff e c tiv en es s o f th es e ro le m od el/m ento ri ng pro gr am s r equi re s the pre sence ofatN o. 07

- 2534 21 lea st on e sta ff m em b er of th e sam e sex as th e j u ve n ile s in e a c h po d a t all tim es , h o we v e r, d o e s n o t fi n d the s a me str ong f oundati on i n the re cor d. M r. W anta express ed his beliefthat sam e-sex rol e m od el/m en toring w as m ore effe c tiv e t h an cr os s-g en d er p ro gr am s. H e te st ified t h at, in f or m ula ti ng thi s v i ew , h e rel i ed upon his o w n pers onal experi ences, as wella s l i ter atur e o n m ento ri ng pro gr am s, whi ch“ i ndi ca te tha t g en derment o ring i m pr o ve s th e chances ofchi l d behavi orchange s be i ng posi ti ve. ” T r. at 635. H e con tin u ed: “[ A ] l l the sta ti sti cs a nd the re sea rch that Ihave se en i nd i cate s that a m al e m en to ring a m al e, an d a fem al e m ento ri ng a fem al e, exponenti al l y incre ase s the c hance o fsucce ss than would cr oss - gender .

. . m ento ri ng. ” Id

. I n s up po r to fh i s b e l i e f, Mr
. W anta r e fe r e nc e d a r epo r t f r o m t he Of f i ce o fJ uv en il e J us ti ce a nd D elin q u en c y P re ve n tio n (“O JJD P ”), Juve ni l eM e nt or i ng Pr og r ams : A Pr ogres s Re vi e w ( Se pt. 20 00) , R. 48, Ex. 10 22. Al th o u g h th i s p u b l i c a t i o n w a s n o ta v a i l a b l e atth e t i me ofhi s deci si on, he s ugge st ed thati t s up port ed hi s v i ew th at sa m e- sex r ol e m odel i ng was neces sar y forr ehabi l i tati on. Thi s re port, how eve r, i s speci fi c to one- on- one m ento r mat c hingp r o g r a ms f or at
- r i s ky o uth. Mo r e o v e r, i t s fi nd

i ngs re gar ding the effect ofse x-s peci fi c as si gnm ents, ev en in th is c irc u m st an c e, ar e in c on c lu siv e a t b es t. Seeid

. at5. M r. W anta did notexplai n how anecdot alev i dence fro m th es e afte r - sc ho o l ment o r i ngpr o gr ams i s r el ev an t to the vast ly d ifferent j uv en il e d eten tion settin g. M ore im p ortantl y, i t doe s no t s peak to the i ssue ofwh ether, to achi eve su cce ss in m en toring, sam e-sex sup e r v is ion on th e third shi ft, wh en the j uveni l es ar e i sol ate d and li kel y a sl eep22 N o. 07

- 2534

SeeOJJ DP, Psychi at ri c Di so rde rs of Y out h i n D et ent i on ( A p ril 10 20 06 ), R .48, E x. 10 17 (discu ssing the p rev alen ce of juv en iles w ith m en tal d isor der s i n j uven i l e det en t i on f ac i l i t i es ) ; U. S. Dep’ tof Justice, B u rea u o f Justice Sta tistics, Pri so n R ape Eli m i nat i on A ctof 2003: SexualVi ol enceR ep o r te db yCo r re ct i onal A utho ri t i es 2004 (J u ly 2005) , R

. 48, Ex. 1015 ( disc uss ing nati onw ide s tat is ti cs on se xual a s s a u lt i n co rr ec tio n a l fa ci lit ie s); O JJD P , J uve ni l e M e nt o r i ng P rogram s: 199 8 R eport t o C on gress ( D ec. 1998) , R.48, Ex. 1023 ( di s cu s s i ng m en t or m at c hi ng pr ogr am s out s i de the det en t i on c ont ex t, an d not i ng thatm os tpr ogr am s use gende r as a m at c hin g cr ite ri a ). i n their ce l l s, i s r eas onabl y nec ess ar y. The o therpubli cati ons adm i tte d i nto evi dence by the County appea r to add l i tt l e to thi s pr ec i se que st i o n. 10 W e a re wellaware that the pr ofess i onal s who have th e g r ea t r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r r unningpe na l i ns ti tu ti o ns need to i nnovate an d e x p eri m ent i ftheyar e t o succee d in resolvi ng the cr isis i n th is i m p ortan t area of governa nc e. I nde ed, we al r ea dy ha ve reco g ni ze d tha t th e i nabi l i ty to profferso l i d em pir i calev i dence i n supp or t o f a par ti cul arpol i cy cer tai nl y i s no t f atalto a BFOQ defense. See To rres , 859 F.2d at 1532. E ven i f w e d efer to M r. W an ta’s j udg m en t th ata ment o r i ngpr o g r am i s i m po r ta ntt o the su cc es s o fj uv en i l e i ns ti tu ti o ns s ucha s th e o ne he m anage s, an d e ven i fwe defe r to hi s j ud gm ent with re spect to the need forsa m e- sex m ento ri ng o fj uveni l es i n s ucha n e nv i r o nm en t, we st i l l mu st be sati sfi ed i n the prese nt l i ti gat i on that these profess i onalj ud gm ents re quir e a r i gi d rul e that s uch a s am e- sex m ento ri ng pro g r am r ea so nabl y ne ce ss itat es the pr es en ce o fa J CO o ftheN o. 07

- 2534 23

sa m e se x a t all tim es. M ilw au ke e C ou n ty h ad t h e re sp on sib i l i t y t o i nt r o du c e s uffi c i e nt e v i de nc e i n the r e c o r d t o supp or t the co ncl usion thatsuch s am e- sex pr ese nce at a ll tim es was r ea so nabl y ne ce ss ar y t o m eet th e i ns ti tu
t i o n ’ s e s s e n t i a l g o a l s . H e r e , th e r e c o r d , a l th o u g h p e r ha ps demons tr at i ngthe wor tho fa ment o r i ngpr o g r am an d the use fulne ss ofm ento rs o fthe sam e s ex , d oe s no t prese nt a suffi ci entl y s tr ong c as e with re spect to the ne ed f o r the pr es en ce o ftho se ment o r s se ve n da y s a wee ka nd tw enty- f our hours a day. A t t ri al, M r. W anta explain ed how the J CO s were to a c ta s r o l e mo de l s a nd me nt o r s a tthe J DC: On a pract i calse nse, Ij ust wanted a s taffm em berto be a g oo d, posi ti ve perso n. To di sp lay p osi ti ve att i tude. To di spl ay respect towards the j uveni l e. Respect towards your peers . Respect toward any i n d ivi du al that cam e a cro ss thei r ar ea. To m odelhow to i nter act. W hether i nter acting w i th that j uveni l e, so the other j uv en i l es who o bs er ve can se e th ati nt er ac ti o n g o i ng on and the posi ti ve outco m es to that type ofint er actio n . In te ra c tio n w ith you r p ee rs in a p os itiv e w ay . . . . [ T]he bi gge st f ocus w as . . . f orst affto dem onst ra te p rop er beh avior. Tr. at60 9. J CO s w er e no t t ra i ned orexpecte d to act as co uns el o r s; i fa ny s er i o us c o uns el i ngw as ne ce ss ar y, the JC O s w ere instr ucted to r eferthe j uveni l e t o an o n-s i te nurse tr ai ned i n m en ta l heal th. I nstea d, the J CO s ca rr i ed out thei r ro l e m odel/m ento ri ng r esponsibi l i ti es by prov i di ngthe j uv e ni l e s wi th a c o ns t a ntmo de l o fpro per behavi ori n thei r i nter acti ons w i th o ther s.24 N o. 07

- 2534 Gi ve n thi s des cr i pti o n o fthe r o l e o fJ COs i n the m ento ring p ro gr am , w e m u st co n c lu d e t h at th e re c or d does n o tr e s p o n d t o th e que s t i o n o fw h y a J C O o fth e s a me sex i s r eas onabl y nec ess ar y during the ni ght s hi ft. A ccor ding to t h e re cor d, the o pp or tuni ty f orthe J CO to in te ra c t w ith th e juv en iles onth e t h ird sh ift is v er y m in im al

. The thi rd s h i ft be gi ns afterthe j uveni l es ar e l ock ed d ow n f or th e nigh t, an d th e JCO s on third s h if t w e re instru cted to en cou rage th em to sleep

. A lthou gh th e re w as tes ti m ony at tr i althatst affo ccasi onal l y s poke w i th j uveni l es thro ugh their d oo rs atni ght, part i cul ar l y when th ey w er e ill or ac tin g ou t a n d it w as n ec es sa ry to ca lm th em d ow n, th is interac tion w as kep t t o a m inim um . Th ere i s no ev i dence thatthe J CO s e verspok e with the j uveni l es a b o utc o nfi de nt i a l co unse l i ngma t t e r s a tn i g ht

. I nd e e d, because the other j uveni l es i n the pod w oul d have be en a b l e t o h e a r a nyc o nv e r s a t i o ns tha to ccur r e d, the J COs tes ti fi ed at tr ial that they w er e e ncoura ged to avo i d these types ofdi scussi ons on the thi rd shi ft. The County pro vi ded no re aso ns wh y o pp osi te- sex J CO s w er e incapabl e o fappropr i ate l y inter acting with these j uv en i l es to the e xtent ne cess ar y t o provi de a g oo d beha vi o r alr o l e m o delo n the thi r d s hi ft. M r . W anta’s as se r ti o n tha t “c o ns i st en cy ” i n the s ame- se x ment o r i ng p r o g r a m r e q u i r e s th e p r e s e n c e o fs o m e o n e o fth e s a me sex withi n each pod at a l l ti m es i s s i m plynotj usti fi ed by the r e c o r d. F ur the r mor e , the Co un t y f a i l e d t o p r o v i de evi dence thatthe m any no n-di scr i m i nator y a l ter n at i ves p ro ffer ed by th e p lain tiffs w ou ld h av e b ee n int ole ra b le he r e. The pl aint i ff s que st i o ne d M r . W an ta a bou t num er ous o therposs ibi l i ti es f orenco urag i ng r ehabi l i tat i onN o. 07

- 2534 25 th r o u g h th e a v a i l a b i l i t y o fs a me - s e x s t a ff, s u c h a s hi r i ng m or e J CO s f orthe thi rd shi ft, l eaving the door s be tw een pods open o r i ncre asi ng the fr eq u ency ofsuperv i sor ro tat i ons. They a l so note d that num er ou s othe r m echani sm s to encour age re habi l i tat i on al re ady w er e i n p lace at the f aci l i ty, i ncl ud i ng educati onalpro gr am s, co unsel or s, g u e s ts p e a k e r s , c o mmu n i t y me n t o r s a n d o th e r p r o g r a ms avai l abl e t o f aci l i tat e th e JDC’s m i ssi on. The County f a i l e d t o e xp l ai n w hy the p r e s e nc e o fa s a me- s e x J CO w ithin each pod du rin g the hou rs tha t the j uv en il es w ere sl e e pi ngwa s r e a s o nab l y n e c e s s a r y t o i t s r e hab i l i t a t i ve eff or ts. A ccor dingly, we m ust co ncl ud e that the County f ai l ed to m eeti ts burden to pro ve that the s ex -base d cl ass i fi cati on a t i ssue h er e w as r eas onabl y nec ess ar y forthe re hab i l i t a t i o n, s e c ur i t y o r p r i v a c y functi o ns o fthe J DC. T he refore, M il w au kee’ s B FO Q de fense m us t fai l. Th e JDC ’s thi rd shi ft pol i cy advers el y affecte d the pla i nti ff s’ em plo ym en t. I t i s undi spu te d tha t o ve r ti m e payha d b ee n a si gni fi cant a nd expecte d com ponen t of the pl ai nti ff s’ com pensati on pri orto the i nsti tuti on o fthe sex-base d p olic y. N o t o n ly d id th e m ajorit y of o ve rt im e w or k a va ilable o c cur o n the thi rd shi ft, but the thi rd shi ft a l so offer ed a fi fty cent p er h ou r pay pre m i um . A ccor dingl y, the dr am ati c r educti on i n the opportunit y for wom en to w or k on the thi rd shi ft co nsti tuted an a dvers e e m plo ym en t a c tio n . Se eLe wis v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 49 6 F

. 3d 645, 65 3- 54 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ho l di ngtha t th e den i alo fthe o ppo r tu
ni ty f o r o ve r ti m e pay, whentha t payi s a si g ni fi ca nta nd re c u rrin g p ar t o f an em p loy ee ’s tot al ear n in gs , c an co n st itu te an ad verse em p loym en t action). B ecau se th e JDC ’s26 N o. 07

- 2534
th i r d

- s h i ftp o l i c y a d v e r s e l y a ffe c t e d th e p l a i n t i ff s ’ e mp loy m en t o p p or tu n itie s, w e m u st co n c lu d e t h at itis in vio lat ion of T itle V II.

C. F i na l l y, we tu r n t o the pl aint i ff s’ wor k pl ac e ha r as sment an d r et al i at i o n c l ai m s. Bo thpl aint i ff s te st if ied r eg ar di ng a numbero fi nc i den ts tha t o cc ur r ed, b o thb efo r e an d aftertheyhad fi l ed thei r EE OC cha rg es , wh i ch they be l i ev ed wer e f o r m s o fha r as smenta nd r etaliat i o n. The dist ri ct c ourt, however, hel d a bench tr i al and determ i ned that t hese i nci dents were m er el y t ri vi ali nconveni ences and i s o l a t e d a c t s tha t di d no t r i s e t o the l e v e l o fhar ass m en t ne ce ss ar y t o e st ab l i sha c lai m undere i th erthe di sc r i m i na ti o n o r r et al i at i o n pr o vi si ons o fTi tl e VI I
. The co ur t al so f o und tha t th e pl aint i ff s di d no t pr esen t an y ev id en c e o f a c au sa l c on n ec tio n b et w ee n th eir se x or th eir com pla i nts a nd the al l ege d haras sm ent. W e r evi ew thes e fin d in gs of fac t fo r c lea r er ro r. Fe d . R. C iv. P . 52(a ); Cer r os , 288 F. 3d at 1044

. Ti tl e VII p ro hibi ts s ex di sc r i m i na ti o n i n the t er m s an d condi ti ons ofem plo ym en t. Jac ks on v. County of Raci ne, 474 F
. 3d 49 3, 4 99 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. I n o r dert o e st ab l i sha Ti tl e VI Ic l ai m b as ed o n wo r k pl ac e ha r as sment, the n, the p lain tiffs m u st p ro ve th at a re as on ab le p er so n w ou ld fi nd the al l ege d haras sm ent t o be s o seve re o r p er vasi ve as to cr ea te a ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t, thus a ffec tingthe te rm s a n d co n d itio n s o f em p l o y m e n t. Id. ; Kr i e s ch e rv. Fo x H i l l s Gol f Re s or t& Conf

. Ct r . FHR , Inc . , 38 4 F

. 3d 9 12 , 91 5 (7th C ir. 2004). F u r th erm ore, th ey m us t show that thereN o. 07

- 2534 27 i s a “l i nk be tw een thi s t re atm ent a nd [ thei r] se x. ” Jac ks on , 474 F. 3d at 499. T h e a n a l y s i s r e g a r d i n gth e p l a i n t i ff s ’ r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms i s s i mi l a r . T i t l e V I Ip r o h ib i t s e mp l o y e r s fr o m d i s c r i mi nati ng aga i nst em plo yee s who re porto r oppose pract i ces m ade unl awfulunde r Ti tl e VI I
. 4 2 U. S

. C. § 2 00 0e

- 3( a)

. The ra nge o fco nd uct pro hibi ted under the anti

- re tal i ati on pr o vi si o n i s br o ade r tha n i ts a nt i

- di sc r i m i na ti o n pr o vi si o n, how eve r, bec au se “the di scr i m i nator y a cts pros cribed by Titl e VI I ’ s a nti

- re tal i ati on pro vi si on a re notl i m i ted to t h o s e th a t a ffe c t th e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f o n e ’ s e mpl o y m en t
. ” L ewis , 49 6 F

. 3d at 655 ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks an d cit ati on o m i tte d). N eve rthel ess , i n or der t o es ta b l i s h a c l a i m f o r r e t a l i a t i o nu n d e r T i t l e V I I, th e p l ai ntiffs m us t p rove th at th e a ll eged em p loym en t actions w ere m ate ri al l y a dvers e such thattheywould dis suade a re as on ab le p er so n from en ga gin g in p ro te c te d ac tiv ity
. Id

. A dd i ti onal l y, they m ust show a causall i nk be tw een these alle ge d ad ve rs e a c tio n s a n d th eir p ro te c te d ac tiv ity
. B asith v. C ookCo unty, 241 F.3d 919 , 933 (7th C ir. 2001). Aft era r ev i ew o fthe r ec o r d, we co nc l ude tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t er ri n i ts de te r m i na ti o n tha t the al l ege d i nci dents d i d not ri se to the l eve l o fhar ass m ent o r r et al i at i o n. The S upr eme Cou r t ha s emphas i ze d the n e c es sit y of s ep ar at in g “ sig n ifica n t fro m triv ial h ar m s.” B url ington N
. & Santa Fe R y . Co
. v. W hite, 54 8 U.S

. 53 , 68 ( 2006 )

. I t furthercauti oned that“[ a] n em plo yee ’ s deci si on to reportdi scr i m i nator y b ehavi orcannoti m m unize that em plo yee fro m tho se petty sl i ghts orm i norannoy ances that often t ake pl ace at w or k. ” Id

. Ti tl e VI I ’ s a nti

- re tal i ati on28 N o. 07

- 2534 p rovisi on p rohibits only thos e em p loyer act ions th at are l i k el y t o de te r v i ct i m s o f di sc r i m i na ti o n fr o m i nv o k i ngthe A c t’s rem ed ial m ec h an ism s. Id

. W e agr ee w i th the di str i ct cour t that the al l ege d i nci dents, such a s be i ng to l d not to w ea r sw ea te rs or ea t in fron t o f th e juv en iles , u n s p e c ifi ed “i nti m i dati on” and door sl am m i ng bythe h ead o f sh ift, m iss in g or m ar ke d u p tim e-c ar d s, oc c as ion al e ar ly m orning ph on e c all s, an d not bein g assigned to w ork t o g e th e r o n th e s a me s h i ft o r i n e a s i e r p o d s a r e the t y pe of p et ty s l i g h ts an d m in or an n oy an c es th at ge n er ally w ill n ot creat e s uch deter re nce. A dd i ti onal l y, bec ause these i nci dents do no t r i se t o th e le velo fan a dvers e a cti on und erthe anti

- re tal i ati on pro vi si on o f T itle VI I, they certain ly d o not con stitut e w orkp lace hara ssm en t sufficie n t t o e st ab lish a d isc rim in at ion cla im
. Seeid

. at67

. Fu rt h er m or e, th e d ist ric t c o u r t d id n oterr w h en it concl ud ed that the pl ai nt iffs h ad f ai l ed to pro ve a ca usal l i nkb etwee n the i r di sc r i m i na ti o n c o m pl aint s an d the al l ege d haras sm ent. The pla i nti ff s did notev en at tem pt to sh ow th at an y of t h e a lleg ed h ar as sm en t w as tie d to th eir se x . A s fo r re ta liat ion , th e p lain tiffs p oin t o n ly to “s u sp ici ous t i m i ng” a nd an a l l ega ti on that they w er e r efer re d to as “tr oubl em ake rs ” t o sugge st that the i nci dents o fwh i ch they com pla i n w er e a r esul t o fr eta l i ati on fo r th ei r prote ct ed ac ti vi ty
. The di st r i ctc o ur t he r e f o un d tha t th e ti m i ng o fthe i nci dents i n questi on was notsuspi ci ous; th e d ifficu ltie s t h e p lain tiffs h ad be e n h a vin g w ith th eir m an ag er s h ad be en on go in g w ell b efo re th ey en ga ge d inN o. 07

- 2534 29

F u rth erm or e, s u sp iciou s tim ing alon e is not en ou g h to 11 es ta b lis h ca u sa tio n . S ee, e.g ., Sauzekv. Exxon C oalUS A , Inc. , 202 F. 3d 9 13 , 91 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00 ) ( “S pec ul at i on b ase d on s us pi c i ous ti m ing al one, how ever, does not supp ort a reas onab le i nf erenc e ofret ali ati on; i nst ead, plaint iff s m ust prod uce f act s w hich som ehow ti e the adv ers e deci si on to th e p lai nti ff s’ protec ted a ct io n s.” ); C u l verv. G or m an & C o. , 416 F. 3d 540, 546 ( 7th Cir

. 20 05 ) ( not i ng thatt i m i ng “ wil l r ar el y be s ufficie nti n a nd of its el f to cr ea te a t ri a b le issu e” ). an y pr o te ct ed ac ti vi ty
. The di st r i ct co ur t fur th erf o und 11 that the m anage rs ’ al l ege d use of the ter m “t ro ubl em ake rs ” w as not i n reference to any o fthe pla i nti ff’ s pro tect ed activities. R.60 at 10. I ns tead , i t foun d that the p laint iffs i n f ac t ha d be en di ffi cul t empl o y ee s, co ns ta nt ly l o dging tr i vi algr i evance s a nd ge nera l l y c om pla i ni ng wh eneve r superi or s tr i ed to co rr ect thei r behavi or ; the ter m “t ro ubl em ake r” had b een used i n re fer ence to the pl ai nti ff s’ ge nera l b eh av ior, n otth eir E E O C co m p lain ts
. Id

. W e ca nnot s ay that thi s fi nd i ng was cl ear l y e rr oneo us.
Conclusi on A ccord ingly, th e j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct court is affi rm ed i n partand re ver sed i n part
. The case i s r em anded to th e d ist ric t c ou rtfor p ro c ee d in gs c o n sis te n t w ith th is op in ion . Th e p ar tie s s h all b e a r th eir ow n co st s in th is ap p ea l. A FFI RMED i n part; R EVER S ED a nd R EMAND ED i n p art30 N o. 07

- 2534 E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e, c o nc ur r i ng . T he c o ur t’ s o pi ni on a pp l i es Tor r e s v. Wi s co ns i n Depa r t m e ntof He alth & So cia l Serv ices , 859 F .2 d 1523 (7th Cir. 1988) (en ban c). Idi sse nted fro m thatdeci si on, bec ause Itho ught that th e m aj or i ty’ s a pp ro ach co uld al l ow an em plo yerto es tabl i sha b o na fi d e o cc upa ti o na l qua l i fi ca ti o n o n the basi s o fwishful thi nki ng r ather th an pro of

. 85 9 F
. 2d at 1535 –38. A fterTo rres the Suprem e Cour t e m phasi zed that the B F OQ defe nse re quir es an em plo yer to prove that “obj ec tive, ve ri fi abl e r equi re m ents [ that onl y o ne se x can fulfi l ]
. . . concern j ob- re l ate d s ki l l s and apti tudes

. ” Aut om ob i l eWorke rs v. Johns on Cont r ol s , Inc . , 4 99 U
. S. 1 87, 201 ( 1991 ). Se e a l so D ot har d v

. Rawli ns on , 43 3 U. S

. 32 1 ( 19 77 )

. Cf. Johns on v. Phe l an , 69 F. 3d 144 ( 7th Cir

. 1995 ) . B u t w e n eed not deci de w h et her To rres r equi re s a fre sh l oo k, bec ause th e c o u r t ’ s o p i ni o n ( wh i c h Ij o i n ) s h o ws th a tth e e mpl o y er ’ s j us ti fi ca ti o ns fl unkthe To rres s t a nd a r d. M i l wa uk e e Co un t y de c i de d tha t a t l e a s t o ne guar d of th e sa m e s ex as the pri sone rs i s nec ess ar y no t o nl y for the pr i son as a whole ( to perf or m bo dy-c avi ty sea rche s, f or e xa mpl e ) , b ut a l s o f o r e a c h po d i n the pr i s o n. A pod i n M i l w aukee ’ s J uveni l e Dete nti on Center m ay conta i n as few a s 11 i nm at es , a nd b ec au se women o cc upy o nl y o ne pod the County’ s pol i cy re du ced w om en’ s opp or tuni ti es for em p loym en t as gua rd s. T he Cou nt y exp resses co nc ern about sexualas saul ts bu t ad m i ts that no g uard has eve r sex ua ll y assau lted an y p risoner in i ts care

— and data fro m p risons elsew he re do n ot show that fem ale g u ard s are l i k el y t o a ss au l t m al e pr i so ne r s se xua l l y . Tha t l eft th e County w i th st er eot yp es , such a s the pro posi ti on thatN o. 07

- 2534 31 gu ar d s o f th e s am e s ex se rv e a s m en to rs or ro le m od els f orthe pri sone rs . Ic a l l t h i s a s t e r e o t y p e b e c a u s e i ti s b a s e d o n f o l kw i s d o m. I t co uld, i n pri nci ple , be based on f acts , such a s pro ofthat re ci divi sm r ate s f al l ( orl egi ti m ate i ncom e a fterr el eas e r i se s) wh e n a p r i s o n h a s mo r e g u a r d s o fth e i n ma t e s ’ s ex . Bu tthe Co un t y c o nc e de d tha ti tl a c k e d s uc h da t a wh en i t a dopted thi s pol i cy, and nei there x pert w i tness es nor any publ i shed studi es supp l i ed an em pir i calf oundati on for th e p olic y a t t ria l. Em plo yer s fre quentl y a sse rtthati nm ate s ( orstud ents) re sp on d m o r e f av or ab ly to gu ar d s (o r te ac h er s) o f th eir own se x orr ace. I fthi s s or t of j usti fi cati on had bee n adv a n c e d f o r ma t c h i n gth e r a c e o fth e i n ma t e s a n d t he guar ds ( ors tu d ents and thei r tea cher s) , co urts would not go al ong. S ee W

ygan tv. Jac ks on Boardof Educ at i on , 476 U

. S. 267 (1986 ). Cf. U nite d State s v. Virginia, 518 U

. S. 515 (1996 ). ( W hethersho rtbo ot- cam p prog ra m s a re exce p ti onalf or thi s purpose , se e Wittm er v. P eters , 87 F. 3d 9 1 6 ( 7 th Cir. 1996 ) , i s no t i m port ant t o a ca se th at i nvol ves the l ongte rm op e r a t ion of re gu lar p ris on s.) W h y t h en sh ou ld cour ts accept the s am e s or t o f“jus ti fi cati on” f orse x di sc r i m i na ti o n? T h e m ajorit y in To rres co n c lu d ed th at T itle V II sh ou ld no t be us ed to b l o cke xpe r i m en ts tha t m ight le ad to the sor t of d ata that w oul d establ i sh a B F OQ
. Tw en ty years have passed since Tor r es , a nd W i sco nsi n’s pri sons ( l i ke th ose in othe r states) hav e had am p le o p p o r t un ity to try d iffer en t p olic ie s. O th er st at es (an d ot h er p ris on s in W i sco nsi n) al l ow p eopl e t o guar d the op posi te sex bo th32 N o. 07

- 2534 daya nd ni g ht ; da ta s ho uld not b e ha r d t o c o m e by

. But i nstea d ofpro du ci ng data, the defe nd ants i n th is case re i ter ate d sexual st er eotypes . A courtthatper m i ts a s tat e ( o r f o r tha t m at te r a fede r alagen cy ) t o make de ci si o ns in flu en c ed by int u itio n s a b ou t w h at th e d at a u ltim a te ly wi l l sho w m us t i ns i sttha t th e st at e ( o r a g en cy ) fi nd o ut w h et h er th os e in tu itio n s a re so u n d or s im p l y s u p er st iti ons. S ee Be c ht e l v . F CC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C . C ir . 1993). W i sc ons in has no t m ade a ny th i ngo fthe 2 0 y ea r s’ b r ea th

i ng space pro vi ded by To rres , and the ti m e has passe d w hen cheap t al k a nd unver i fi abl e a sse rt i ons of“pro fessi onalexper i ence” m ay substi tute f orthe ki nd o fev i dence thatJohnson C ontrols a nd D o tha rd co ntem pla te.

8- 20- 08