Opinion ID: 152022
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Asserted Rationale for the Policy

Text: Nardolillo and Holm have provided shifting testimony about their rationales for the prison's change in dress code policy. At times, their testimony indicated that the decision to ban all headgear was motivated by a concern about employees appearing unkempt and out of uniform. Nardolillo testified that prior to the policy change, uniformed security officers were wearing hats inside, various and sundry type hats, with different baseball team logos, which did not have GEO logos on them. JA 78. Nardolillo thought it didn't look well. It was not a uniformed appearance. JA 78. Holm also testified that he wanted to change the dress code because he was unhappy that he saw a New York Yankees baseball hat inside the institution while in full uniform, [which was] not authorized as well as hats being worn backwards and sideways. JA 183. The majority focuses on testimony that the policy change was instead prompted by security issues. JA 75. Nardolillo stated that [p]rimarily, he was having a problem with the increased introduction of contraband, specifically drugs, into the institution. JA 75. Holm hypothesized that the band inside of a baseball cap is an excellent place to hide a small amount of narcotics and small amounts of contraband. JA 183. Holm recalled that at another facility, he had encountered a problem identifying which prisoners had been involved in a riot because they had baseball caps on. JA 184. This gave him concerns that the identification of an individual wearing a hat when they would be inside ... the secure portion of our institution where we rely heavily on video surveillance would be difficult and create safety or escape risks. JA 184. Holm later asserted that khimars pose a special risk that hats do not because scar[ves] and hoods ... can be taken away from an individual and used against them, in any form of choking movement. JA 201. GEO presented no evidence whatsoever that any employee head covering has ever been used in the prison to smuggle contraband, to conceal a prisoner's identity, or as a weapon. JA 220. Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that called into question whether the safety risk that Nardolillo and Holm feared from Khimars actually existed. For example, although Nardolillo testified that he banned headcoverings in response to an increased introduction in contraband, the prison had not actually experienced any increase in contraband introduction through employees. JA 224. Plaintiffs' expert noted that not one of the 359 [total] serious contraband reports involved secreting contraband in a cap, hat, or khimar, and only two involved a staff member. JA 222. Of these two staff-related contraband incidents, representing only approximately half a percent of total contraband reports, one involved a correctional officer bringing food and cigarettes in his jacket pocket, and the other involved a kitchen worker who was found with cigarettes and latex gloves in his sock. JA 224. It is worth noting that kitchen workers continue to wear hats as part of their uniform, including during their daily interactions with prisoners during meals. JA 80. After the headgear policy change, the amount of contraband found by staff did not decrease. JA 220. The expert also opined that khimars would not create difficulty in identifying employees because they can be worn in such a manner so as not to inhibit visual identification of the employee, and even if it were, the temporary removal of the khimar to verify/confirm the employee's identification could be easily accomplished. JA 226. Furthermore, he pointed out that a khimar's ability to obscure a prisoner's identity, allowing him to escape, does not differ from that of any other piece of clothing or fabric present in the prison. JA 226-27. He also concluded that GEO's concerns that a khimar could be used as a strangulation device were similarly unsupported, as any item of clothing can similarly be used for strangulation. JA 227-28. Neither Sharpe-Allen nor King regularly work within the secure perimeter of the prison, have frequent contact with prisoners, or participate in use of force events. Moss testified that she wore her underscarf in a manner that fit underneath a baseball cap, which seems to indicate that it could be tied like a bandana, and would not be tied under the neck. [1] According to the expert report, all of the other jurisdictions he surveyed permit staff to wear uniform caps and or hats within their facilities, including jurisdictions in eight states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. JA 230. In particular, [b]oth New York City and the District of Columbia correctional systems permit correctional officers and other female employees to wear the khimar within the secure perimeter of their facilities without adverse consequences. JA 230.