Cook County in Illinois maintains a sprawling jail complex of 36 buildings over eight city blocks. The County employs many guards and support staff to maintain the jails. In 2023, three class action complaints were filed against the Cook County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) and its officials, alleging widespread indifference by management as to the sexual harassment of County employees by detainees of the jails. The details are complicated, but to simplify, two of the lawsuits involved classes of female employees and one of the lawsuits involved a class of male employees.
The female class actions alleged that CCSO subjected them to a hostile work environment in which male detainees exposed themselves, physically groped and battered, threatened to rape and sexually assault, and make lewd gestures and sexual remarks towards female employees. The female class actions also alleged that the corrective measures taken by the County were insufficient and that sexual attacks continued to occur daily. The females alleged that CCSO contributed to this situation by failing to separate repeat offenders from female employees, assigning an inadequate number of correctional officers to ensure control of detainees, and failing to adequately train employees to respond to the attacks. They asserted that CCSO continued to maintain a culture of silence that discouraged staff from reporting incidents or from pursuing discipline or criminal prosecution of detainees for the offensive conduct.
Likewise, the male class action alleged that they disproportionately received higher-risk assignments with known recidivist sexual offenders relative to female employees and were required to enter active masturbation situations that female employees were not. Although they acknowledged that direct sexual harassment of male officers “occurred with less frequency than attacks on female employees, the male officers alleged that they, too, were subject to direct sexual harassment by male, female, and transgender detainees.” They claimed that although CCSO had taken “some, albeit inadequate, measures” to correct harassment of female employees, they had “almost altogether ignored” harassment of male employees. This neglect, they argued, stemmed from gendered stereotypes that men are not adversely affected by sexual misconduct, which results in men “being discouraged from filing incident reports, pursuing disciplinary action, or seeking counseling.”
CCSO moved to dismiss these complaints, arguing that none of the class actions stated a claim under the 14th Amendment or the Illinois Civil Rights Statute. The Court allowed these claims to proceed. CCSO argued that the plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment claims should be dismissed because the allegations of the female and male class actions were contradictory.
The Court concluded that while some of the allegations of the female and male class actions may be contradictory, each sufficiently and uniquely set forth a plausible 14th Amendment claim. The Court explained that each of the class actions must be analyzed in isolation, and while the plaintiffs may learn through discovery that CCSO discriminated against men, women, both, or neither, it would be inappropriate to dismiss the complaints at this stage. Furthermore, even if the Court could find that allegations of one of the complaints could “nullify” those of the other, the plaintiffs have alleged sufficiently distinct forms of sexual harassment against each gender.
The female class action complaints alleged that they were “specifically targeted for severe and pervasive detainee sexual harassment by male detainees. The male class action complaint acknowledges this and does not contradict it. Individual female plaintiffs have alleged that they were subjected to gender-based epithets and offensive references to their gender and sex characteristics. These experiences could plausibly be considered more offensive to women than to men.”
On the other hand, the male class action complaint alleged “that male plaintiffs are uniquely impacted by gendered stereotypes that assume men are not affected by sexual harassment. The male plaintiffs allege that they are specifically ostracized and retaliated against as ‘not man enough’ when they speak out, including but not limited to ‘juvenile, homophobic’ comments. They allege further that unlike female employees, they have not been offered counseling to cope with the mental health effects of these experiences. This is a unique theory of gender-based disparate treatment that does not appear in the female class action complaints and sets the male action apart. While the relevant complaints fault CCSO for discouraging employee reporting and complaints, the male class action described different ways in which this culture of silence manifests against male employees, including priority being given to female over male employees’ complaints and male employees being told that they cannot report at all because they are men.” The Court permitted the male and female class actions to proceed to discovery.
Adams v. Cook County Sheriff’s Office, No. 23 C 1390, No. 23 C 2559, No. 23 C 3444, 2024 WL 263035 (N.D. Ill.).