And at the time the warden decided to fire Flores, employees working on the investigation were aware that the scanners were unable to discern a tampon from contraband.īased on this info, the court determined a reasonable jury could find that, as a result of the “prejudicial training” they received, the warden and the investigator “harbored a discriminatory bias against females with respect to the perceived likelihood that contraband smuggled into come through females’ lower body cavities.” Moreover, it was also plausible to believe they had “acted upon that bias” when they subjected Flores to additional scrutiny and fired her. Moreover, employer reps had made multiple public statements indicating that the scanners could not distinguish between a tampon and contraband in the lower body cavity. Notably, the employee who served as the primary investigator in the Flores incident and the warden who made the decision to terminate Flores attended this training, she pointed out. The employer based its own training on those “flawed assumptions even though they plainly contradicted data from one of its own talking points memoranda from September 2018, in which only 9% of contraband detected in its facilities from January 2016 to September 2018 was in any body cavity - let alone female body cavities in particular,” Flores asserted. Specifically, she pointed to the employer’s training materials on the body scanning system, which stated that “nothing should be inside the lower cavity of any person” and that “most contraband will be concealed in the woman internal body cavity.” The court said the record developed at trial was “substantially similar to the summary-judgment record.”įlores plausibly asserted circumstantial evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the employer intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of sex, the court held. Court: Use of tampon is impossible to detangle from sex Flores then filed motions for back-pay damages and attorneys’ fees. 15, 2022, after a three-day trial, a jury returned an $85,000 verdict for Flores on her disparate treatment claim.Īfter the trial, the employer renewed an earlier motion for judgment. The court allowed a disparate treatment claim to proceed to trial, saying a reasonable jury could find the employer “intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of sex.” In November of 2020, Flores sued her former employer, alleging it discriminated against her on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII. Did termination violate Title VII? Jury says ‘yes’ Even so, about two weeks later, on July 31, 2019, the warden of the Center terminated Flores. She then went to the restroom, inserted a tampon and was scanned a third time.ĭespite searches of Flores’s car and her medical area at the Center, no contraband with any connection to her was ever found. It didn’t show the same object.įlores then explained that she had replaced her tampon with other sanitary protection after using the restroom. Later that day, the security team subjected Flores to a second scan. She even offered to go to a restroom with a female security officer to prove she was on her period. The Center’s security team believed Flores “might be smuggling contraband into the facility.”īut Flores said she was menstruating and explained that the object was a tampon. According to security, the scan produced an “abnormal image,” displaying an object in Flores’ “lower body cavity.” On July 17, 2019, Flores went through a standard security scan to enter the Center. In March 2019, Flores was hired as a dental hygienist at the Virginia Department of Correction’s Augusta Correctional Center (Center). Here’s the rest of the story: Body screenings as a security measure Even if a six-figure payout doesn’t make you cringe, the details of this lawsuit probably will.Ī woman in Virginia was fired for “suspicion of contraband” because she wore a tampon at work.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |