Filed Date: Jan. 21, 1986
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case was a civil rights class action against Illinois prison officials. It alleged discrimination against incarcerated women in housing, training, and pay. It culminated in a consent decree which required the construction of an all-women minimum-security prison and a “good faith” effort to reform education and vocational programs for women.
Six incarcerated women filed a class action complaint on January 21, 1986, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU of Illinois and private counsel. Defendants were two officials from the Illinois Department of Corrections. Judge Harold A. Baker was assigned to the case.
As the available documents in this case were limited, some additional information was gathered from a 1993 publication from the ACLU’s National Prison Project, a 1994 article from the Chicago Tribune, and a 2009 article from the Daily Journal.
Their case had three main allegations:
On April 29, 1989, the court issued an order in response to a discovery dispute. Defendants sought to compel plaintiffs to answer questions on discussions they had with two law clerks employed at the prison. Plaintiffs argued that attorney-client privilege applied as the law clerks effectively served as “jailhouse attorn[ies].” However, the court ultimately concluded that privilege did not apply as the law clerks were not licensed attorneys. 125 F.R.D. 680.
On March 25, 1991, both sides moved for preliminary approval of a consent decree. This approval was granted two days later. On May 1, 1991, the consent decree was formally entered, and the case was dismissed. This decree included the following terms:
The consent decree led to the construction of the all-women Kankakee Minimum Security Unit in 1991. This facility closed in May 2011 as the result of large state budget cuts. At the time, there was no other minimum security facility for women. An ACLU official stated that it was unclear whether this violated the 1991 consent decree as it "didn't require any particular prison to stay open[.]" However, as of January 2023, the Decatur Correctional Center was designated as a minimum security facility for women.
As of January 28, 2023, no further actions have occurred in this case except for two third-party requests for documents.
Summary Authors
Eric Gripp (1/20/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9213202/parties/high-v-lane/
Baker, Harold Albert (Illinois)
Epstein, Bennett L. (Illinois)
Grossman, Harvey (Illinois)
Kennedy, John Francis (Illinois)
Nijman, Jennifer T. (Illinois)
Pope, Daniel J. (Illinois)
Wolf, Benjamin S. (Illinois)
Woltjen, Maria (Illinois)
O'Leary, Susan Takata (Illinois)
Sullivan, Marita Clare (Illinois)
Baker, Harold Albert (Illinois)
Epstein, Bennett L. (Illinois)
Grossman, Harvey (Illinois)
Kennedy, John Francis (Illinois)
Nijman, Jennifer T. (Illinois)
Pope, Daniel J. (Illinois)
Wolf, Benjamin S. (Illinois)
Woltjen, Maria (Illinois)
O'Leary, Susan Takata (Illinois)
Sullivan, Marita Clare (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9213202/high-v-lane/
Last updated Feb. 13, 2023, 3:24 a.m.
State / Territory: Illinois
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 21, 1986
Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Six incarcerated women who were housed at the Illinois run Dwight Correctional Center.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Illinois Department of Corrections (Springfield, Sangamon), State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $20,000
Content of Injunction:
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Issues
General:
Placement in detention facilities
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Affected Sex or Gender:
Type of Facility: