COVID-19 Summary: Female dispatchers are seeking a temporary restraining order banning their employer's (the City of Warren) policy that requires female dispatcher to conduct pat downs, and occasionally strip search, female arrestees without adequate protective gear. The plaintiffs alleged that they are being exposed to a heightened risk of COVID-19 solely because of their sex. No outcome yet.

---

On March 27, 2020, the six female dispatchers filed this lawsuit against their employer, the City of Warren, in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs alleged that the City of Warren Police Department requires them, but not their male counterparts, to pat-down, and occasionally strip search, female arrestees without adequate protective gear. By requiring the plaintiffs to conduct these activities without adequate protective gear, the plaintiffs claimed that they were being exposed to to the risk of the COVID-19 virus at a considerable risk to their health. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sued under § 1983 for violations of their 14th Amendment Equal Protection rights and under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. They alleged that the unlawfully adverse conditions of employment have now placed them in dire and immediate danger. The plaintiffs also filed a claim with the EEOC alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII and anticipate amending the complaint once the EEOC has conducted its responsibility.

Immediately, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order that would require the defendants to end their policy of directing female dispatchers to perform custodial searches of female prisoners. They also sought protection from retaliation, and a detailed report showing Defendant's steps to ensure that no female dispatchers are required to conduct these searches again.

On April 1, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental notice of facts, informing the court that a City of Warren police officer had tested positive for COVID-19 and that nine other employees were in quarantine for possible exposure. They also documented their attempts to contact the defendants to secure protective measures themselves, which the defendants failed to respond to. The plaintiffs argued that this change of facts further demonstrated their need for the court to enter an order granting their emergency temporary restraining order and to provide injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint on April 10, adding additional plaintiffs. On April 15, two of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the complaints. On May 1, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint and the case is ongoing in the discovery process.

This case is ongoing.

Caitlin Kierum - 07/30/2020


compress summary