This is a class action about the unequal treatment of female general custody prisoners in the Oneida County Jail (“the Jail”). On May 12, 2020, three female general custody prisoners filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on behalf of themselves and the jail's female general custody prisoners (present or future). The plaintiffs sued the Oneida County Sheriff and the Chief Deputy of the Oneida County Jail under the Declaratory Judgment Act for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; they also alleged violations of Article I § 11 of the New York State Constitution. Represented by the Legal Services of Central New York, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Jail from denying female general custody prisoners equal access to the housing and program benefits that male general custody prisoners receive. The case was assigned to Judge Mae A. D'Agostino.
Plaintiffs claimed that the Jail discriminated against female general custody prisoners on the basis of gender by restricting these prisoners to “linear housing units” as opposed to “podular housing units” (pods), where male general custody prisoners are held, and by denying them equal access to programming and benefits. For men, the complaint explained, linear housing units were typically used to isolate prisoners with behavioral and disciplinary issues. But for women, they were used more generally.
The plaintiffs set out many allegations about the problems with linear units, which were smaller than pods and severely restricted prisoner movement. In particular, it said, some of the units had not been updated since 1965 and were covered in dirt and human excrement that female prisoners were forced to remove using limited cleaning supplies. At best, linear units had small common spaces with four picnic tables, no air conditioning and frosted windows that did not open. At worst, linear units did not have hot water, television or books. The plaintiffs’ unit (at the time of the complaint) had one shower and one phone, only one of which could be used at a time. Plaintiffs alleged inconsistent access to hot water and clean cold water and could only watch television every other day. When they did, plaintiffs could only choose from a small selection of DVDs. Plaintiffs were allowed only one hour of outdoor recreation a day, and they did not have access to exercise equipment.
In contrast, pods, where male general custody prisoners were housed, allowed prisoners to move freely unless they were mandated to lock-in. Pods resembled small high school cafeterias and were connected to recreation areas with exercise equipment, basketball hoops and a large window to let in fresh air. Pods also had small libraries with games and reading materials for the prisoners, a separate room for prisoners to video call their loved ones, cable televisions, hot water dispensers, microwaves and air conditioning. Finally, pods contained eight showers (one for every seven prisoners) and seven telephones (one for every eight prisoners), which were in separate areas. Male general custody prisoners’ cells were bigger than the women's cells and had windows, unlike women's housing.
In addition to having more humane housing, plaintiffs alleged that male general custody prisoners who exhibited good behavior were given access to programming and benefits that similar female general custody prisoners were denied, including free video calls and extra commissary items. Female general custody prisoners were also limited to laundry work programs, whereas male general custody prisoners had access to numerous work programs, including food service, car wash, general library, print shop, grounds maintenance, building maintenance and janitorial services.
The plaintiffs moved for class certification a week after filing their complaint, and also moved for a preliminary injunction on June 10, 2020, asking the court to provide the plaintiffs the same housing privileges and benefits as male prisoners. On August 3, 2020, Judge D'Agostino granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification but denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2020 WL 4449527. In denying plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Judge D'Agostino held that the plaintiffs were not sufficiently likely to succeed on the merits, because they probably could not demonstrate that female general custody prisoners were not receiving substantially equivalent treatment to their male counterparts. Furthermore, Judge D'Agostino held that the balance of equities tipped in the defendants' favor because the public interest is best served when courts do not interfere with the daily operations of local jails.
On August 8, 2020, plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit. No further action has been docketed at this time. The case is ongoing.
Becca Rogers - 09/25/2020
compress summary
