## Facts

- York County Jail required all arrestees placed in general population to fully disrobe for a visual inspection while changing into jail uniforms, without individualized suspicion.
- A certified class of arrestees sued York County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the blanket strip-search policy violated the Fourth Amendment.
- After discovery, the court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class covering persons strip-searched under the policy from October 14, 1996, onward; the First Circuit affirmed certification.
- The parties mediated and proposed a settlement creating a $3.3 million common fund and requiring York County to maintain a written policy prohibiting the challenged strip searches.
- The proposal allocated payments by sex: female class members would receive twice the amount paid to male class members, although the searches were conducted under the same policy.
- The court held a Rule 23(e) fairness hearing to decide whether to grant final approval and whether the sex-based allocation could be approved.

## Issues

1. Whether a court-approved settlement resolving a § 1983 claim against a county may distribute damages on a sex-based formula (women paid double men) consistent with equal-protection standards.
2. Whether the proposed class settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), including its distribution choices.

## Decision

- The court found the settlement overall generally fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), given the monetary relief, policy change, and avoided risks and costs of continued litigation.
- The court refused to approve the sex-based payment differential.
- The court required modification of the distribution formula to eliminate the unconstitutional sex classification while otherwise approving the settlement in substantial part.
- The court declined to require individualized enhancements for multiple strip searches, accepting a simplified distribution as justified by administrative feasibility.

## Legal Principles

- Governmental sex classifications must be substantially related to achieving important governmental objectives; justification cannot rest on stereotypes or unsupported assumptions.
- A district court must approve class settlements only if they are fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) and must scrutinize both the overall compromise and allocation fairness on behalf of absent class members.
- Administrative feasibility may support using simplified distribution rules in a settlement, so long as the allocation does not incorporate unconstitutional classifications.

## Conclusion

The court approved a substantial class settlement addressing an unconstitutional strip-search practice and requiring a policy prohibition, but it rejected a settlement term that would have paid women twice as much as men because the sex-based distinction lacked adequate constitutional justification.


Nilsen v. York County, 400 F. Supp. 2d 266 (D. Me. 2005)