## Facts

- Washington’s women’s prisons experienced extensive sexual abuse and misconduct by male staff, repeated privacy intrusions, and related security problems.
- The Washington Department of Corrections conducted a systemwide assessment and, with state human-rights approval, designated 110 correctional officer posts in two women’s prisons as female-only.
- The designated posts included assignments involving frequent intimate observation of inmates and routine pat-down and strip searches in housing units and other areas where inmates undress.
- Teamsters Local Union No. 117, representing correctional officers, sued under Title VII alleging unlawful sex discrimination and sex stereotyping against male officers; it conceded that 50 of the 110 female-only designations were justified.
- The Department asserted Title VII’s bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense, contending female staffing in those posts was necessary to protect inmate privacy, reduce sexual victimization, and maintain security.
- A certified class of female inmates intervened in support of the policy.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Department; the union appealed, and the Department sought dismissal for lack of standing.

## Issues

1. Whether the union had Article III standing to appeal a sex-based staffing policy that restricted male officers’ eligibility for certain positions.
2. Whether Title VII permits designating certain correctional officer positions in women’s prisons as female-only under the BFOQ exception as “reasonably necessary to the normal operation” of the prisons.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit denied the Department’s motion to dismiss, holding the union had standing because members were directly affected by the eligibility restrictions and the claim was germane to the union’s purposes.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the Department, holding the female-only designations were justified under Title VII’s BFOQ exception.
- The court emphasized the policy’s limited scope and the Department’s documented, institution-specific basis for concluding that sex was necessary for posts involving unavoidable intimate observation and searches.
- The court held the union’s evidentiary showing did not create a genuine dispute of material fact and did not undermine the Department’s evidence-based rationale.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII, sex-based classifications are generally prohibited, but an employer may prevail by proving sex is a BFOQ “reasonably necessary to the normal operation” of the business or institution.
- In correctional settings, inmate privacy, prevention of sexual abuse, and institutional security may support a BFOQ when the employer shows a concrete, job-specific connection between sex and the performance of essential duties.
- A BFOQ is more likely to be sustained where the employer adopts a narrowly limited policy targeted to discrete positions requiring frequent intimate contact or observation, rather than broad exclusion of one sex from employment opportunities.
- A sex-stereotyping theory does not defeat a BFOQ where the record supports that the policy rests on documented risks and operational needs rather than generalized assumptions about men or women.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held the union had standing to challenge the staffing restrictions but affirmed summary judgment because the Department proved that limiting specified posts in women’s prisons to female officers was a narrowly tailored, evidence-based BFOQ necessary to protect inmate privacy, reduce sexual abuse, and maintain security.


Teamsters Loc. Union No. 117 v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr., 789 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015)