Facts

The plaintiffs were three current and four former female correctional officers with experience working for the Merced County Sheriff's Department ranging from six to 20 years. The plaintiffs, claiming economic and emotional damages, sued the county and Sheriff Mark Pazin for gender discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, the federal ADA, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs claimed Pazin intentionally denied female corrections officers promotions, shift assignments, training and accommodations, and vacation time. The plaintiffs also alleged that Pazin retaliated against women who would complain, as well as intentionally limited the number of female corrections officers he would hire.

The plaintiffs argued that the women repeatedly complained about the unfairness, but that Pazin and the county did not respond sufficiently. The plaintiffs claimed the female officers had the same training, performed the same duties, and that they dealt with the same dangerous situations as their male counterparts.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The county challenged plaintiffs' claims, asserting that the sheriff's department did everything it could to create a fair work environment and that all employees are required to attend training sessions on workplace etiquette. The county also claimed the sheriff's department established a discrimination prevention and sensitivity training program.

The county added that the main sheriff's department just added an additional women's bathroom to its facility and that the county is working diligently to recruit additional female corrections officers. The county also stated that the sheriff's department had began a correctional academy with the specific goal of recruiting additional female corrections officers, which included 18 such hires in 2004.

The sheriff's department disputed the plaintiffs' claims by claiming the lawsuit was really about scheduling and shift assignments, which often times were affected by unforeseen problems such as retirements, employee sick leave and employees leaving the department for other jobs.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought $15 million for past and future lost wages, benefits and interests. The plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief to force policy changes at the department so that female corrections officers would be hired, treated and promoted in the same manner as their male counterparts. The plaintiffs also sought better accommodations for disabled employees and a cessation of retaliation.

Result

The case ultimately settled for $850,000.