GEO Group Agrees to End Sexual Harassment; Pays $140,000 Settlement and Implements New Policies

The nation’s second-largest for profit prison company, the GEO Group, agreed to pay $140,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought on behalf of two women who worked at an Arizona prison. The three-year consent decree the parties entered into also provides for relief to end such harassment.

The suit was filed by the Arizona Civil Rights Division (ACRD) and the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The ACRD and EEOC alleged GEO had an extreme tolerance for sexual harassment at the Arizona State Prison – Florence West facility. The suit included claims for several women, but the court dismissed the claims of all but two on procedural grounds, and on the basis ACRD and EEOC could not seek relief on their behalf. The consent decree allows an appeal on those issues.

The suit alleged male managers at the GEO-operated prison harassed numerous female employees and fostered an atmosphere of sexual harassment, which ranged from verbal to physical acts. For example, the agencies contended that one supervisor grabbed a female subordinate, forced himself on top of her, and forcibly tried to kiss her.

The complaint of Alice Hancock states that Sgt. Robert Tremont grabbed one of her breasts in the fall of 2007. When she complained to Warden Rick Maulden, he told her, “I don’t know what to tell you, that’s just how Tremont is.” In April, 2009, Sgt. Robert Kroen exposed his erect penis to her, and later that month he pinched her vagina. Instead of having her complaint acted upon, Hancock became the subject of several retaliatory actions that ended in her termination.

The case proceeded to trial on April 23, 2013 upon the claims of Jennifer Younger and Roxanne Valenzuela Moncivaiz. The case settled during trial, and the consent decree was signed by Judge Susan R. Bolton on April 26. The $140,000 settlement was split evenly by the two women. It was also agreed that their personnel files will have removed from them any allegations of discrimination related to the case and any reference to it. Both are to be provided neutral letters of reference upon separation from GEO’s employ. Younger is no longer employed by GEO, but its files are to reflect such that “she is eligible for rehire.”

The consent decree also requires that GEO:

• review, revise, post, and distribute its antidiscrimination policies and procedures;
• provide training to all employees on gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace;
• arrange for all complaints of sexual harassment and/or retaliation at the Florence West facility to be investigated by GEO’s Office of Professional Responsibility from its Boca Raton headquarters or a designee;
• establish procedures required for sexual harassment investigations; and
• develop and implement a management evaluation system at Florence West that includes EEO Compliance, compliance with policies and laws prohibiting retaliation, and compliance with the decree.

“Employers should be on notice that merely having anti-harassment policies is not sufficient to avoid Title VII liability,” said Richard Sexton, lead counsel for the EEOC. “Employers must be committed to a workplace free of sexual harassment, a commitment that can be demonstrated by appropriate training, policies, and real enforcement of those policies.”

Both GEO and the EEOC have appealed pre-trial orders entered by the district court. See: Arizona v. The GEO Group, Inc., U.S.D.C. (D. Ariz.), Case No. 2:10-cv-01995-PHX-SRB.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case