Anderson v. City and County of San Francisco
757 F.3d 1017
9th Cir.2014Background
- SFSD enacted a policy in Oct 2006 barring male deputies from supervising female inmates in CJ8 housing pods.
- CJ8 is the female inmates facility with single-sex pods; male deputies may work in mixed-sex medical pod or transport, but not in housing pods.
- Sheriff cited four goals: inmate safety, jail security, inmate privacy, and rehabilitation; safety of female inmates was primary.
- Prior misconduct—12 investigations from 2001–2009, with several instances involving male deputies and female inmates—preceded the policy.
- District court granted summary judgment to County on Title VII/FEHA claims based on a BFOQ defense; plaintiffs challenged the deference to Sheriff’s judgment.
- This appeal reverses and remands for further proceedings on discrimination claims; evidentiary and fee issues are also addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sex-based BFOQ defense applies to policy | SFSD policy discriminates on sex. | Being female is a BFOQ for supervising female inmates. | No; genuine disputes preclude BFOQ as a matter of law. |
| Whether Sheriff’s decision-making process was sufficiently reasoned | Sheriff failed to use a reasoned process; deference inappropriate. | Deference should be given to experienced jail officials. | Deference cannot save a discriminatorily motivated policy where the decision-making is not clearly reasoned. |
| Whether there are genuine issues about four proffered justifications | Alternatives to a male-only supervisor policy exist; testing may be viable. | Four rationales are reasonably necessary qualifications. | Issues remain as to whether sex is a legitimate proxy for those qualifications. |
| Whether de minimis harm defense was properly considered | Harms from policy are more than de minimis. | County may rely on de minimis harm defense beyond record. | Court declines to rule on de minimis harm defense at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breiner v. Nevada Dept. of Corr., 610 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2010) (two-step BFOQ framework; deference to prison administrators must be based on a reasoned process)
- Robino v. Iranon, 145 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1998) (deference to administrators with evidence of reasoned decision-making)
- Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1977) (established high standard for BFOQ in prison context)
- Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (U.S. 1991) (BFOQ narrowly limited; sex as proxy must be necessary and evidence-based)
- Everson v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 391 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2004) (exemplary analysis of BFOQ in corrections; need for viable alternatives)
- EEOC v. Boeing Co., 843 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1988) (testing as basis for differentiating unqualified from qualified applicants)