CA9: Juvenile detainee’s sexual harassment by guard stated a 14A claim; 4A not raised, and it likely could have been

Sexual harassment of a juvenile detainee stated a violation of the inmate’s right to privacy and bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment. (A Fourth Amendment claim was not raised which the court notes could have been. n.6, below.) Vazquez v. Cty. of Kern, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3188 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2020):

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that a Juvenile Corrections Officer violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights when he made sexual comments to her, groomed her for sexual abuse, and looked at her inappropriately while she was showering.

The panel held that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, she had presented sufficient facts to establish a violation of her right to bodily privacy, right to bodily integrity, and right to be free from punishment as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the panel held that the Corrections Officer violated plaintiff’s right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment when he allegedly watched her shower multiple times. Additionally, a jury could find that the Officer’s alleged conduct, which included touching plaintiff’s face and shoulders without her consent, talking about her appearance in her shower gown, and telling her about a sexual dream, violated plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity. Finally, the panel held that plaintiff asserted facts from which a jury could find that the Officer violated plaintiff’s right to be free from punishment because she alleged that the Officer’s conduct caused her harm outside of the inherent discomforts of confinement and did not serve a legitimate governmental objective. The panel held that the Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity.

The panel held that a jury could find that the Officer’s supervisor knew or reasonably should have known of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and making all justifiable inferences in her favor, the panel held that the district court erred when it concluded there was no evidence supporting a causal link between the supervisor’s conduct and the Officer’s alleged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

In addition to reversing the summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants, the panel also vacated the district court’s judgment for Kern County and the district court’s order awarding costs.

n.6: “Cases involving unwanted sexual contact or harassment by public officials during an arrest or custodial situation are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment. Fontana, 262 F.3d at 881-82 n.6. As Vazquez did not raise any Fourth Amendment arguments in her appellate briefing, we only address the Fourteenth Amendment.”