Judge stays sexual battery case brought by California corrections job applicants

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A Sacramento County judge on Tuesday withdrew her initial ruling in a negligence, concealment and sexual battery lawsuit that favored job applicants to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, opting to stay the case instead.

Superior Court Judge Jill Talley had issued a tentative ruling last week that denied some requests from the corrections department, medical professionals and facilities that wanted the case dismissed. Though Talley did dismiss some of the claims, she gave the job applicants — who say they underwent improper medical examinations as a condition of employment — the chance to amend their complaint.

However, on Tuesday the judge issued a one-page order saying she’d withdrawn her tentative ruling after hearing arguments from the attorneys on Friday, pointing to another, similar suit against the corrections department currently pending on appeal.

That suit — filed in 2020 by over 150 plaintiffs — also accuses the corrections department, as well as medical professionals, of job applicants receiving improper examinations. It’s currently pending in the Third District Court of Appeal.

“Accordingly, the court’s disposition of this demurrer and the entirety of this action is stayed pending the completion of the Jane Doe 1 appeal,” Talley wrote.

Attorney Sarah Gosling, an attorney for some of the defendants, argued Friday that the pending appeal was one reason Talley should stay the case. She said the accusations made by each individual job applicant must be sufficient and that if Talley kept her tentative ruling, it would contradict the previous ruling that’s currently on appeal.

That led Gosling to suggest Talley stay her case and wait for the appeal to come down.

Gosling said putting the case on hold wouldn’t prejudice the job applicants, as they’d only wait a few months for the appeal. However, Gosling’s clients would face significant prejudice if the case wasn’t stayed, as it could affect their careers.

Gosling couldn’t be reached for comment on Tuesday.

Over 30 job applicants to the corrections department in Northern California between 2006 and 2016 said they had to undergo unnecessary rectal and vaginal examinations as a condition of employment, subjecting them to assault, battery, sexual harassment and gender violence.

The applicants were all under 50 years old at the time of the examinations, they say in their suit. None had a condition requiring the exam.

Some women were asked to confirm their gender by squatting and lifting their gown, which the applicants call “not reasonable, not necessary and below the standard of care.”

After discovering in 2022 they were unnecessary, the job applicants submitted a government tort claim. They never received a response and followed up with a suit in Sacramento County Superior Court.

Attorney Jamie Goldstein, representing the job applicants, argued Friday that it’s unknown when a decision on the appeal will occur. She anticipated it would take much longer than a few months, adding her clients would face prejudice if the case were stalled.

Attorneys for the defendants also argued the statute of limitations had passed. Deputy Attorney General Diana Esquivel said the job applicants made general accusations only.

The applicants in their suit list a 10-year span of when the medical examinations occurred.

Goldstein said that the applicants were told at the time the exams were necessary to get the job. They only found out later that wasn’t accurate, and immediately took legal action when they did.

Goldstein couldn’t be reached for comment on Tuesday. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation didn’t provide comment by publication time.

Talley in her ruling wrote that the corrections department has 15 days once the appeal comes down to contact her office and ask for a hearing and final disposition.