By Phoebe Tollefson
Billings Gazette
BILLINGS, Mont. — A corrections officer at the Montana Women’s Prison is suing the state and his supervisor, saying he was retaliated against for reporting the supervisor’s alleged sexual misconduct with inmates.
Daniel Root, of Billings, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Billings on Sunday. He named the Department of Corrections, Lt. Paul Law and Assistant Warden Alex Schroeckenstein as defendants. Root is seeking an unspecified amount in damages.
Root has been a correctional officer at the Montana Women’s Prison since 2006. He said he was passed over for promotion in January after reporting sexual misconduct allegations against Law, his supervisor.
Both state and federal law require DOC employees to report knowledge or suspicion of sexual abuse or harassment occurring inside department facilities. The requirements are the same for any suspected retaliation against reporting parties. Employees are subject to discipline, including termination, for failing to report.
At the time he was denied a promotion, Root said he had been working as the “officer in charge” during the bulk of his night shifts for roughly six months, at the department’s direction. It’s a role typically handled by lieutenants or other higher-ranking officers, according to the complaint.
But when Root applied for a promotion to a vacant lieutenant position after roughly five months of the elevated responsibilities, the department instead selected someone with less experience and a disciplinary record within the department. Root said he has no disciplinary record with DOC.
Root had reported allegations of sexual misconduct by Law roughly eight months before.
Root also alleged the department prematurely denied a grievance he filed against Law, after Root said Law retaliated against him for reporting Law’s alleged sexual misconduct.
Root said that at a staff briefing shortly after Root made his first of two reports against Law, Law appeared “angry and agitated,” according to the complaint. He accused the employees who reported allegations against him of being vindictive and suggested they stop coming to work. A few days earlier Law had told Root he was angry at being the subject of an investigation, Root said.
Root said the department asked him to suspend his grievance while it investigated Law, saying he could refile the grievance later if he chose. Root agreed. Roughly a month later, he got notice from the department that it was denying his grievance and disciplining Law, Root said.
Root said the department did not conduct an effective investigation into his grievance.
Root also said the department forced him to report a second sexual misconduct allegation in-house, after mishandling his request for information on how to report to an outside authority.
Roughly a year after Root filed his first report against Law, he became aware of more sexual misconduct allegations against the lieutenant. The information came from attorneys who had subpoenaed Root to testify in an unspecified court proceeding involving Law, the lawsuit states. Root said he feared retribution if he reported the allegation to a department official, and so requested information on reporting to an outside agency.
The department told him he could file the report with the YMCA but failed to respond to his requests for more information on how to do so, the lawsuit states.
Then, almost two months later, the department told Root he needed to report the allegation immediately to DOC personnel and threatened him with action for “further violation” of department policy if he did not do so, according to the complaint.
It’s the YWCA, and not the YMCA, that fields sexual abuse or harassment reports for anyone at the prison wishing to report to an outside agency, according to a recent audit of the prison.
Root said the department’s actions have deterred him and likely other subordinate officers from reporting the allegations they are legally required to report. Root said the department’s retaliation against him violated state and federal law, as well as his constitutional free speech rights.
He is asking the court to order the department to promote him to lieutenant immediately, or at the earliest vacancy. He is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages.
The department said it had not yet been served with the lawsuit but that it was confident it would prevail in the case.
“The department currently has policies and procedures in place which require compliance with the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), and which also prohibit retaliation for reporting alleged PREA violations,” wrote department spokeswoman Judy Beck. “The Department has achieved PREA compliance during both federal PREA audits at Montana Women’s Prison, the first in March 2016 and the second in June 2017.”
Women’s prison audits
While the women’s prison met all standards in its 2018 Prison Rape Elimination Act audit, the out-of-state auditor made note of certain areas needing improvement.
For instance, one inmate lost her job after she said she was a victim of an unspecified staff-on-inmate case. Once the auditor reviewed the case, the prison offered the woman her job back.
In another case, an inmate who had made a PREA report had been kept in segregated housing for 67 days, despite requests to be returned to the general population. The woman had initially requested the housing restriction out of concern for her personal safety, but later asked to be returned to general population, away from the person she made allegations against. The prison did not return her to general population until the auditor intervened, according to the audit. The prison could not produce placement documentation or segregation reviews the auditor asked for in reviewing the situation. The prison had previously said there were no instances that year of inmates at higher risk for victimization being involuntarily segregated.
Most PREA reports made in Montana’s correctional facilities are eventually determined to be unfounded, according to the department’s 2017 PREA report. Out of a total of 81 reported instances of sexual abuse or harassment in 2017, the state determined just two staff-on-inmate instances were substantiated and three inmate-on-inmate instances were substantiated.