On behalf of four African-American guards at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, the Keating, O’Gara Law Firm filed a civil rights lawsuit in Nebraska federal court today. 

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages.  But according to their attorney, Jefferson Downing, “They really hope to improve the culture of the institution . . . The comments and conditions they have had to endure are completely unacceptable.” 

          The following excerpts from the Complaint outline the conditions that 1^st shift African-American officers have been subjected to:  

• Plaintiffs are African-American employees at the Nebraska State Penitentiary (“NSP”) who, over an extensive period of time, have been subjected to racially offensive comments and racially discriminatory actions that have served to create an intolerable and racially hostile work environment.  This claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988 for the deprivation of the plaintiffs’ rights secured to them by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

* * *

• For safety and security purposes, it is required of staff to congregate and enter the facility together through what is known as the turnkey entrance.  Plaintiffs arrive for work and with the non-African-American employees of NSP proceed through master control, then through the turnkey area, to the staff dining area for roll call.  Over the last year, it became common practice for a significant number of the non-African-American staff and NSP supervisors to make comments when Plaintiffs arrive to the effect of:  “Looks like the back of the bus is here;” “Smells like fried chicken;”  “The gang has arrived;” “The ‘hood has arrived;” “If the lights went out, all you would see were white teeth;” and other racially charged  comments that are offensive, degrading, and humiliating to the Plaintiffs.
• Once the NSP employees pass through the front entrance, a sergeant is stationed nearby handling a drug-sniffing dog.  As non-African-American employees walk by the canine handler, he generally stands back and lets them pass without incident.  When the Plaintiffs walk through, the canine handler either moves forward or positions himself to have the canine drug-sniff the Plaintiffs.  This, too, is offensive, degrading, and humiliating to the Plaintiffs.
• The Plaintiffs have been subjected to racially offensive words and comments from NSP staff and supervisors that, while directed at inmates, serve to humiliate and embarrass Plaintiffs as African-Americans.  NSP staff have used the word “n_gger” and “n_ggers” in referencing inmates, as well as the term “black mother f____rs,” and other racially derogatory terms.  When observing African-American inmate behavior, the Plaintiffs have been asked by non-African-American staff:  “Why do you blacks act that way?”
• In the summer of 2010, an NSP corporal stated to one of the Plaintiffs that he hates “how blacks act” and that if they were in a group he would “shoot them all.”  The corporal professed to having been a member of a white supremacist group.  When these comments were reported by one of the Plaintiffs to an NSP sergeant, the Plaintiff was told to “Stay away from him; he’s a racist.”

* * *

• After Plaintiffs’ complaints became generally known, two of the Plaintiffs’ vehicles were vandalized while parked in the NSP parking lot.  One vehicle appeared to have been kicked in the side and another had a side view mirror broken and left hanging.
• After Plaintiffs’ complaints became generally known, one of the Plaintiffs was asked by a non-African-American employee near the front entrance, “What’s all this that’s going down . . . ?  You don’t want to be involved and you know what I mean . . . . You should watch your back.”
• After Plaintiffs’ complaints became generally known, one of the Plaintiffs was told by a non-African-American NSP officer that “the problem around here” is that “hotheads stir up trouble” and they (meaning the plaintiffs) had better “watch their backs.”
• After the Plaintiffs’ complaints became generally known, one of the Plaintiffs was told by a non-African-American officer that when he (the Plaintiff) went out into the yard, he had “better pair up” because “you never know what might happen in the yard.”
• Plaintiffs interpreted these remarks as veiled threats that if there would be a physical confrontation with inmates in the yard at NSP, non-African-American staff might not come to the aid of the Plaintiffs.
• In a prison setting, the most critical component of the working environment is the knowledge that despite their personal differences, staff always has one another’s safety at the fore of their minds.  It is an absolute necessity that prison staff protect “each other’s back.”  The veiled threat that some NSP staff might not “be there” for the Plaintiffs, has further served to create a hostile work environment for the Plaintiffs.  
• When Plaintiffs reported these comments in late October 2010 to Defendant Sheair and Defendant Bakewell, the Defendants responded that they would have an outside law enforcement agency investigate the matter.  An officer with an outside law enforcement agency then interviewed several of the Plaintiffs.  At the conclusion of the interviews, he advised the Plaintiffs that the comments did not rise to the level of an illegal threat.
• In late October 2010, the Plaintiffs were summoned to meet with Defendants Bakewell, Sheair, and Staley.  Defendants were late for the meeting and Plaintiffs were made to wait in a room at NSP for approximately two hours for the meeting to begin.  Plaintiffs were shocked and degraded when they saw a picture on the wall of the room that featured an African-American man stooped over picking crops.  One of the Plaintiffs captured an image of the picture with a cell phone camera.
•  When the meeting finally began, Plaintiffs were informed by Defendant Bakewell that this was the first he had heard of any racial problems at NSP.  Rather than address the actions of NSP staff who had made racially insulting and offensive remarks, Defendant Bakewell’s initial response was to blame the Plaintiffs.  Defendant Bakewell was dismissive of the Plaintiffs’ racial concerns and said that he did not like getting involved in “this issue.”  Defendant Bakewell advised the Plaintiffs that he was going to split them up and transfer them out of NSP to different NDCS facilities.  Plaintiffs objected because by working at NSP they have the opportunity to earn overtime and receive other benefits that they were not sure were available to them at other NDCS facilities.
• By placing them in a room for two hours with a picture of an African-American picking crops, making dismissive comments, and threatening an adverse employment action against them, the Plaintiffs felt that the Defendants were not taking the racial concerns of the Plaintiffs seriously and further contributed to the hostile working environment of the Plaintiffs.
• After the meeting with Defendants Bakewell, Sheair, and Staley, word immediately leaked out to NSP staff not in attendance at the meeting that the Plaintiffs were being transferred.  This further served to make the working conditions of the Plaintiffs difficult because it made them to feel that they, and not the racially offensive words and actions of the non-African American staff, were the problem.
• On November 10, 2010 a meeting was held with Plaintiffs and Defendants Houston, Hopkins, Bakewell, and Sheair.  Defendants advised Plaintiffs that the most that could be done to NSP staff who engaged in racially offensive behavior was to put a “B Form” in their employment file noting that their behavior was inappropriate.  Defendants advised the Plaintiffs that it would be difficult to take action to stop the racially offensive comments and behavior of NSP staff.

The entire complaint can be viewed here:  File Stamped Complaint.