Background
Erika Papp, a correction officer at Cuyahoga County Corrections Center, sued the County for failing to prevent sexual harassment and exhibitionism by male inmates between 2017 and 2020. In late 2017, following an Ohio Civil Rights Commission Conciliation Agreement, the County implemented a cross-gender supervision policy allowing female officers to supervise male inmates. Papp was the first female officer assigned to this duty. She alleged that inmates subjected her and other female officers to sexual harassment—including masturbation, lewd comments, and threatening remarks—and that the County removed “sexual harassment” as a standalone infraction from the Inmate Handbook immediately before implementing the new policy. Papp claimed the County refused to prevent, discipline, investigate, or prosecute the inmates.
Papp’s specific complaints included an inmate masturbating behind her during supervision (for which he was investigated and punished), supervisors preventing her from filing disciplinary reports on some occasions, and numerous demeaning comments from male inmates. She also alleged she learned of similar conduct directed at other female officers only through deposition discovery. Papp brought hostile work environment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of female correction officers. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County on all claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, holding that the County implemented reasonable and prompt remedial measures sufficient to address inmate sexual harassment. The court emphasized that hostile work environment cases involving correctional institutions operate under different legal standards than typical employment cases because inmates are third parties the institution must house and supervise, not employees or invitees who can be fired or expelled. Courts have recognized that corrections workers implicitly accept the probability of inappropriate inmate behavior and that institutions cannot prevent all harassment “without regard to important penological interests” and practical constitutional limits.
The court found undisputed evidence that the County operated an effective internal disciplinary system. When officers reported sexual harassment or exhibitionism, inmates received infractions and were punished—ranging from three to six days’ isolation for lewd comments to harsher penalties (specialized floor reassignment or administrative detention) for exhibitionist behavior. Papp herself identified nearly 100 incident reports out of over 48,000 issued between 2017 and 2020, demonstrating active investigation and discipline. Critically, there was no evidence that Papp was required to supervise any offending inmate again after disciplinary action, and no evidence of repeat harassment by the same inmates left unchecked by officials.
The court rejected Papp’s argument that the County should have referred inmates for criminal prosecution under the public indecency statute as a required remedial measure. The law does not mandate criminal prosecution when administrative disciplinary systems are in place and functioning. The removal of “sexual harassment” as a standalone infraction was inconsequential because the County continued to address such behavior through other infractions and serious discipline procedures. On summary judgment, Papp failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the County took prompt, reasonable remedial action—the critical element of her hostile work environment claim.
Key Takeaways
- Correctional institutions are held to a different standard than typical employers in sexual harassment cases; inmates are third-party harassers the institution must retain and supervise, creating practical and constitutional limits on preventive measures.
- An institution’s prompt internal disciplinary response to individual incidents of inmate harassment—including investigation, isolation, and movement restrictions—satisfies the remedial action requirement; criminal prosecution is not legally required.
- An employee suing for hostile work environment in a correctional setting must show not only that harassment occurred but that the institution failed to take reasonable measures against the individual inmate responsible and that she was forced to work with that inmate again unchecked.
- Corrections workers are deemed to have accepted the probability of inappropriate and socially deviant behavior from inmates as an inherent aspect of the job, affecting the legal threshold for liability.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundaries of hostile work environment liability in correctional settings, protecting jails and prisons from liability when they maintain functioning disciplinary systems that promptly address inmate misconduct. The ruling recognizes that corrections agencies face unique operational constraints: they cannot expel inmates or terminate their housing as a remedy. The court’s holding reinforces that reasonably swift administrative discipline—isolation, transfer, or investigation—is sufficient remedial action, even if it does not prevent all future harassment or deter the broader inmate population.
For correctional employees and prospective litigants, the decision establishes that working in corrections carries an accepted baseline of exposure to inmate misconduct and that the relevant legal inquiry focuses on institutional responsiveness to reported incidents rather than the ultimate elimination of all harassment. This may narrow the scope of sexual harassment claims in the correctional context compared to traditional workplace settings, though it does not insulate institutions that ignore reports, fail to investigate, or permit known repeat offenders to continue unsupervised contact with complainants.