Sexual Assault and Harassment-Equal Protection Clause

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Zailey Hess v. Jamie Garcia

Case No.: 22-1550

Officials: Easterbrook, Hamilton, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sexual Assault and Harassment-Equal Protection Clause

Hess, a 17-year-old student, was required to participate in a ride-along with Hammond, Indiana Officer Garcia. In her complaint, she detailed a distressing series of events throughout the day, comprising inappropriate comments, intrusive questions, and unwelcome physical sexual contact. Garcia allegedly made deliberate contact with her breast by rubbing his arm against it, repeatedly placed his hand on her thigh, touched her buttocks, made explicit remarks insinuating her involvement in prostitution, and even asked another officer if he desired to engage in sexual activities with Hess while they were in a secluded location. Following the ride-along, another female classmate partook in the same mandatory ride with Garcia. When the classmate informed Hess of Garcia’s inappropriate behavior, both girls reported their experiences.

In response, Hess filed a lawsuit against Garcia and Chief Doughty in their personal capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the claim against Doughty due to insufficient allegations demonstrating the necessary level of involvement in the alleged violations. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the claim against Garcia. It is firmly established that sexual assault perpetrated by a government official acting under the pretense of law can constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as sex discrimination, infringe upon the Fourth Amendment right to personal security, and encroach upon the right to bodily integrity protected by the Due Process Clause. The court rejected arguments asserting that the alleged misconduct was merely “boorish” and not serious enough to implicate constitutional concerns. It affirmed that sexual assault is an intentional act that never serves a legitimate governmental purpose.

Affirmed

Decided 07/05/23

Full Text