In October 2006, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (“SFSD”) implemented a new policy prohibiting male deputies form supervising female inmates in the housing units of the jails operated by the County (the “Policy”). The adoption of the Policy coincided with SFSD’s plan to consolidate all of its female inmates within a single facility, County Jail 8 (CJ8”), which has a “direct supervision” design, meaning that its housing units (“pods”) are composed of cells or sleeping bays arrayed around a central congregation space. Each pod has two tiers and between 56 and 898 beds. At the center of the pod is a podium from which a deputy can see into common areas and into the cells and sleeping bays. Each pod is staffed by two deputies, one of whom remains at the podium while the other makes rounds. Female inmates fill some, but not all, of the available housing pods in CJ8. Both male and female deputies filed suit contending that the Policy was a violation of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination, and did not fall within a BFOQ exception. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff, and the deputies appealed. 

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. What was the facially discriminatory policy? What reasons did this employer offer for adopting this policy?

3. What criteria for establishing a BFOQ are mentioned in this case?

4. Why was this employer’s BFOQ defense not successful, at least at this point in the litigation? What are some alternative measures for achieving the employer’s stated objectives? Would these alternative measures be sufficiently effective? Why or why not?