A Sacramento County judge has stayed a lawsuit involving allegations of sexual battery, negligence, and concealment brought by job applicants to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
The plaintiffs claim they were subjected to improper and invasive medical examinations as a condition of employment. Superior Court Judge Jill Talley initially issued a tentative ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, but she reversed course and stayed the case on Tuesday, citing a related case currently under appeal.
The plaintiffs, more than 30 job applicants to the CDCR, allege they were forced to undergo unnecessary rectal and vaginal examinations during employment screenings between 2006 and 2016. The examinations reportedly included invasive procedures such as squatting and lifting gowns to confirm gender, actions described as unreasonable, unnecessary, and below the standard of care.
In her one-page order, Judge Talley noted that the ongoing appeal in a similar lawsuit, Jane Doe 1 v. CDCR, currently pending before the Third District Court of Appeal, influenced her decision. The Jane Doe 1 case, filed in 2020 by over 150 plaintiffs, involves nearly identical allegations against the CDCR and medical professionals concerning improper examinations during job screenings.
“Accordingly, the court’s disposition of this demurrer and the entirety of this action is stayed pending the completion of the Jane Doe 1 appeal,” Talley wrote.
The decision came after arguments presented last Friday by attorneys representing both sides. Sarah Gosling, an attorney for some of the defendants, argued that proceeding with the case before the resolution of the pending appeal would be premature and could lead to inconsistent rulings. She suggested that a stay would prevent prejudice against her clients, while the plaintiffs would face only minimal delays.
However, Jamie Goldstein, representing the plaintiffs, argued that delaying the case would be unfair, as the outcome of the appeal is uncertain and could take longer than anticipated. Goldstein expressed concerns that her clients would suffer prejudice if the case remained stalled.
The lawsuit centers on allegations that CDCR applicants were misled into believing these intrusive examinations were required for employment, only to discover in 2022 that the procedures were unnecessary. The plaintiffs then filed a government tort claim and, after receiving no response, initiated the lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court.
The defendants also raised the issue of the statute of limitations, contending that the plaintiffs made general accusations over a decade-long period without sufficient specificity. Deputy Attorney General Diana Esquivel argued that these claims should be barred due to the time that has elapsed.
Judge Talley’s ruling gives the CDCR 15 days to request a hearing and final disposition once the appeal in Jane Doe 1 is resolved. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation did not provide a comment before publication, and attorneys for the parties involved could not be reached for additional remarks.
