Court reduces award in lesbian corrections officer’s harassment case
A state appeals court has cut the $850,000 award granted to a Wende Correctional Facility officer who contends she was persistently harassed by coworkers because she is a lesbian.
The State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, 3rd Department, ruled that the original award for compensatory damages — one of the largest of its kind in state history — was “excessive” and reduced the award to $200,000.
The court found that the evidence supports Alicia S. Humig’s contention that she was subject to harassment by her co-workers, that her supervisors were aware of this conduct and that they did nothing to stop it.
Humig was disappointed in the decision.
“I feel I have a right to be protected by the State of New York. The amount of this reduction is a slap in the face, for anybody who works in this environment,” said Humig, 56, a Buffalo resident.
The ruling modifies an award granted by the state’s Division of Human Rights.
A veteran corrections officer who remains employed at the Wende facility, Humig filed a complaint in 2003 claiming that she was oppressively harassed by her co-workers.
Humig was the only female guard working in her section of the prison at the time and her sexual orientation was well known among the officers.
A fellow corrections officer, Jim Wright, claimed Humig was having an affair with a male inmate, relentlessly called her names, demeaned her in front of fellow officers and inmates, and filed a bogus complaint against her with prison officials, Humig complained.
The harassment ended only when Wright moved to another section of the prison.
A hearing was held in 2006, and an administrative law judge for the Division of Human Rights found that the evidence supported Humig’s complaint.
Based on that judge’s recommendations, the Division of Human Rights awarded Humig $850,000, which at the time was believed to be the largest issued by the division.
The division also directed the Corrections Department to take steps to reduce on-duty harassment and to improve the response of jail and prison officials to harassment complaints.
Wright was ordered to undergo counseling but remained employed at Wende. Humig’s superiors were not sanctioned for their roles in the case.
The state Department of Corrections appealed the decision, arguing that it was excessive, and the appeals court agreed.
Humig had argued that the harassment caused emotional and physical distress, affected her eating and sleep patterns and forced her to seek counseling.
But in reducing the award, the Appellate Division noted that Humig only attended four counseling sessions, never took a leave from her job and didn’t take any medication prescribed specifically for this distress.
The Appellate Division also held that awards of $400,000 or more were made in cases involving “far more pervasive discrimination and injuries that were far more severe.”
The Department of Corrections is pleased with the reduction and will not appeal to get the award lowered even more, said spokesman Erik Kriss.
The Division of Human Rights also won’t appeal the reduction, said Lourdes Centeno, special assistant to the commissioner.
Humig is weighing her options and said that, so far, she hasn’t seen any change in her workplace environment. “In the end, nobody was held accountable,” she said.
The judges of the Appellate Division did agree that Humig was a victim of harassment and retaliation and that her supervisors did nothing to stop it.
“I’m disappointed that the appeals court didn’t see the same level of egregiousness as the trial court did,” said Paul Crapsi Jr., the prosecuting attorney in this case at the trial level who was not involved in the appeal. “But at the least it sends a pretty strong message that discrimination will not be tolerated in the work force.”
