AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law
for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities


     Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Work/Education/Recreation Programs

     Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Exercise and Civil Liability, 2008 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Work Programs, 2008 (8) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Prison Work Release Programs, 2011 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.

     A man civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person sued federal prison employees, challenging various conditions of his confinement. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed claims over the Bureau of Prisons policy regarding the double-bunking of civil detainees, forcing the plaintiff to wear the same uniform as a prisoner, and limiting his purchases at the commissary and his television options to those of a prisoner. It also rejected his Fair Labor Standards Act claim, since he did not qualify as an employee. Summary judgment was also upheld on strip search and mass shakedown claims since those practices were justified by security concerns, and claims regarding the alleged inadequacy of available educational and vocational programs. Matherly v. Andrews, #16-6473, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 10200 (4th Cir.).

     A Minnesota prisoner sued the Department of Corrections and various individual correctional employees after he injured himself while using industrial equipment during a work assignment. The trial court dismissed claims for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and for negligence under state law. A federal appeals court upheld qualified immunity for individual prison employees on the Eighth Amendment claim. Even if the court were to assume that the prisoner’s assignment to operate the beam saw with no safety guards and no formal training presented an objective risk of serious harm, he had not alleged facts sufficient to show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk simply because of an absence of safety equipment or procedures and an awareness of similar injuries. Their actions were, at worst, negligence, insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability. Kulkay v. Roy, #16-1801, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 1845 (8th Cir.).
      A prisoner cleaning a fry hood in a food service area fell off a ladder, lost feeling in his legs for several minutes, and experienced severe pain when he stood up. For several days, he claimed, he had trouble walking and intense pain persisted even when lying down. He filed an Eighth Amendment civil rights lawsuit over what he claimed was inadequate treatment for his injuries, including a delay in x-rays and refusal to perform an MRI to determine that he had a broken back. The trial court dismissed, finding that the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. 4126(c), a workers' compensation scheme for federal prisoners injured during the course of their prison employment, is the exclusive vehicle by which a federal inmate may receive compensation for injuries suffered during the course of prison employment. The federal appeals court overturned that decision, holding that the statute did not bar otherwise available claims just because the unconstitutional conduct allegedly occurred during prison employment. Koprowski v. Baker, #14-5451, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8633, 2016 Fed. App. 111P (6th Cir.).
     A federal prisoner sued the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680, asserting that a prison official withheld wages he was owed for work done while incarcerated. A federal trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit on the pleadings, as Bureau of Prisons regulations allowed no discretion to refuse to pay the wages. The prisoner claimed that the motive for the withholding was racial animus. Claims for discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were properly rejected for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Douglas v. United States, #14-11444, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 3665 (11th Cir.).
   A prisoner had a work assignment as a stockman in food services. Three months after a work-related injury, he was fired for medical reasons, specifically damage to his prosthetic leg. He sued prison administrators for disability discrimination in employment under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Title II of the ADA is inapplicable to a claim of employment discrimination by a prisoner in a prison job. Neisler v. Tuckwell, #15-1804, 807 F.3d 225 (7th Cir. 2015).
     A pretrial detainee, who was an Army veteran, was enrolled in a special veterans' program. He worked in the jail laundry and lived in a special veterans' wing, apart from the general population. He sued, claiming that he was paid $3 a day but should have been paid the federal minimum wage, and that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, given insufficient food, was subjected to rodents and insects, had to drink filthy water, lacked outdoor recreation, and had to stand in a "hot, smelly room" for several hours each day. A trial court held that the plaintiff had no constitutional right to be paid at all for his work in jail, much less to be paid minimum wage. Other conditions of confinement claims were dismissed without prejudice for deficiencies in pleading. A federal appeals court reversed the dismissal of the inadequate food and contaminated water claims, but otherwise affirmed. Smith v. Dart, #14-1169, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17003 (7th Cir.).
     A prisoner raised a sufficient claim that his free exercise rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act were violated by the prohibition on him consuming wine during communion, the requirement that he work on the Sabbath, and assigning him non-Christian cellmates. Summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit was reversed. The total ban on consumption of wine during communion imposed a substantial burden on a religious exercise and the legitimate safety and health concerns involved in the ban did not preclude the possibility of a reasonable accommodation with minimal impact or the availability of reasonable alternatives. The prisoner's need to not work on the Sabbath could be accommodated by performing work hours entirely during the week, and the plaintiff sufficiently alleged religiously motivated harassment by assigning him a cellmate who chilled his exercise of religion, which could be accommodated by assigning a compatible cellmate. Jehovah v. Clarke, #13-7529, 792 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 2015).
     A 15-year-old who received special education services while going to school was arrested before turning 16 on felony charges and sent to a county jail awaiting trial. The Supreme Court of California held that the school district where a child's parent lives has the responsibility of providing special education services to qualifying individuals while incarcerated in a county jail. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, S199639, 58 Cal. 4th 175, 2013 Cal. Lexis 9747.
      A prisoner claimed that his Thirteenth Amendment rights against involuntary servitude were violated by prison officials refusing to pay him wages he earned in his prison job, as well as allegedly failing to require all inmates to work and discriminating against white inmates in favor of black inmates and "illegal aliens from Mexico." His Thirteenth Amendment claims were properly dismissed because a habeas corpus action was not the proper method of raising claims challenging the conditions of his confinement. Luedtke v. Berkebile, #12-5656, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 1031, 2013 Fed. App. 0020P (6th Cir.).
    Forcing a pretrial detainee to work in a prison laundry under threat of legal process and physical restraint in "the hole" could constitute "involuntary servitude" in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Defendant prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity and could not defend such actions on the basis that work could have a rehabilitative effect, since it was clearly established that they had no right to attempt to "rehabilitate" pre-trial detainees, who have not been convicted of any crime. McGarry v. Pallito, #10-669, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis16253 (2nd Cir.).
     A wheelchair-bound inmate may not be able to pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination claim over a denial of outdoor recreation for seven weeks on the basis that not enough disabled prisoners (at least nine) requested it, since state officials may be immune from liability under the ADA. His claims did, however, state a viable claim under the Rehabilitation Act, since the prison was a recipient of federal funding, and outdoor recreation constituted a "program or activity" under the Act, which he could not be denied participation in on the basis of disability. Norfleet v. Walker, #11-2137, 684 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2012).
     A facially neutral job assignment policy that Black and Hispanic prisoners claimed resulted in racial discrimination against them could not be challenged as a violation of equal protection on the basis of its supposed "disparate impact." Individual state officials could not be sued for intentional racial discrimination on the basis of a "pattern-or-practice evidentiary framework," since that would not show which officials purportedly acted with a discriminatory purpose. Reynolds v. Barrett, #10-4208, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 14201 (2nd Cir.).
     An insulin-dependent diabetic prisoner was hired to work in a public works program off the prison premises. After he experienced an incident in which he became ill from low blood sugar, he was removed from the program. He sued, claiming that the true reason for his termination was his gay sexual orientation. He claimed that officers supervising the work crews treated him differently than other heterosexual insulin-dependent diabetic inmates working on the project, taunting and harassing him. The prisoner adequately stated a claim of class-based discrimination based on sexual orientation, so that the dismissal of his lawsuit was improper. His claim was not a "class-of-one" equal protection claim barred in the context of public employment by Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, #07-474. 128 S.Ct. 2146 (2008). Davis v. Prison Health Services, #10-2690, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 9548, 2012 Fed. App. 131P (6th Cir.).
     Under an Indiana state law, a prison's recreation fund that acquired money from sources other than state funds, such as profits from sales at the prison's commissary, was required to spend those funds strictly for the "direct benefit" of prisoners, and for things not covered by state appropriations. A prisoner sued, claiming that money from the fund was improperly being used for prohibited purposes, without due process of law. He claimed prison officials had diverted some of the funds for their own personal use and that other funds were used for purposes already covered by existing state budget allocations, such as the purchase of cameras and other devices for prison security enhancement. Regardless of the truth or falsity of these claims, the prisoner had no property interest in the money in the fund. The lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. Booker-El v. Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, #10–1490, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2549 (7th Cir.).
     A 21-year-old pretrial detainee in a county jail sued, seeking the providing of special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., based on his learning disability and speech and language impairment. The federal appeals court stated that "Under the IDEA and corresponding California law, children who are eligible for special education services are entitled to continue receiving these services until they turn twenty-two or receive a high school diploma." The federal appeals court asked the California Supreme Court to answer the question "Does California Education Code § 56041, which provides generally that for qualifying children ages eighteen to twenty-two, the school district where the child's parent resides is responsible for providing special education services, apply to children who are incarcerated in county jails?" It noted that there appears to be no prior California law on the issue. Los Angeles Unified School District v. Garcia, #10-55879, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1179 (9th Cir. 2012).
     A prisoner was not allowed to go to his plumbing crew work assignment, and was told that he fit the profile of an escape risk. He was further told, however, that he had not lost his job, but would be allowed to return to it after certain additional security precautions were in place. After he filed a grievance challenging his classification as an escape risk, he was terminated from his job. Given the sequence of events, he stated a viable claim that he was fired in retaliation for filing the grievance in violation of his First Amendment rights. Milligan v. Archuleta, #11-1218, 659 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2011).
      A prison education director had an inmate fired from his job as a clerk in the prison library. The prisoner subsequently filed a grievance against the education director, who filed a misconduct report against the prisoner a day later concerning the incident that led to the firing. Based on the timing of the misconduct report, as well as its "threadbare" nature, the prisoner stated a triable claim of unlawful retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights against the education director. Greene v. Doruff, #10-3497, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 20597 (7th)
     Prisoner failed to prove that he was disabled in terms of his conditions of Hepatitis C, back pain, and psychiatric conditions affecting his ability to perform major life activities. He therefore could not continue to pursue his claim that he was barred from participation in prison work and education programs on the basis of disability discrimination. Hale v. King, #07-60997, 642 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2011)
    A prisoner's claim that he was compelled to work outdoors uprooting tree stumps in freezing cold weather without safety instructions, protective gear, or gloves was sufficient to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, requiring the reversal of the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit. The court also reinstated the prisoner's claim that he was penalized for questioning the work assignment and making preparations to sue, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Smith v. Peters, #10-1013, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 955 (7th Cir.).
     A prisoner claimed that requiring him to work in the prison dining hall without his consent violated due process and constituted involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. He refused to report to work, was found guilty of failing to carry out a work assignment in several disciplinary actions and sentenced each time to 30 days without telephone, visitation, and store privileges. He claimed that prison regulations and state law created a protected liberty interest in being free from involuntary work assignments and that he was wrongfully disciplined for refusing to comply with the assignment. No Thirteenth Amendment violation was shown, as the prisoner "does not challenge the validity of his conviction or allege facts that amount to unconstitutional involuntary servitude." The punishments imposed did not amount to "atypical" deprivations that could implicate a liberty interest, and any violation of state law, standing alone, was not a violation of federal civil rights. Ballard v. Pierce, #10-60276, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23993 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
    A prisoner sued federal officials, claiming that they violated his rights because he had been approved for a pay increase for his prison job but had never received the raise. The only defendants he named were the U.S. Attorney General and an administrative remedy coordinator at the prison. Since the prisoner failed to show that these defendants were personally involved in denying him his raise, a federal appeals court held that his complaint was properly dismissed. Additionally, the court noted, "prison inmates simply have no constitutionally protected interest in retaining prison employment—let alone in promotions." McKay v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, #10-3074, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22939 (Unpub.3rd  Cir.).
     A Delaware prisoner sued, claiming that he had been "illegally fired" from his prison job without a hearing. The state Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating that it was "well-established" under state law that an inmate "has no protected liberty interest in a prison work assignment." Smith v. Salas, #438, 2010 Del. Lexis 458.
     A federal prisoner claimed that he was unjustly terminated from his job with UNICOR (also known as Federal Prison Industries). He contended that this occurred as a result of a forged "Inmate Request to Staff" submitted by a UNIICOR staff member who was named as one of the defendants in his lawsuit. The other defendants were accused of "covering up" this forgery. The appeals court ruled that, even assuming this were all true, the lawsuit was still properly dismissed since prisoners have "neither a property nor a liberty interest in prison employment and thus lack a due-process interest" implicated by the loss of their prison employment. Further, while the prisoner also complained that his firing was "retaliatory," he failed to present any facts to show this, and had "done little else to suggest retaliation beyond using the word itself." Dawson v. Frias, #10-2200, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21278 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12131-12165, a federal appeals court ruled, does not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity in a lawsuit brought by disabled inmates who claimed that they were denied access to prison educational and work programs on the basis of their disabilities. The lawsuit was filed against Mississippi state prison officials in their official capacities. The court reasoned that in authorizing such claims, Congress exceeded its authority to the extent that they are not “congruent and proportional” to the enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The parties in the case agreed that none of the defendants' conduct arguably violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Hale v. King,  #07-60997, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21463 (5th Cir.).
     Current and former federal prisoners argued that the low wages that they were paid for work done in prison (as low as nineteen cents per hour) violated their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment and various sources of international law, such as articles 7 through 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; a UN document entitled “Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;” and the general "law of nations." These claims were all rejected, with the federal appeals court holding that prisoners had no legal entitlement to any payment for their work in prison, under either the U.S. Constitution or international law. Serra v. Lappin, #08-15969, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 7324 (9th Cir.).
     A sex offender claimed that prison officials discriminated against him by denying him a job in a prison program. He attempted to assert a "class of one" equal protection program, arguing that other sex offenders were granted jobs in the same program he was rejected for. Granting summary judgment for defendant officials, a federal court found that, since the plaintiff was not a member of any protected class, the defendants only needed to show that there was a rational basis for their treatment of him. There clearly was a rational basis for the decision, since the program at issue placed prisoners in a minimum security facility, and the plaintiff had a history of disciplinary problems raising security concerns. The fact that this reasoning was not explained to the prisoner when he was rejected for the job did not alter the result. Unruh v. Moore, #08-40750, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10315 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     A Michigan inmate assigned physical plant maintenance duties was paid at a heightened pay scale of $3.04 a day instead of the standard inmate pay of $1.77 per day because a classification director noted that he had worked in numerous hazardous situations, he had a state certified mechanics license, he had a certificate of completion in auto mechanics from a local community college, and he had over 1,000 hours of training. Such a pay differential was authorized under a prison policy directive when a prisoner provides proof of having been licensed by a state agency to provide specific services. The director, after auditing prisoners' pay rates, reduced this prisoner's pay, finding that he was not using his license in the performance of his prison duties. The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in the prisoner's due process claim over the lowering of his pay without notice or a hearing. It was not clearly established that he had a constitutionally protected property interest in a prison job a wages set by state regulations. Pickelhaupt v. Jackson, #08-2310, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2449 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     A prisoner failed to show that his due process rights were violated when he was allegedly terminated from his correctional industries job assignment based on accusations of having taken paper towels from the factory where he worked. Placing him on restricted status, which lasted only 45 days, did not impose a significant or atypical hardship on him as required for a due process violation. Anderson v. Cunningham, #08-1349, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6840 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
     A man convicted of a burglary was sentenced as a habitual offender to eight years of hard labor. As part of his sentence, he worked for the city, maintaining city property and facilities. He claimed that the city's mayor and police chief forced him to work extra hours beyond the work day, and sometimes to work for their private gain, such as work for the police chief's private businesses. A federal appeals court found that allegedly being forced to work for private businesses did not turn his labor into involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and that he was not entitled to either minimum wage pay or overtime under federal law. It was, the court stated, possible that the mayor and police chief abused their authority over the prisoner, but this did not give him a claim for violation of either the Fair Labor Standards Act or the Thirteenth Amendment. Williams v. Henagan, #07-30997 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2036 (5th Cir.).
     Correctional officers were not liable for allegedly forcing a prisoner to work despite a prior shoulder injury when there was an absence of evidence that they had knowledge of the prisoner's prior injury before he reinjured his shoulder. The evidence also showed that the officers then adequately responded to the prisoner's injury and enforced needed safety measures at the work site. Knight v. Wiseman, #09-1435, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 28195 (7th Cir.).
     An African-American prisoner claimed, among other things, that he had been denied a particular work assignment because of his race. He argued that he was similarly situated with medium security prisoners with a history of escape. However, while at that facility, he was a medium security prisoner serving a life sentence, and therefore was not similarly situated to the other prisoners he referred to. Additionally, he only made conclusory allegations of purposeful race discrimination, and, at most, showed only a discriminatory impact. His prior grievances had also failed to assert race discrimination claims, and instead argued that he was denied the work assignment at issue because of his life sentence. The defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted. McKubbin v. Pettiford, #8:08-3248, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 91529 (D.S.C.).
     Prison lockdowns, which allegedly resulted in the plaintiff prisoner being denied outdoor exercise, were reasonable precautions in light of violence, including assaults on staff members, that had occurred at the facility, so that defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Norwood v. Vance, #07-17322, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15224 (2nd Cir.).
      The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received complaints about the working conditions and air quality in a prison factory where the plaintiff inmates had worked making furniture components. The court found no evidence to show that prison staff members were aware that conditions in the factory created an unreasonable risk of harm to inmates. Additionally, any claim of deliberate indifference was refuted by the fact that remedial measures which were taken in response to OSHA violations and recommendations. Ward v. Lamanna, #07-2023, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12752 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     A federal prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in a job assignment with the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR). The court therefore rejected the plaintiff prisoner's claim that his rights, constitutional or contractual, were violated when he was terminated from such employment by his supervisor. Johnson v. Rowley, #07-2213, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12520 (2nd Cir.).
     A prisoner employed in a facility's kitchen claimed that he scalded his hand while performing cleaning duties. Even if, as he alleged, his injury occurred because the kitchen manager raised the water temperature unexpectedly to prepare for a state inspection, his claim, at most, amounted to one of negligence, which was insufficient to support an award of damages for violation of his federal civil rights. Caldwell v. Beard, #08-3286, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9029 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
      A trial court acted erroneously in dismissing a prisoner's claim that some prison employees forced him to work in the prison laundry doing work that violated his medical restrictions and aggravating existing injuries. He also could pursue claims that a prison doctor refused to give him a note excusing him from performing the work as a result of pressure from other employees. Claims for verbal harassment, however, were not valid federal civil rights claims. Reese v. Skinner, #08-40490, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8471 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     The evidence showed that the plaintiff prisoner, who claimed he was subjected to unsafe working conditions in the rubbermill room of the prison's shoe shop, was actually given and told to wear a hooded protective jump suit, along with insulated gloves, goggles and a face mask, as well as being given training in the use of the rubbermill and the rubber-making process. Reasonable attempts to obtain an upgrade for his face mask were made when he complained that it was providing inadequate protection. The defendants also tried to lessen problems with the workplace ventilation system. Given these facts, the defendants could not be said to have acted with "disregard" for prisoners' health and safety. At most, there may have been some negligence in addressing these issues, which was insufficient to show an Eighth Amendment violation. Heffran v. Mellinger, #07-4077, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10099 Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et. seq., does not apply to inmates performing work for state prison industries. Dismissing the prisoner's claim that he had not received wages for work done for a state prison food service provider, the court reasoned further that, even if there was a property interest in wages allegedly due for such work, the prisoner had to either pursue state law remedies, or else show that he was precluded from doing so, before pursuing his claim in federal court. Tagariello v. McDonough, #2:07-cv-248, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10590 (M.D. Fla.).
     Michigan state prison was not required, under state or federal law, to provide special education services to mentally ill and disabled inmates under the age of 27. Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Caruso, Case No. 5:05-CV-128, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80089 (W.D. Mich.).
     A prisoner who created and produced certain desk-blotter calendars while working for a government-owned company while in federal prison could not pursue copyright infringement claims against the U.S. government relating to the calendars. Walton v. U.S., 2008-5057, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 113 (Fed. Cir.).
      When prisoners were injured in a vehicle accident while on the bus being transported to a work assignment, claims for their injuries were work-related, had to be filed against the Federal Bureau of Prisons under the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 4126, so that claims the prisoners filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act were properly dismissed. Baynes v. U.S.A., No. 07-6352, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21775 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).    
    The provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning wages and related issues do not apply to inmates or to civilly-committed sexually dangerous persons. The plaintiff's lawsuit against state officials for cutting wages he received for work in the secure treatment facility to which he was committed to below minimum wage was therefore properly dismissed. The court also rejected claims that the wage cut violated the plaintiff's rights as disability discrimination, denial of equal protection, or denial of due process. Sanders v. Hayden, No. 08-1596, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19984 (7th Cir.).
     Prison's decision to eliminate an inmate independent band program did not violate a prisoner's First Amendment right to freedom of expression or his religious rights under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. The court noted that the religious music program offered by the facility was "entirely optional" and there were a number of options for musical expression, including both religious and non-religious music. The "independent" inmate band program was eliminated on the basis of security concerns, based on the "poor supervision" of the program, which created an unsafe environment. Prison officials, in deciding to eliminate the program, engaged in a "standard review process for evaluating a program," and did not arbitrarily decide that it constituted a security problem. Young v. Beard, No. 07-1670, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14315 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     New Jersey prison officials complied with the requirements of state regulations by providing recreation time to the plaintiff inmate which was consistent with safety and security concerns, the physical facilities available, custodial considerations, and the general operation of the facility. Rejecting the prisoner's civil rights claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he allegedly received only two hours of recreation time a month for exercise and fresh air, the court noted that the prisoner was serving time in administrative segregation for a disciplinary infraction during the period in question, and that prison officials showed that they made efforts to make changes in schedules to increase the outdoor recreation time provided to prisoners. The defendants' actions did not amount to deliberate indifference. Barkley v. Ricci, No. 07-2760, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37563 (D.N.J.).
     A Pennsylvania inmate claimed that his Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection was developed while he was working in a prison's laundry, and he sued for allegedly unconstitutional working conditions. An expert witness offered by the prisoner who was an environmental scientist and not a medical doctor could not testify on the cause and nature of the prisoner's skin rashes, or that he suffered from a MRSA infection, and further proceedings would determine whether he could testify on the conditions present in the prison's laundry. While the prisoner's medical records could be used to establish that he had a MRSA infection, expert witness medical testimony was needed to establish that this condition was caused by prison laundry working conditions. Wolfgang v. Smithers, Civil No. 4:CV-03-167, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28597 (M.D. Pa.).
     Sheriff and jailer were entitled to summary judgment in detainee's lawsuit claiming that he had not received any recreation time for weeks at a time. The sheriff maintained that such recreation was provided to all prisoners twice a week, but that the plaintiff did not always use the time provided. The prisoner also failed to present evidence showing that his weight and muscles dropped drastically during his four months at the jail. Hafner v. Limoges, No. Civ. 06-4039, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9346 (D.S.D.).
     California prisoner did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the accrual of credits for participation in a prisoner work training incentive program. Further, the appeals court rejected his equal protection claim, finding that the State of California had a rational basis for requiring that violent felons be treated more harshly in order to ensure public safety, supporting its requirement that the plaintiff, who had been sentenced for voluntary manslaughter, serve at least 85% of his sentence. Etcheverry v. Woodford, No. 06-17398, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27729 (9th Cir.).
     A federal prisoner who claimed that he had "essentially exhausted" his academic opportunities at the facility where he was incarcerated did not show that his due process and equal protection rights were violated by the failure to provide him with "marketable" vocational opportunities allegedly provided to some other similarly situated D.C. offenders in other facilities. There is no due process right to participate in vocational and educational programs, the court concluded, much less one of the prisoner's own choice. Boulware v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-2137, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79609 (D.D.C.).
     A federal prisoner claimed that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully ended his work program with UNICOR, which provides work and training opportunities under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 345.11(a), and sought reinstatement and an award of back pay. A federal court has rejected the argument that the BOP's provision of a grievance system constituted an implied waiver of sovereign immunity and that the prisoner could use the Administrative Procedure Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3625 to challenge his termination. The U.S. and its agencies cannot be sued in the absence of an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, and the APA does not apply to any determination made under the statutes governing imprisonment. Anderson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-01402, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68137 (D.D.C.).
     Federal appeals court rejects a claim by 17-year-old public school student convicted and incarcerated in Maryland who alleged that the District of Columbia violated an agreement to provide him with special education services in the Maryland prison, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(a). The Maryland prison allegedly did not allow access to the prisoner for the purposes of providing those services, and the appeals court found that the trial court acted erroneously in ruling that the agreement provided that the District would provide those promised special education services after the prisoner's release from custody if access to the Maryland prison could not be obtained. Maryland, instead, provided the plaintiff with its own special education services, and the plaintiff sought compensatory services from D.C. to make up for the time he spent in the Maryland prison without services from D.C., even though he received such services in prison from Maryland. The appeals court, overturning a decision by the trial court, ruled that the now released prisoner was not entitled to additional special education services from D.C. Hester v. DC, No. 06-7102, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24415 (D.C. Cir.).
     Federal prisoner performing the duties of his prison job was not a federal "employee" and it did not violate his rights to fail to pay him the federal minimum wage for that work. Banks v. Roberts, No. 1:06-CV-01232, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57697 (M.D. Pa.).
     While the working conditions in the prison commissary were "perhaps uncomfortable," they did not violate the plaintiff prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner also failed to show that he was improperly transferred from his commissary job in retaliation for his grievances against his supervisors. Toolasprashad v. Wright, No. 06-3784, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19875 (3rd Cir.).
     A Pennsylvania prisoner's sentence was vacated in a state court, and he continued to serve his sentence pending further proceedings, which subsequently led to the vacating of his sentence being overturned on appeal. Under these circumstances, requiring him to work during the time that his sentence was vacated did not violate his constitutional rights, nor did the deduction, during that time, of money from his prison account to pay previously-ordered restitution. Under prior federal precedent, the plaintiff remained a convicted person while any post-trial proceedings were ongoing in the state courts. Forcing him to work during that time therefore did not violate his 13th Amendment rights. O'Connell v. Johnson, No. 07-2001, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19664 (3rd Cir.).
     Inmate's rights were not violated by the fact that, as a barber school student in a vocational training program, he was eligible to receive good time credits, but not pay, while other inmates enrolled in a culinary arts program were both paid and eligible to receive a greater number of good time credits. There is no federally protected due process right to compensation for prisoners in such vocational training programs, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff prisoner was unfairly denied participation in other prison activities through which he might have received additional good time credits. The federal court also ruled that it was "not difficult" to think of rational reasons to give more favorable treatment to students in a culinary arts program than to students in a barber training program. Jackson v. Russo, No. 06-12044, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50159 (D. Mass.).
     Federal appeals court disagrees with trial court's conclusion that a reasonable jury could not find, based on a layman's opinion, including the prisoner's opinion, that experienced work supervisors at his prison job responded unreasonably to a known excessive risk to his health and safety. The evidence could support a conclusion, the appeals court found, that the supervisors knew that the prisoner was suffering from serious respiratory distress from his job in a poorly ventilated and enclosed room, and that the prisoner could not avoid instances where a razor blade would catch and then slip loose uncontrollably, using the tools made available to him. Blay v. Reilly, No. 04-1347, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17603 (10th Cir.).
     A Florida prisoner failed to show that prison officials altered his work assignment in retaliation for his pursuit of grievances, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Brown v. Mache, No. 07-10034, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12326 (11th Cir.).
     Prisoner allowed to amend his lawsuit to further explain his claim that he was suspended from a softball league and a hobby craft program in retaliation for having filed grievances, in violation of his First Amendment rights. The court found that his lawsuit did not adequately establish due process claims, because he had no protected liberty interest in remaining in the recreational programs from which he had been suspended. Bigbee v. Nalley, No. 07-C-71, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25336 (W.D. Wis.).
     New York prisoners' work for the state Department of Motor Vehicles was not, in economic reality, an employer-employee relationship entitling them to pursue their claims for federal minimum wages or overtime compensation. The job assignments served correctional purposes by giving the prisoners opportunities for job training and skill development. Kavazanjian v. Naples, No. 06-CV-3390, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69080 (E.D.N.Y.). [N/R]
     Ordering a prisoner to continue working with a defective printing press, which subsequently tore off his thumb could be a violation of the Eighth Amendment, despite the fact that the prisoner originally obtained the specific prison work assignment by voluntarily applying for it. Morgan v. Morgensen, No. 04-35608, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25028 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Nov]
     In Alabama prisoner's lawsuit seeking back pay and damages and challenging the power of correctional officials to force prisoners to perform work on a private contract job with an outside vendor of sports equipment, the state agencies and Department of Corrections, and prison warden were all entitled to sovereign immunity under state law. Latham v. Department of Corrections, No. 1031810, 927 So. 2d 815 (Ala. 2005). [N/R]
     County jail was not liable for inmate's burn injuries suffered during kitchen work assignment. While the prisoner claimed that the jail failed to provide him with reasonably safe equipment and adequate training for the job, the prisoner admitted that he failed to use a funnel, gloves, and other equipment provided for him to perform the task of transferring boiling water from one container to another. He also admitted that the task was "pretty basic" and that he had successfully completed the job previously, refuting the argument that further training was required. Spiratos v. County of Chenago, 815 N.Y.S. 2d 288 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
     Mother of youthful incarcerated son with alleged disabilities, including emotional problems, and auditory and visual hallucinations, as well as other mental health concerns, could not pursue claims for money damages under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq. regarding educational services required to be provided to him, when she failed to show that she provided any educational expenses for her son. Court also rules that neither the Alabama Department of Youth Services (ADYS) nor its employees could be held liable for allegedly not providing the juvenile with services to which he was allegedly entitled under the Americans with Disabilities Ac (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12112(a), as the Department and the individual defendants sued in their official capacities were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the individuals could not be sued in their individual capacities under ADA. McReynolds v. Alabama Department of Youth Services, No. 2:04-CV-850, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (M.D. Ala. 2006). [N/R]
     Pennsylvania prisoner failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he was fired from his prison kitchen job in retaliation for having filed grievances against his supervisor. The evidence showed that complaints about his work performance were present before he filed any grievances. Williams v. Meyers, No. 03-3938, 165 Fed. Appx. 201 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     An inmate doing work at or for a prison does not qualify as an employee under federal minimum wage laws, and is therefore not entitled to minimum wages for hours worked. Loving v. Johnson, No. 05-10679 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16968 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
     Prisoner's allegation that he was transferred to a less desirable job assignment in retaliation for filing grievances was insufficient to show a violation of his First Amendment rights, but his assertion, if true, that he was transferred to an inferior and more dangerous prison for retaliatory reasons did state a claim. Morris v. Powell, No. 05-40578, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12033 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
     Inmate suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from dust and smoke accompanying his work as a welder failed to show that he had informed the supervisor of the prison unit overseeing prison jobs of the risk to him allegedly posed by his working conditions. Since the supervisor was not shown to have known of and disregarded the risk to him, he could not be held liable for injuries allegedly suffered by the prisoner. Additionally, the prisoner failed to file grievances concerning the work conditions and also refused to wear a dust mask he was given. Flanyak v. Hopta, No. 3:04-1634, 410 F. Supp. 2d 394 (M.D. Pa. 2006). [N/R]
     A federal prisoner's lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671-80, alleging that he was injured as a result of a negligent failure to train him to use machinery safely during his prison employment was barred by the provisions of the Federal Prison Industries' Inmate Accident Compensation (IAC) system under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4126. Cordoba v. Morrison, No. 04-3642, 155 Fed. Appx. 933 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Arkansas prisoner had no constitutional right to being assigned to a particular prison job, and therefore could not pursue a civil rights claim over his alleged loss of his prison job based on a disciplinary conviction for violating correctional drug policies which was later reversed on appeal. Sanders v. Norris, No. 05-2398, 153 Fed. Appx. 403 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     State of New York had no duty to provide an inmate with instructions on the use of or warnings concerning the dangerous of using an angle grinder in his work assignment, and therefore was not liable for injuries he suffered when he set the grinder down on a workbench while it was still operating. Coming into contact with the spinning disk of the grinder was an "obvious danger" and the prisoner, who had worked in the construction industry for twenty years, was familiar with power tools and angle grinders in particular. Manganaro v. State of New York, 805 N.Y.S.2d 710 (A.D. 3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
     While prisoner filed grievances concerning his claim that he was illegally terminated from his kitchen work assignment on the basis of his race, he failed to show that he appealed his grievance to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and therefore did not exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Lyons v. Trinity Services Group, Inc., No. 02-23142, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner's claim that his 8th Amendment rights had been violated by an electronics instructor's instructions to go to a restroom to clear his nasal passages and to cease bothering the class with his "frequent" throat clearing was frivolous. The instructor did not act in an "egregious" manner, and the prisoner had no constitutional right to receive an education while incarcerated. Flanyak v. Ross, No. 05-2868, 153 Fed. Appx. 810 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court upholds injunction requiring the provision of both general educational services and special educational services for school age inmates incarcerated in New York City jails, based on the failure to comply with federal law. Portions of the injunction based on alleged violations of state law, the court held, were beyond the power of the federal trial court. City defendants had previously waived a defense of failure to exhaust available administrative remedies by stating that no such remedies were applicable to the claims made in the class action lawsuit. Handberry v. Thompson, No. 03-0047, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1062 (2d Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
     Prisoner failed to show that he was reassigned from a boiler-room job to a "hoe" squad and forced to work in dirty clothes and in cold weather in retaliation for his filing of grievances and complaints. The evidence showed, the court ruled, that he was actually reassigned for legitimate reasons, including the prisoner's connections to white supremacist groups and the risk of escape posed by his prior escape from another facility. Breshears v. Brown, No. 04-41749 150 Fed. Appx. 323 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Black federal prison inmate failed to show that a delay in his promotion to the highest pay grade in his prison factory work assignment was due to racial discrimination. The evidence showed that the delay was actually caused by shortcomings in his work. Hill v. Thalacker, No. 04-C-732, 399 F. Supp. 2d 925 (W.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner who allegedly told medical staff at prison that he could not work because of a prior gunshot injury failed to show that they responded with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Prison medical staff used a medical team to evaluate the prisoner, and conducted a physical examination, and once he complained of a spasm, they provided prompt attention, including pain medications and adjustment of his work status. Randle v. Webster, No. 04-2239, 124 Fed. Appx. 439 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Inmate assigned to work as an audiovisual technician was properly disciplined for disobeying a direct order when he refused to select a videotaped movie to play from those available when a problem arose with the movie scheduled to be shown. Bragg v. Selsky, 791 N.Y.S.2d 706 (A.D. Dept. 3 2005). [N/R]
     Shiite Muslim prisoner of Iraqi descent failed to show that he was fired from his prison job with private manufacturer on the basis of his sex, race, religion or national origin, when, in fact, at the time of his discharge, he was not able to work at all because he had been placed in segregation. Alleged discriminatory remarks by supervisor were not sufficiently pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Al-Zubaidy v. Tek Indus., No. 03-3457, 406 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Jul]
     D.C. trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide educational services to a youthful offender after he was transferred to BOP custody and outside of the District of Columbia. U.S. v. Crockett, No. 03-C0-749, 861 A.2d 604 (D.C. 2004). [N/R]
     Environmental conditions at prison print shop and resulting minor health problems prisoners there allegedly experienced, including skin irritation, nausea, and headaches, did not violate the Eighth Amendment when the prisoners were fully aware of the potential health risks and voluntarily chose to continue to work there. Wooten v. Goord, No. 04-2485, 123 Fed. Appx. 441 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner's question to work supervisor concerning pay for prisoners laid off from prison sewing shop was not speech on a matter of public concern for which he had First Amendment protection against retaliatory action. McElroy v. Lopac, No. 03-3257, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 5611 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
     Jewish prisoner's apparently sincerely held belief that it violated his religion to work in a non-kosher prison kitchen was not entitled to lesser consideration simply because it might not be a "central" tenet of his religion, but legitimate penological interests including budgetary concerns and the need for non-discriminatory prison staffing were sufficient, on limited review, to justify requiring him to accept the work assignment. Searles v. Dechant, No. 03-3347, 393 F. 3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Apr]
     Prisoners at a privately operated prison are not entitled to minimum wages for their prison work assignments. Bennett v. Frank, No. 04-1959, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 960 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Mar]
     Juvenile pre-trial detainee's rights were not violated by his incarceration in adult county jail when it was done in compliance with Michigan state law and he was kept segregated from adult prisoners. Conditions he faced in lock-down were not punitive but were justified by a legitimate interest in preventing his possible suicide. Federal appeals court further finds that his due process rights were not violated by his loss of credit in alternative education program following his arrest and detention or by the program's refusal to re-enroll him after his release. Daniels v. Woodside, No. 03-2053, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1127 (6th Cir.). [2005 JB Mar]
     A New York prisoner's failure to file a timely appeal to the highest administrative level of his grievance against a correctional officer concerning his removal from his porter work assignment barred his federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. His failure to do so was not excused by his transfer to another correctional facility. Soto v. Belcher, No. 01 Civ. 7520, 339 F. Supp. 2d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     South Carolina statute allegedly requiring state Department of Corrections to pay prevailing wages to inmates employed by prison industry did not provide a private right of action in the courts to inmates to pursue claims for alleged violations. Prisoners could, however, seek a remedy for violations by pursuing an inmate grievance. Adkins v. S.C. Depart. of Corrections, #25860, 602 S.E.2d 51 (S.C. 2004). [N/R]
     South Carolina inmate was entitled to payment of "prevailing wage" for his work in prison industry under state statute. Court upholds decision by administrative law judge in inmate's grievance requiring correctional officials to pay such wages to prisoner. Wicker v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, No. 25859, 602 S.E.2d 56 (S.C. 2004). [N/R]
     Private industry was not entitled to any relief against federal prison industry for alleged unauthorized expansion of production of office furniture. Plaintiffs also failed to show that these actions constituted a "taking" of its property right to a certain market share of federal purchases of such furniture. Coalition for Gov't Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., No. 01-2231, 365 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
    Prisoner who was injured while doing electrical work as part of prison work assignment was entitled to reversal of summary judgment for defendants in his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against supervisors. There was sufficient evidence to raise a factual issue as to whether the defendants knew of the risks the prisoner would face from the work he was being assigned to do. Hall v. Bennett, No. 02-2683, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16609 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
     Washington state statute, RCWA 72.09.100(1), under which Department of Corrections entered into contract with private company allowing them to employ convicts in its business, violated a state constitutional provision, Art. 2, Sec. 29, concerning the employment of prisoners by private entities, and prohibiting such transactions. Washington Water Jet Workers Association v. Yarbrough, No. 70814-2, 90 P.3d 42 (Wash. en banc., 2004). [N/R]
     African-American inmate did not show that he had been subjected to racial discrimination in work assignments. Prisoner's "rambling" statement concerning what occurred demonstrated, "at most," that there may have been a "personality clash" between the prisoner and some officers. Additionally, the prisoner had no property right to his job or to working any particular number of hours, so his claim that he was given fewer hours of work than some other inmates was not relevant. Miles v. Wiser, 847 A.2d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). [N/R]
     If race was the only criteria used to exclude black inmates from a critical worker list of those allowed to return to their prison jobs during three lockdowns, then plaintiff prisoner was not required to prove discriminatory intent in his racial discrimination lawsuit. Walker v. Gomez, #99-55265, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11157 (9th Cir.). [2004 JB Jul]
     Prison officials violated prisoners' rights by requiring them, as a condition of prison employment, to waive any property rights to accrued interest on their inmate trust accounts, and violated prisoners' due process rights by confiscating this interest despite a state statute entitling them to the interest, when no procedure was provided to contest the loss. Officials had qualified immunity from liability for the seizure of interest, however, as prisoners' rights were not clearly established, but not for retaliating against prisoners for refusal to waive the interest. Vance v. Barrett, No. 01-15819, 345 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
     Update: Federal appeals court upholds ruling that drivers' license examiner's alleged conduct of forcing female inmate in work release program to have sex with him in exchange for special privileges, and under threat of being removed from the program, violated clearly established Eighth Amendment law. Smith v. Cochran, #01-5085, 339 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Jan]
     Prisoner in Tennessee had no constitutional right to a particular job assignment or to prison employment in general, and therefore could not pursue claim for violation of due process based on prison's failure to restore him to his former job after his disciplinary conviction was reversed. Carter v. Tucker, No. 03-5021, 69 Fed. Appx. 678 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoner could state a claim for retaliatory transfer for having filed a grievance against an officer based on a sequence of events from which a retaliatory motive could be inferred, without proving motivation in the complaint. Illinois prisoner had a protected liberty interest in continued participation in work release program which could not be ended without due process. Segreti v. Gillen, 259 F. Supp. 2d 733 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
     Participation in an "industrial training" leave program was not a right for a New York inmate, so that he was not entitled to a review of a decision denying his request to participate in the program. Further, the nature of the prisoner's crimes, which included his misconduct as an attorney in misappropriating over $4.7 million in funds from his clients' escrow accounts, raised "serious doubts" about whether he was trustworthy enough to participate, and whether his release for participation "posed a threat to community safety." Wallman v. Joy, 760 N.Y.S.2d 560 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2003). [N/R]
    A prison librarian's alleged filing of an "erroneous" evaluation of a prisoner's performance in his work assignment after the prisoner filed a grievance over an earlier evaluation was not unlawful retaliation in violation of the prisoner's First Amendment rights. The librarian had submitted other negative evaluations of the prisoner's work performance before he ever filed a grievance. Keenan v. Daniel, #02-2059, 63 Fed. Appx. 180 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Indiana prisoner was entitled to the benefit of amendments to an educational credit time statute passed after his sentence, allowing him to receive the maximum credit towards his release date for post-amendment educational credits. Cotton v. Ellsworth, #48A04-0204-CV-185, 788 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. App. 2003).[N/R]
     Prisoner's complaint about being compelled to work in cold weather without warm clothing, or in hot, humid weather despite his high blood pressure did not qualify as a claim of imminent danger of serious physical harm coming under an exception to the "three strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act barring access to courts as a pauper following the filing of three or more frivolous lawsuits. Martin v. Shelton, No. 02-2770, 319 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
     A union officer had standing, under California state law, to sue the state as a taxpayer to make it ensure that a joint venture company employing prisoners paid them "prevailing wages" when they were employed under a statute, Ann. Cal. Penal. Code Sec. 2717.1 et seq., requiring them to work to reimburse the state for the cost of their confinement. Vasquez v. State of California, #D038889, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003). [N/R]
    Prisoner's alleged confinement to his cell during working hours for refusal to accept a prison work assignment did not violate his rights. Such confinement did not constitute an "atypical and significant hardship" triggering a right to due process before the sanction was imposed. Mayberry v. Starr, #01-2563, 44 Fed. Appx. 679 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     299:169 Prisoner who was allegedly exposed to raw sewage in the course of her work assignment failed to show that correctional officials acted with deliberate indifference; even if she was correct that protective clothing issued was inadequate, nothing showed that defendants knew that before she complained. Shannon v. Graves, No. 00- 3029, 257 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2001).
     294:94 Louisiana prison officials did not violate asthmatic prisoner's rights by forcing him to do ditch digging on a dusty road, when they consulted with medical personnel before compelling the prisoner to do the work. Lewis v. Lynn, No. 00-30783, 236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001).
     292:62 Prisoner's rights were not violated by transferring him from a prison with vocational training and substance abuse programs to one which had none, despite his argument that he would have earned "good time" credits if he successfully completed the programs. Zimmerman v. Tribble, #98-2163, 226 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2000).
     289:14 Prisoner could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit over loss of his prison job which allegedly resulted from officers pursuing false disciplinary charges against him after he filed a complaint against an officer; despite the lack of a property or liberty interest in his job assignment, prisoner's equal protection (racial discrimination) and retaliation claims were not barred. DeWalt v. Carter, No. 98-2415, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000).
     284:125 County liable for $40,000 for injuries to prisoner in protective custody who was attacked by two gang member pre-trial detainees in common recreation area; court rules that policy allowing prisoners with different security levels to take recreation together was deliberate indifference in light of knowledge of specific threats to plaintiff prisoner. Miller v. Shelby County, Tenn., 93 F. Supp. 2d 892 (W.D. Tenn. 2000).
     286:154 Federal appeals court rules that Kansas state prisoner's lawsuit over his private prison industry work assignment could proceed, at least insofar as it sought money damages, despite failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, when administrative remedies did not provide for awards of money. Miller v. Menghini, #99-3401, 213 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000).
     286:157 "Nation of Islam" members in New York state prison were not entitled to a kosher diet, even though it was being supplied to Jewish prisoners, when a pork-free "Religious Alternative Menu" provided to them was adequate to meet their nutritional and religious requirements; prison did not violate their rights by refusing to hire one of them as an inmate clerk to handle "Nation of Islam" affairs in the facility. Muhammad v. Warithu-Deen Umar, 98 F. Supp. 2d 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
     279:36 Federal appeals court upholds the segregation of HIV-positive prisoners; U.S. Supreme Court denies review. Onishea v. Hopper, #96-6213, 171 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, sub nom. Davis v. Hopper, #98-9663, 120 S. Ct. 931 (2000).
     279:41 Jury awards $2 million to prisoner blinded while operating trash compactor during prison work assignment; suit claimed a delay in medical treatment contributed to blindness. Williams v. Patel, No. 96-1369, U.S. Dist. Ct (C.D. Ill.), reported in The National Law Journal, p. A12 (Feb. 21, 2000). Subsequent decision denying new trial at: 104 F. Supp. 2d 984 (C.D. Ill. 2000).
     277:14 Prisoner was properly required to work in prison cafeteria despite the overturning of his conviction on appeal, when state was pursuing further appeals and overturning of conviction was not final; neither convicted prisoners or pretrial detainees were "employees" for purposes of Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage provisions. Tourscher v. Horn, #97-3671, 98-3499, 184 F.3d 236 (3rd Cir. 1999).
     278:22 Minnesota prison did not err in deducting court filing fee from prisoner's inmate account rather than from his gross wages in prison work program; agreement prisoner signed in order to be in work program manufacturing goods for sale in interstate commerce, which mentioned deductions that could be made from his pay, was not an enforceable "contract." Murray v. Minncor, No. C3- 99-376, 506 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. App. 1999).
     279:45 Prison officials did not violate the rights of a prisoner by reducing his level of privileges and revoking his work assignment based on his refusal to agree to participate in recommended educational and therapy programs. Johnston v. Simmons, 45 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Kan. 1999).
     279:46 New York prisoner had a protected liberty interest in participation in a work release program that allowed her to live at home; "technical" violation of requirement that she have notice of a hearing to consider her removal from the program only entitled her to $1 in nominal damages when she had no real basis for contesting her removal. Kim v. Hurston, No. 98-7051, 182 F.3d 113 (2nd Cir. 1999).
     280:58 Federal appeals court upholds $385,000 sanction against state correctional department for failure to obey court orders to provide equal access to vocational training and apprenticeship programs for female prisoners. Glover v. Johnson, #98-1900, 98-2140, 199 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 1999).
     281:67 Prisoner is awarded $4,221.40 against two officers on his claim that they imposed disciplinary sanctions on him, removed him from his job in the mess hall, and transferred him to another facility in retaliation for his complaints about prisoner work schedules which arguably violated state law limiting work hours. Gaston v. Coughlin, 81 F. Supp. 2d 381 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
     281:78 Idaho prisoner injured while performing maintenance work duties at the facility she was incarcerated at did not qualify as a "community service worker" entitled to workers' compensation benefits under state law. Crawford v. Dept. of Correction, 991 P.2d 358 (Idaho 1999).
     282:85 Correctional officials with no personal involvement in prisoner's alleged exposure to dangerous chemicals in prison metal shop could not be held liable for future harm to him, when there was no claim they failed to remedy it after learning of it, or created a policy that allowed it to happen or continue; prisoner could pursue claim against other correctional employees based on alleged failure to provide him with safety equipment. Crawford v. Coughlin, 43 F. Supp. 2d 319 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).
     275:174 Pre-trial detainee's rights were not violated by requiring him to work distributing food, allegedly without pay, or else face segregation in "lock-in"; compulsion to do chores in correctional facility did not amount to involuntary servitude or slavery in violation of Thirteenth Amendment. Ford v. Nassau Co. Executive, 41 F.Supp.2d 392 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
     266:30 Jail nurse and two other jail employees liable for $500 each to prisoner required to do heavy construction work despite medical conditions of past back injury and hypertension; requiring prisoner to do such work was cruel and unusual punishment. Williams v. Norris, #97- 3002, 148 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1998).
     268:62 Correctional facility which disclosed prisoner's positive hepatitis C test results to work-release employer, resulting in end of prisoner's work assignment, did not engaged in disability employment discrimination under Iowa law, since it was not the prisoner's employer. Zepeda v. Fort Des Moines Men's Corr. Fac., 586 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa 1998).
     269;78 Town and its employee acted as agents of the state of Alabama while transporting inmate to his work release job and was therefore entitled to sovereign immunity from liability for injuries prisoner suffered when he fell off of back of truck; employee, however, was not entitled to immunity individually for driving truck to avoid potholes. Loxley, Town of v. Coleman, 720 So. 2d 907 (Ala. 1998).
     270:94 Prisoner removed from work release program without an opportunity to be heard after being arrested for driving while intoxicated could not pursue federal civil rights claim alleging violation of due process when his removal from program was repeatedly upheld in prior administrative proceedings and state court hearings. Roucchio v. Coughlin, 29 F.Supp.2d 72 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).
     272:126 Oklahoma prisons were entitled to sovereign immunity under state law for injuries which inmate suffered while operating saw in prison furniture factory. Gaines v. State Ex Rel., Dept. of Corr., 973 P.2d 905 (Okla Civ. App. 1998).
     272:126 Ohio correctional department had no duty to prevent prisoner's loss of thumb in prison industry soap machine when there was no evidence it knew that anything was wrong with the equipment or should have known; in absence of prior problems with machine, no liability. Adair v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction, 708 N.E.2d 302 (Ohio Ct. Claims 1998).
     274:150 Prisoner's exhaustion of administrative remedies after filing federal civil rights lawsuit over prison work assignment did not excuse his failure to do so prior to filing lawsuit, as required by Prison Litigation Reform Act. Underwood v. Wilson, #97-40536, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998).
     274:158 Jail did not violate any right of prisoner when it failed to process him for participation in work release program; sentence provided an "okay" for work release, but did not mandate it, and prisoner had no protected constitutional right to participation in program.
     Carter v. McCaleb, 29 F.Supp.2d 423 (W.D. Mich. 1998). [N/R] Employee of a private nonprofit corporation which operated a correctional work program for the Florida state department of corrections was entitled to qualified immunity from prisoner's claim that he was improperly denied an office position in the program on the basis of race. Anthony v. Burkhart, 28 F.Supp.2d 1239 (M.D. Fla).
     [N/R] Georgia Supreme Court rules that intermediate appeals court improperly decided that prisoner's work supervisor was negligent, when issue was not presented by proceedings below; trial court granted summary judgment on the basis of sovereign and official immunity, so immunity issues were the sole issues on appeal. Coweta Co. v. Simmons, 507 S.E.2d 440 (Ga. 1998).
     [N/R] Prison officials could not be held in contempt for alleged failing to comply with the terms of remedial plans for sexual discrimination in educational and vocational opportunities which had not been adopted as court orders. Glover v. Johnson, #95-1521, 96-1852, 96-1931, 96- 1948, 138 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1998).
     253:14 Female prisoners could not base a Title IX claim of sex discrimination in educational programs on a comparison of programs at one male prison; claim failed in absence of a comparison of male and female educational programs in entire state prison system. Klinger v. Dept. of Corrections, 107 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 1997).
     256:62 While there is no constitutional right to prison employment, inmate stated a federal civil rights claim by alleging that he was fired from prison job in retaliation for refusal to sign an agreement waiving a property right to interest earned on his inmate fund account. Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1997).
     261:142 Failure to provide safety goggles to prisoner who suffered eye injury while working on machinery was not "cruel and unusual punishment" for purposes of federal civil rights lawsuit; Georgia appeals court reinstates, however, injured prisoner's state law negligence claim for injuries to eye. Webb v. Carroll Co., 494 S.E.2d 196 (Ga. App. 1997).
     263:174 Assigning prisoner to work in mess hall did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment when his medical records showed nothing about an alleged serious back condition, and prisoner himself did not initially mention anything about alleged back problems. Wilson v. Johnson, 999 F.Supp. 394 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
     [N/R] Prisoners failed to show that defendant prison officials had actual knowledge that failure to provide protective gear to them while working as orderlies presented a substantial risk of harm; defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Rish v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 1092 (4th Cir. 1997).
     241:14 Federal appeals court rules that prison labor that produces goods or services to meet a prison's own institutional needs is not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its minimum wage requirements. Danneskjold v. Hausrath, 82 F.3d 37 (2nd Cir. 1996). » Editor's Note: See also Burleson v. State of Cal., 83 F.3d 311 (9th Cir. 1996), in which the court ruled that current and former inmates in the California state prison system working for the state Prison Industry Authority were not "employees" entitled to minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
     242:30 Inmate's assignment to a facility where he did not have the opportunity to earn sentence reduction credits by participating in work programs did not violate his right to equal protection; prisoner had no constitutional right to assignment to a particular facility or the opportunity to earn such credits. France v. Bradley, 922 S.W.2d 118 (Tenn. App. 1996).
     242:30 Federal appeals court overturns award of damages to prisoners on claim of unsafe working conditions in Arkansas prison warehouse; evidence did not show "deliberate indifference" to prisoner safety and health when responsible correctional official provided various safety measures, while rejecting request for provision of steel-toed boots for security reasons. Stephens v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 198 (8th Cir. 1996).
     243:42 Inmate's own recklessness, not any breach of duty by State employees, caused his injuries from touching live electrical wire while making assigned electrical repairs; his prior training and experience as an electrician showed that he was aware of the danger involved. Martinez v. State of N.Y., 639 N.Y.S.2d 145 (A.D. 1996).
     244:62 Sheriff was not liable for injuries prisoner suffered in hobby shop while operating table saw without safety guard; prisoner's injuries were negligently self-inflicted and there was no duty to provide him with training in a field he was voluntarily pursuing. Mosley v. Law Enforcement Dist. of Avoyelles Parish, 670 So.2d 745 (La. App. 1996).
     244:62 N.Y. prison regulations setting aside some prisoner wages until prisoners are released did not violate any constitutional rights; federal court also upholds regulations imposing a $5 surcharge on such wages after prisoners are found guilty, following a disciplinary hearing, of infractions of prison rules. Rudolph v. Cuomo, 916 F.Supp. 1308 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
     247:111 New York prisoner convicted of homicide related crime was properly denied eligibility for educational leave program; fact that prisoner's conviction predated effective date of regulation denying eligibility to those convicted of such crimes did not alter result. Nicholas v. Pataki, 650 N.Y.S.2d 317 (A.D. 1996).
     248:122 Prisoner who claimed he was transferred to another facility and denied placement on a job waiting list after complaining of alleged environmental violations by Federal Prison Industries was not an "employee" entitled to protection against retaliation under "whistleblowing" provisions of federal environmental statutes. Coupar v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 105 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 1997).
     248:127 Update: Federal appeals court affirms trial court ruling upholding N.Y. prison regulations setting aside some prisoner wages until prisoners are released, and imposing $5 surcharge on such wages after prisoners are found guilty of disciplinary offenses. Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2nd Cir. 1996).
     250;153 Prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights were violated because he had no access to jobs, vocational, rehabilitation, or educational programs in prison's "Idle Unit" dismissed as frivolous; there is no constitutional right to such programs. Douglas v. DeBrun, 936 F.Supp. 572 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
     [N/R] Male and female prisoners were not similarly situation for purposes of female prisoners' claim that they were denied equal prison industry employment opportunities. Keevan v. Smith, 100 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 1996).
     234:93 Federal appeals court rules that prison's refusal to release Muslim prisoner from work assignment to attend Friday religious services did not violate First Amendment or Religious Freedom Restoration Act; attendance at such services was not an "essential tenet" of his religion and policy did not "substantially burden" his religious freedom. Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 1995).
     239:163 Federal appeals court rules that Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act do not apply to prisoner employment situations. White v. State of Colorado, 82 F.3d 364 (10th Cir. 1996). 236:117 Prison employees were entitled to qualified immunity for not providing protective coveralls, as required by prison policy, to inmate work crew cleaning up human waste accumulated from clogged sewer line; employees did supply protective eyewear, gloves, and boots, did not themselves find it necessary to wear coveralls, and did not act with "deliberate indifference" in not issuing inmates coveralls. Good v. Olk-Long, 71 F.3d 314 (8th Cir. 1995).
     229:14 Workers' compensation was exclusive remedy for death of North Carolina inmate who died by falling into salt pile and suffering asphyxiation while performing assigned road crew work duties. Blackmon v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 457 S.E.2d 306 (N.C. App. 1995).
     229:14 Federal prisoners assigned to perform work for the Federal Prison Industries were not "employees" entitled to minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nicastro v. Clinton, 882 F.Supp. 1128 (D.D.C. 1995).
     234:95 Ohio inmate was not an "employee" under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act while working as part of prison industry program, and was not entitled to federal minimum wages. Lentz v. Anderson, 888 F.Supp. 847 (N.D. Ohio 1995).
     235:110 Federal appeals court orders trial of prisoner's suit claiming that he and other prisoners were forced to clean up prison attic filled with loose asbestos insulation for forty-five hours without proper protective clothing/equipment; court rules that ordering prisoners to do so, given evidence of knowledge of presence of asbestos, could be "deliberate indifference" to prisoners' rights. Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Medical Care].
     236:125 Federal prisoner had no constitutionally protected interest in particular job assignment; Federal Prison Industries regulations did not create property right to job. Bulger v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48 (5th Cir. 1995).
     236:126 Federal appeals court rules that sheriff/custodian of prisoner participating in work release program, working for outside employer, is "simply not" an employer for purposes of the federal minimum wage law; court upholds sheriff's conditioning participation in program on inmate's signed agreement to deduction of 10% of his wages as a contribution to victim compensation fund sheriff established. Reimonenq v. Foti, 72 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 1996).
     237:143 D.C. prisoner had no protected liberty or property interest in participation in work training furlough program. Williams v. Moore, 899 F.Supp. 711 (D.D.C. 1995).
     [N/R] Missouri regulations did not create due process property interest in prisoner receiving wages while incarcerated in another state. Jennings v. Lombardi, 70 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 1995).
     217:14 Federal prisoner required to do work on grounds of naval air station was not an employee under the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and therefore was not entitled to federal minimum wage for the work done. Henthorn v. Department of Navy, 29 F.3d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
     218:30 Inmates in state-run prison industries were not entitled to federal minimum wages. McMaster v. State of Minn., 30 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 1994).
     219:45 Federal statute prohibiting gender discrimination in education applies in state prisons receiving federal funds; federal appeals court rules that "penological necessity" is not a defense to suits brought under this statute, but merely a factor to be considered in determining how it applies in the prison context. Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1994).
     221:78 Requiring prisoner convicted of sexual offense to attend educational program for such offenders did not violate any liberty interest of his; state's interest in rehabilitation outweighed any burden on inmate resulting from forced participation in program. Bollig v. Fiedler, 863 F.Supp. 841 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
     223:106 Prisoner's civil rights suit claiming that his due process rights were violated when he was punished for refusing to work after his habeas corpus petition was granted but he remained imprisoned should not have been dismissed as frivolous, federal appeals court rules; prisoner claimed that this made him a pretrial detainee. Cokeley v. Endell, 27 F.3d 331 (8th Cir. 1994).
     223:110 Nevada prisoner who was required to work or take vocational training for 40 hours per week was not an "employee" entitled to federal minimum wages for his work, federal appeals court rules. Morgan v. MacDonald, 41 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994).
     225:131 Prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity in blind prisoner's disability discrimination lawsuit alleging that they denied him equal access to vocational training programs because of his blindness when he neither applied for existing programs nor requested accommodation in them. Lue v. Moore, 43 F.3d 1203 (8th Cir. 1994).
     227:158 Illinois change in eligibility requirements to earn early release credits through participation in educational programs constituted additional punishment for prisoners already serving sentences for offenses which now made them ineligible; Illinois Supreme Court rules that such prisoners must be allowed to earn such credits under former criteria. Barger v. Peters, 163 Ill. 2d 357, 645 N.E.2d 175 (1994), cert. denied sub nom. Washington v. Barger, 115 S.Ct. 1838 (1995).
     State of New York liable for $700,000 to inmate whose hand and forearm were severed in workplace accident at correctional facility sawmill, and for $36,000 to his wife. Lowe v. State, 599 N.Y.S.2d 639 (A.D. 1993).
     Claim that prisoner was justified in refusal to work because of physical condition was properly viewed as frivolous when this condition was adequately considered in assigning his work detail. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1993).
     Termination of prisoner's job assignment in Federal Prison Industries was a proper result of discretion in program administration and not the result of discrimination or additional disciplinary sanction for job-related misconduct. Gladson v. Henman, 814 F.Supp. 46 (D. Kan. 1993).
     Federal court declines to dismiss suit by pre-trial detainees of school age claiming that denying them educational services similar to those given to non-incarcerated youth denied their right to due process and equal protection of law. Donnell C. v. Illinois State Board of Education, 829 F.Supp. 1016 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
     Nevada state prisoner did not have a constitutionally protected right to continued prison employment under state statutes or administrative regulations. Collins v. Palczewski, 841 F.Supp. 333 (D. Nev. 1993).
     Federal appeals court overturns $2,500 civil rights award to inmate with artificial knee cap who was injured while working on roof as part of prison construction work crew; evidence did not show that defendant prison officials were deliberately indifferent, since they did not know of his artificial knee. Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370 (8th Cir. 1993).
     Former director of department of correction was entitled to qualified immunity against liability for revoking Arkansas inmate's work release status with a prison disciplinary style hearing, rather than providing the kind of due process hearing provided in parole revocation cases. Jackson v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1391 (8th Cir. 1993).
     Iowa prisoner could not be disciplined for refusal to obey direct order to work a second overtime shift which would include time during which Super Bowl football game was played, when no prison rule required prisoner to work overtime upon request. Blair v. State, 498 N.W.2d 412 (Iowa App. 1993).
     Prisoner injured in prison workplace accident did not show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to either workplace safety or his need for medical treatment for his injury. Warren v. State of Mo., 995 F.2d 130 (8th Cir. 1993).
     N.Y. Correctional officials were entitled to a qualified immunity for removing a resident alien prisoner from a work release program once the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an immigration warrant for him. Severino v. Negron, 996 F.2d 1439 (2nd Cir. 1993).
     Applying a new requirement of performing work assignments to receive good time credits to inmate incarcerated before the requirement was imposed did not retroactively increase his punishment; refusal to perform work assignments had previously been punishable as disciplinary infractions which could result in loss of good-time. Chauvin v. Erickson, 998 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1993).
     Prison inmates were not entitled to minimum wages or "prevailing wages"; Fair Labor Standards Act did not cover inmates and federal law requiring that prevailing wages be paid to prisoners producing goods being transported in interstate commerce was not passed for inmates' benefit, but to prevent unfair competition with private industry. McMaster v. State of Minn. 819 F.Supp. 1429 (D. Minn. 1993).
     West Virginia law created no constitutionally protected right for inmates to participate in work release programs; termination of participation in program without a hearing did not violate due process. Beasley v. Duncil, 792 F. Sup. 485 (S.D. W. Va. 1992).
     Alaska inmate had no constitutional right to continued employment as prison law librarian; Alaska Supreme Court holds that job reassignment was not subject to judicial review. Hays v. State, 830 P.2d 783 (Alaska 1992).
     Prisoner was not subject to cruel and unusual punishment by being compelled to work outside in winter, when appropriate protective clothing was available to him. Pendergrass v. Hannigan, 788 F.Supp. 488 (D. Kan. 1992).
     Prisoner's assignment to hoe squad did not violate Muslim religious prohibitions nor had prison officials knowingly compelled him to do work beyond his physical capacity; he had been disciplined numerous times for refusal to do the work, but had never raised the defense that he was incapable of the work. Franklin v. Banks, 979 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1992).
     Sheriff and county liable for disregarding court order that inmate be released to work during the day; while sheriff thought the order was unenforceable, he never tried to get a formal ruling on its invalidity. Huddleston v. Shirley, 787 F.Supp. 109 (N.D. Miss. 1992).
     Prisoner had no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in selection for work release under Illinois law and regulations, nor was he denied equal protection of law when he was not selected for the program despite being eligible. DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992).
     Removing an inmate from a work release program, based in part on the complaint of his victim's relative, did not violate the inmate's constitutional rights. O'Bar v. Pinion, 953 F.2d 74 (4th Cir. 1991).
     Prisoner had no constitutionally protected right in a particular prison job assignment; state statute limiting the options of prison officials in making changes in such work assignments for disciplinary reasons did not create a liberty or property interest. Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1991).
     Inmates not sentenced to hard labor who worked for $20 a day in work release program were not subjected to involuntary servitude, but they were "employees" of the private employers who utilized them, and entitled to protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549 (5th Cir. 1990).
     Policy prohibiting male prisoners from enrolling in vocational classes at women's prison did not violate equal protection because of security concerns. Smith v. Bingham, 914 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1990).
     Prison officials did not violate inmate's rights by refusing his request that he be transferred to a work camp; Illinois law did not create liberty interest in such transfer. Joihner v. McEvers, 898 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1990).
     Compelling an inmate to work without pay on private property did not violate his constitutional rights. Murray v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, 911 F.2d 1167 (5th Cir. 1990).
     Inmates disciplined for refusal to clean out prison's raw sewage station without protective clothing established prima facie Eight Amendment violation. Fruit v. Norris, 905 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir. 1990).
     Male inmates in Montana prisons were statutorily barred from suing on gender discrimination or minimum wage complaints that they were paid less than female inmates for similar work. Quigg v. South, 793 P.2d 831 (Mont. 1990).
     Prison did not negligently expose inmate to unsafe levels of asbestos; protective clothing was provided, which inmate wore on all but two days on the assigned job. Dobranski v. State, 555 N.Y.S.2d 966 (A.D. 1990).
     Placing inmates in administrative segregation if they refused to work without pay did not violate the Eighth Amendment and was not involuntary servitude. Mikeska v. Collins, 900 F.2d 833 (5th Cir. 1990).
     Claim that work assignment exceeded inmate's physical capacity stated eighth amendment claim; claim that handling manure and dead animals violated prisoner's Muslim religion could also be brought. Franklin v. Lockhart, 890 F.2d 96 (8th Cir. 1989).
     Inmate's lawsuit against requirement that he sign work release agreement or be barred from program dismissed as frivolous. Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir. 1989).
     Nebraska inmate had no due process right to prison employment or particular wage rate. Moore v. Grammer, 442 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 1989).
     Prisoners have no constitutional right to be paid for prison work; state restrictions on use of pay requiring forced savings upheld. Rochon v. Louisiana State Penitentiary Inmate Account, 880 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1989).
     Federal inmate fired from prison job for failing to comply with financial responsibility program requirement entitled to reinstatement and back pay. Prows v. United States Department of Justice, 704 F.Supp. 272 (D.D.C. 1988).
     Prisoner was not deprived of liberty when transferred to another facility which did not have courses he needed to finish paralegal training. Dudley v. Shaver, 770 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. App. 1989).
     Inmate financial responsibility plan, requiring use of wages for obligations, did not violate prisoner rights. James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627 (3rd Cir. 1988).
     Inmate did not have liberty interest in having job best suited to his abilities; refusal to consent to employment or literacy test warranted discipline. Lee v. Coughlin, 530 N.Y.S.2d 884 (A.D. 1988).
     Inmates not entitled to minimum wages for work done in state prison for private employer. Young v. Cutter Biological, 694 F.Supp. 651 (D. Ariz. 1988).
     Inmates have no constitutional right to educational or rehabilitative programs; correctional system may be structured for punishment. Termunde v. Cook, 684 F.Supp. 255 (D. Utah 1988).
     Inmate's preference for clerical rather than manual labor job did not support claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Jackson v. O'Leary, 689 F.Supp. 846 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
     Permissible to systematically exclude prisoners convicted of sex crimes from work release program. Fuller v. Lane, 686 F.Supp. 686 (C.D. Ill 1988).
     Requiring convicted inmate to perform assigned work while appeal is pending does not violate thirteenth amendment. Plaisance v. Phelps, 845 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1988).
     Out of state proxy marriage of inmate serving life sentence void in New York; inmate cannot participate in "family reunion" program. In Matter of Miner v. N.Y. State Dept. of Correctional Services, 524 N.Y.S.2d 390 (N.Y. 1987).
     Requirement that prisoners work without pay was not "involuntary servitude." Wendt v. Lynaugh, 841 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1988).
     Court rules that prisoner did not have a right to remain in same wage grade following voluntary transfer to new institution. Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 674 F.Supp. 1648 (S.D. N.Y. 1987).
     Change in work assignment did not violate inmate's due process rights, but claim was stated for order to continue work on unsafe ladder. Gill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1987).
     Court appoints administrator to design and implement educational programs for female inmates on a parity with male inmates. Glover v. Johnson, 659 F.Supp. 621 (E.D. Mich. 1987).
     Participation in work release program renders inmate a county employee for purposes of workmen's compensation. Morales v. W.C.A.B., 230 Cal.Rptr. 575 (App. 1986).
     Wages can be deducted for court costs. Hrbek v. Farrier, 787 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1986).
     Prisoner has no right to same rate of pay when transferred. Burkins v. Scully, 485 N.Y.S.2d 89 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
     No back pay unless court action is taken. Johnson v. Smith, 490 N.Y.S.2d 414 (A.D. 1985).
     New stature allows wage deductions for room and board. Turner v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Com'rs., 624 F.Supp. 318 (D. Nev. 1985).
     Prison ordered to hire woman for director of education's position in reformatory; security reasons do not justify hiring "kick-ass tough guys" instead of her. Ind. Dept. of Correction v. Ind. Civ. Rights, 486 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. App. 1985).
     Judgment for $300,000 for prison teacher's rape during lunch hour reversed. Hayes v. Vessey, 777 F.2d 1149 (6th Cir. 1985).
     Court upholds state's method of handling inmate wages and savings accounts. Cumbey v. State, 699 P.2d 1094 (Okla. 1985).
     Sheriff liable for inmate's back wages when terminated improperly. Smith v. Stoner, 594 F.Supp. 1091 (N.D. Ind. 1984).
     Working prisoners could be charged room and board in "chargeback" program. Mastrian v. Schoen, 725 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1984).
     Prison officials can withhold maintenance costs from inmate's salary as condition of employment. Ervin v. Blackwell, 733 F.2d 1282 (8th Cir. 1984).
     "Maintenance" costs deducted as condition to working. Ervin v. Blackwell, 585 F.Supp. 680 (W.D. Mo. 1983).
     No liability to state or officials for juvenile's killing while out of mental hospital on two-day pass. Sherill v. Wilson, 653 S.W.2d 661 (Mo. 1983).
     Inmate convicted of destruction of property can be placed on work-release program upon the condition that he make restitution for damages. Davidson v. United States, 467 A.2d 1282 (D.C. App. 1983).
     Inmate has no right to notice or hearing when being removed from one job to another. Watts v. Morgan, 572 F.Supp. 1385 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
     Inmate has no right to participate in work-release program in Iowa. Johnson v. Stark, 717 F.2d 1550 (8th Cir. 1983).
     Even though prisoner has no right to participate in workrelease program, administrators may be liable for unequal treatment or discrimination in denial of the benefit. Tones v. Lane, 568 F.Supp. 1113 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
     California statute created right for inmate that he be afforded due process procedures when denied work furlough. In Re Head, 195 Cal.Rptr. 593 (App. 1983).
     Inmate failed to meet statutory requirements for work- release. Matter of LeGrand, 466 N.Y.S.2d 943 (App. 1983).
     Juvenile inmates have no legal right to rehabilitative programs. Sanata v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir. 1983).
     Requiring prisoner to work is not involuntary servitude. Omasta v. Wainwright, 696 F.2d 1304 (11th Cir. 1983).
     Imposing work week of 56 hours may constitute cruel and unusual punishment if inmates were knowingly worked beyond human endurance. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983).
     No inmate due process right regarding transfer from one prison job assignment to another. Anderson v. Hascall, 566 F.Supp. 1492 (D. Minn. 1983).
     Inmate has no right to participate in work release program, but his "equal treatment" rights may have been violated. Jones v. Lane, 568 F.Supp. 1113 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
     Inmate has no constitutionally protected interest in participating in state established work release program. Johnson v. Stark, 717 F.2d 1550 (8th Cir. 1983).
     Inmate has no protectible interest in maintaining a specific work assignment. No due process required prior to removal or transfer to another job. Watts v. Morgan, 572 F.Supp. 1385 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
     Inmate improperly denied credit and compensation for time in prison work program. Administrators failed to follow law and were not entitled to "good faith" immunity. Ingenito v. Dept. of Corrections, State of N.J., 568 F.Supp. 946 (D. N.J. 1983).
     No liability for state's failure to have work or rehabilitation programs. Lovell v. Brennan, 566 F Supp. 672 (D. Me. 1983).
     No constitutional obligation to provide rehabilitation program for juvenile inmates. Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir. 1983).
     District court holds prison policy that disqualifies "medically disabled" from earning work credits does not violate a New Jersey statute; holds prison officials have wide discretion in providing work opportunities for inmates. Rowe v. Fauver, 533 F.Supp. 1239 (D. N.J. 1982).
     Inmates not entitled to minimum wage. Lavigne v. Sara, Inc., 424 So.2d 273 (La. App. 1982).
     Prison allowed to use pesticide for crops; no liability for prisoner injured by parathion while working in fields. Sampson v. King, 693 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1982).
     Circuit court ruled that white inmate cannot be denied kitchen job because of race; district court erred in dismissing suit. Bentley v. Beck, 625 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1980).
     Allowance of furlough a condition of confinement; denial subject to challenge of Section 1983. Wright v. Cuyler, 624 F.2d 455 (3rd Cir. 1980).
     Alabama detainer prevents Tennessee Prisoner from achieving work release status. Bracey v. State of Tennessee, 616 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1980).
     Denial of access to work release because of severity of inmate's crime unconstitutional; good faith defense applicable. Winsett v. McGinnis, 617 F.2d 996 (3rd Cir. 1980).
     Nevada inmates do not have the right to constitutional review of work-release decisions, federal court rules. Austin v. Armstrong, 473 F.Supp. 1114 (D. Nev. 1979).
     Michigan Federal Court enjoins unequal rehabilitation programs between male and female inmates; partial funding of libraries with prison- fund money approved. Glover v. Johnson, 85 F.R.D. 1 (E.D. Mich. 1979).

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu