New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

THOMPSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-010-016, Claim No. 108000


Inmate failed to establish State’s negligence for claimant’s alleged sexual relationship with correction officer.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant’s attorney:
By: Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq.Uma Amuluru, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Gail Pierce-Siponen, Assistant Attorney GeneralLea La Ferlita, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
August 10, 2007
White Plains

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant seeks damages based upon an inappropriate sexual relationship[1] that she allegedly had with Correction Officer Rico Meyers, who was assigned to claimant’s housing unit during her incarceration at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility (“Bedford”). Claimant contends that defendant was negligent in its hiring, training, retention, supervision, and reassignment of the officer. Claimant also alleges negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon defendant’s purported breach of its duty to provide claimant with a safe environment and claimant’s resulting fear for her safety. The trial of this claim was bifurcated and this Decision pertains solely to the issue of liability.
According to claimant, her sexual relationship with the officer began in February 2002 and continued until the end of March, when he was no longer assigned to claimant’s housing unit. Thereafter, claimant and the officer had limited contact. In May 2002, an anonymous complaint was filed with the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) Inspector General’s Office (IG) regarding a sexual relationship between claimant and Officer Meyers. The IG commenced an investigation and questioned claimant about her relationship with Meyers. Claimant initially denied the existence of any unauthorized relationship and further stated that the inmates had spread rumors about the officer so that he would be transferred. Approximately one month later, claimant contacted the IG and requested a second interview with the IG investigator. The investigator complied and near the end of August 2002, claimant made her first allegation that she had been engaged in a sexual relationship with the officer. The accused officer was escorted from the facility and the investigation continued while the IG attempted to substantiate the claim. The investigator struggled with the assessment of the credibility of claimant and the accused. Ultimately, the investigator did not believe claimant and he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of a sexual relationship. The investigator, however, did find an unauthorized relationship based upon the officer’s possession of a telephone number traced to claimant’s relative.

To prevail on her claim for damages against the State, claimant must establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, not only that she had a sexual relationship with a correction officer, but that the State was negligent in either its hiring, training, supervision, retention, or reassignment of the officer or that the State breached a duty to claimant which caused her harm.[2] The Court’s considered assessment of claimant’s credibility is significant to the Court’s determination regarding claimant’s purported relationship with Officer Meyers.[3] The Court must also determine what and when defendant knew or should have known about its officer regarding the foreseeability that Meyers might pose a risk to the safety of the female inmates in defendant’s custody.
Trial Testimony
Claimant testified that she was housed in Bedford’s West Wing unit and in January 2002, she met Meyers who was assigned to the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Claimant stated that Meyers was friendly and comforting to her and that she would discuss her family problems with him. Meyers would put his arm around claimant’s shoulder, rub her back, and assure her that everything would be all right (T:78).[4] In February, Meyers communicated to claimant that he was attracted to her and wanted to have sex with her (T:80,1021). Claimant’s feelings were mutual and they began a sexual relationship (T:80, 1021-22). Claimant explained, “[a]t first we would talk, then we would hug, kiss, feel, and then we had *** sexual intercourse” (T:80).

The first sexual encounter occurred in February during the daily count. The daily count began with Meyers tallying the number of inmates on the unit and noting those who were not on the unit and their locations, e.g., the hospital, a disciplinary unit or court. Meyers would then report his numbers to another officer who would relay the information to the watch commander for verification. The verification took approximately 25 minutes before the officer returned to the unit. During that time, Meyers was the only officer on the unit and he engaged in sexual activity with claimant.

Meyers would open claimant’s cell and ask her to join him in the officer’s station, commonly referred to as the bubble. On the first occasion, claimant and Meyers kissed and hugged and Meyers then asked claimant to perform oral sex on him. Claimant complied. Claimant testified that Meyers wore a distinctive condom that was red on one side and white on the other. After their encounter, claimant returned to her cell. Claimant testified at trial that, while she had not been forced to provide Meyers with sexual gratification, she felt ashamed afterward. Nonetheless, claimant’s sexual activity with Meyers continued. On another occasion in February, claimant performed oral sex on Meyers. He then performed oral sex on claimant, but she asked him to stop because it felt uncomfortable; he did not. Claimant admitted to having vaginal intercourse with Meyers because she was attracted to him.

On cross-examination, claimant testified that, before their first sexual encounter, Meyers offered claimant money for sex and she agreed (T:1031-32). According to claimant, Meyers gave her money via money orders channeled through the facility under the names of claimant’s relatives. Two money orders were delivered to claimant in February (Ex. 55). One money order was sent under the name of claimant’s cousin, Stanford Nelson, and Meyers purportedly asked for another relative’s name, address, and phone number so he could send other items to claimant under another name (T:97-98). Claimant provided Meyers with the name and phone number of her sister-in-law, Lavonia Belton. Meyers also gave claimant cigarettes, lotion, soap, and deodorant after they had engaged in sexual activity. Claimant enjoyed receiving gifts from Meyers. According to claimant, Meyers proposed marriage and presented claimant with a diamond ring. Claimant laughed and refused the proposal, but accepted the ring, knowing it was contraband (Ex. 54). She concealed the ring by taping it to the underside of her bed with tape that blended in with the color of the bed frame (T:1075).

On one occasion, Meyers told claimant he wanted to try something new and he attempted to enter claimant anally (T:1048). Claimant testified that it was her first experience engaging in anal sex. It hurt and she asked him to stop, but he continued until he was gratified. Claimant returned to her cell. She experienced rectal bleeding, but did not seek medical attention or report the incident (T:1054). Her sexual relationship continued with Meyers and approximately one week later they engaged in vaginal sex (T:1054-56). According to claimant, at that time, she was willingly continuing her sexual relationship with Meyers (T:1056). They had sex more than six or seven times during February (T:1060-61). Meyers always used a distinctive red and white condom.

At all times they met in the bubble during the count when there were no other correction officers in the area. They positioned themselves in an area of the bubble not visible from the cells. Claimant and Meyers tried to conceal their relationship from everyone (T:1075). Claimant testified that Meyers never used force except on the one occasion with regard to anal sex and once when claimant did not want to perform oral sex, Meyers pushed her head down on his penis (T:1003). Claimant also testified that Meyers would watch claimant as she showered and when she was undressed in her cell.

Claimant told her cousin Nicole Scott and inmate Karen Winters about claimant’s relationship with Meyers. Claimant did not advise staff because, in her words, “I consented to having this relationship with him *** I don’t think we were supposed to have a relationship” (T:961-62). Claimant testified that she initially wanted a relationship with Meyers, but later became embarrassed when other inmates began to question her about it. Therefore, toward the end of February, she told Meyers that she wanted the relationship to end. Meyers purportedly denied her request and told her that no one would believe her if she reported him (T:963). Claimant testified that she felt violated and explained that, “I felt that I entered willingly and I couldn’t get out at my will” (T:965).

In March 2002, Meyers was no longer assigned to the West Wing housing unit and he and claimant no longer engaged in sexual intercourse. However, Meyers and claimant saw each other in other parts of the facility and would hug and kiss. On one occasion, Meyers fondled claimant’s breasts and claimant slapped his hand (T:1068-69). Meyers also tried to coach claimant into an area where they could have sex, but claimant refused. According to claimant, after her relationship with Meyers ended, she had a strained relationship with other correction officers who harassed her and called her names.

In May 2002, the IG received an anonymous complaint that claimant and Meyers were having a sexual relationship. Claimant did not write the letter and she does not know who might have written it (T:1076). Investigator Kevin Burke was assigned to the case which he received on June 17, 2002 and reviewed on June 18, 2002 (Ex. 60, p 3). Pursuant to his investigation, on July 8, 2002, Burke questioned claimant about Meyers and she denied having any relationship with him and refused to sign a statement (T:1077-79; Ex. 60, p 4). She also told Burke that the inmates had conspired to spread rumors about Meyers so he would be transferred (T:1083).

By letter dated August 4, 2002, claimant asked Burke to return to the facility to speak with her (T:973, 1079; Ex. 8, p 868). By then, claimant had asked other inmates if Burke was trustworthy and she had decided to contact him and to be truthful with him (T:1079-81). Burke returned to the facility on August 27 and made a report of his interview with claimant (T:973; Ex. 8, pp 888-90). Claimant told Burke that she did not mean to mislead him initially, but she was afraid that she would be locked in the special housing unit if she revealed her relationship with Meyers (T:1087-88). Claimant reported that she and Meyers had a sexual relationship from “February/March 2002" until “around May 2002" (Ex. 8, p 888). Claimant identified Meyers as not circumcised[5] and customarily wearing solid colored boxer shorts and a distinctive red and white condom.

Claimant provided Burke with the name of inmate Karen Winters to corroborate her relationship with Meyers. Claimant explained that, after her first sexual encounter with Meyers, she told Winters about what had occurred with Meyers and, on one occasion, she was in Winter’s cell before going to the bubble to meet Meyers (T:1044, 1049). On cross-examination, claimant revealed that two inmates, Shanea Green and Rhonda Hamilton, had witnessed claimant in the bubble with Meyers (T:1040). While claimant maintained that she told Investigator Burke that these inmates could corroborate that claimant had been in the bubble with Meyers, claimant’s signed statements did not refer to these inmates nor did claimant’s letter to Burke mention them (T:1040-43). Claimant also testified that inmate Ronette Vinyard had asked claimant if she was having sex with Meyers and that Vinyard and other inmates, such as Karen Pepper, had made comments about claimant’s cell being opened for her to go to the bubble to meet Meyers (T:1059-60). Claimant admittedly did not provide Investigator Burke with Vinyard’s or Pepper’s name (id.).

Claimant reported to Burke that Meyers had given claimant a ring and that she had provided Meyers with her sister-in-law’s name, address, phone number so that Meyers could send claimant a money order in February under that name. Claimant gave Burke the ring and a receipt for a $100 money order (Exs. 54, 55; T:760). Claimant also told Burke that Meyers put the sister-in-law’s number in his daily book (Ex. 8, p 889).

Claimant told Burke that she had written letters to her cousin, Nicole Scott, regarding claimant’s relationship with Meyers and that she used a code name “Blue” to refer to Meyers. Burke obtained the letters from Scott after claimant convinced Scott to turn them over to Burke. Claimant’s letter dated September 9, 2002 directs Scott to provide Burke with certain letters (Ex. 8, pp 908-10) and not others (including the September 9, 2002 one). Additionally, claimant’s letter states, “[w]here [sic] about to get broke off big time some thing [sic] we need you will be able to fix up that apartment real soon so work with me and give him those letters okay” (Ex. 8, p 909). Claimant testified that “broke off” is a street term for getting money and that she wrote this to Scott so she would give Burke the letters (T:1107-08). In a letter to Scott dated April 22, 2002, claimant wrote that she is still with her boyfriend Albert and that she is “in here f****** the police this n**** is a big trick[6] he makes sure I have what I need. *** When you write me back don’t say the police say that blue or something just not police because they read our mail” (Ex. 8, pp 899-901). On cross-examination, claimant admitted that, on the date of the letter, she was no longer having sexual relations with Meyers (T:1098-1100) and that she was still with her boyfriend Albert (T:1095). Additionally, she testified that she had no physical contact with Meyers after May 2002[7] (T:1072).

In a letter to Scott dated July 15, 2002, claimant refers to a romantic relationship she had with a female inmate who “did her job” and gave claimant many expensive gifts of clothing (Ex. 8, p 905). The letter also states, “I am still with (blue) he doing his job” (Ex. 8, p 904). On cross-examination, claimant testified that “blue” referred to Meyers and that claimant was “still seeing him” at that time[8] (T:1101). Claimant also testified that she was having a relationship with a female inmate at the time and that the officer who replaced Meyers, was a female officer whose last name was Blue (T:1073, 1103).

Elaine Lord, Superintendent of Bedford from 1984 until her retirement in 2004, testified that Bedford is a maximum security facility as well as a reception and classification center for female inmates. Lord was responsible for the day-to-day operation of the facility and oversaw three deputies. In 2002, Terrance McElroy was the designated deputy in charge of security. Lord described the staff in 2002 as more stable than it had been previously when the State was expanding its prison system. She acknowledged that a more experienced staff generally meant a closer adherence to regulations.

In addition to Lord’s years of experience in running a female facility, she attended training seminars and conferences at the National Institute of Corrections and the American Correction Association. Lord received training on how to recognize signs of sexual misconduct and how to alleviate the problem. Lord personally advocated for the legislation in 1996 which criminalized sexual relations between a correction officer and an inmate, regardless of consent. Lord implemented the installation of more windows and doors throughout the facility to increase visibility and security, while trying to maintain the balance between security and inmate privacy.

Sometime prior to 2002, a flyer entitled “Sexual Misconduct,” instructing inmates how to proceed if sexual misconduct occurs, was posted throughout Bedford in every housing unit, the mess hall, the lobbies and hallways (Ex. M). In addition to the rounds performed by deputies, lieutenants, sergeants, and captains, Lord, herself, did weekly rounds of the facility so that inmates could approach her directly about any problems (T:341).

The orientation materials provided to new employees at Bedford included two memoranda written by Lord, i.e., Allegations of Sexual Misconduct or Sexual Harassment (October 5, 1998) and Inappropriate Behavior and Discussions (August 9, 2002) (Ex. 5, pp 515-20). The memoranda advised staff to immediately forward any allegations of sexual misconduct to the IG who was specifically trained to investigate these types of complaints and who might contact the State Police or the District Attorney’s Office regarding the IG’s investigation. Lord issued a memorandum to all staff (which she had written in 1998) outlining the steps to follow if they became aware of any allegation of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment. Personnel were advised not to investigate (Ex. O). Every new correction officer also received a handbook, “Issues of Sexuality and Appropriate Behavior for Staff Working in Institutional Settings” (Ex. Q) and correction officers received training annually. In training, staff were provided a handout entitled “The Female Offender and You” (Ex. K). Lord issued these materials so that employees knew sexual misconduct was a crime that would not be tolerated.

In terms of preventing sexual misconduct, Lord explained that, if an inmate willingly engages in a sexual relationship with an officer, it is a “very, very difficult thing to prevent” (T:408). Lord stated that it was “probably the most difficult thing *** ever encountered” in her job and that she consulted with colleagues from other facilities to gain insight and different approaches to address the problem (T:413-14). Lord testified that in her 19 years of experience, an officer with disciplinary problems was not necessarily an officer who was more likely to engage in sexual misconduct (T:343). Lord believed that, as superintendent, she took every step possible to minimize the risk of sexual misconduct in Bedford (T:362).

Lord believed it would not be appropriate for officers to investigate another officer’s conduct within the same facility because they would be investigating themselves (T:117-21). She explained that her position was managerial and not investigative and that investigations were the province of the IG (T:117-20). Lord would not assign one officer to investigate another because it was not protocol and not within an officer’s expertise. Any and all allegations of sexual misconduct are immediately directed to the IG pursuant to a statewide policy.

In October 2000, Lord contacted the IG about a complaint of sexual harassment by Officer Meyers[9] (T:202-04). The IG was the appropriate department within DOCS to conduct any investigation because they had specialized training in that area. The IG’s investigation remained confidential. Accordingly, Lord would not necessarily be notified of an IG investigation or be aware of interview results. The IG is an internal investigations/affairs unit and is not required to report to Lord (T:139). Nonetheless, generally Lord was informed of pending investigations. Lord further explained that each investigation is different and that generally, if she were aware of an investigation of sexual misconduct, she would usually notify the deputy in that area. She might also contact Labor Relations and request that the officer under investigation be reassigned. If an allegation was found to be substantiated, the matter would be referred to the Bureau of Labor Relations for the disciplinary process, such as a recommended penalty, settlement or arbitration (T:367-70). The case might also be referred to the District Attorney’s Office or the State Police (T:369). Lord testified that while she did not always agree with the results of an IG’s investigation, she had confidence in the office and believed that investigations were thorough (T:331-32). Lord did not feel qualified to answer any questions regarding the internal workings of the IG because she does not take part in the determinations, conclusions or recommendations made by the IG (T:123). She stated that if she had any concerns about a particular investigation, she was not afraid to call the IG and be the “squeaky wheel” (T:124).

Lord believed that Meyers was not professional, not suited to be a correction officer, was a voyeur, and could have engaged in sexual misconduct with more than one inmate; however she could not specify when she came to these conclusions (T:143). Admittedly, Lord’s personal opinion of Meyers was wholly unsupported (T:234). When asked if she agreed with the IG’s conclusion in the Meyers’ case, she responded, “It doesn’t matter what I agree with” (T:124). When asked if Lord ever offered her opinion to the investigators, she replied that her opinion is not evidence (T:190).

When questioned about information contained in the IG’s files regarding Meyers, Lord did not recall ever seeing the files and noted that the investigators did not always inform her of their investigations or the conclusions they had reached (T:175-88). Lord testified that, had she seen the information in the IG’s files, she would have been concerned about whether Meyers posed a sexual risk to inmates. However, she further stated that there are a number of elements surrounding a complaint including the inmates’ motive to fabricate (T:193). She explained that sometimes inmates make false allegations in retaliation to a disciplinary report or to obtain a transfer to a different housing unit (T:344-45). Therefore, Lord’s review of a memorandum alone would not necessarily establish that Meyers posed a risk (id.). She further explained that unsubstantiated allegations “with no evidence” would not establish that Meyers was a risk and such a conclusion would be unfair (T:194).

At trial, Lord was shown an investigatory file wherein a Lieutenant Hearing Officer, in an inmate Disciplinary Hearing Disposition, had concluded that Meyers may have given an inmate preferential treatment. This concerned Lord. She stated that she should have been notified about the Hearing Officer’s conclusion, but she did not know if she had been (Ex. 14, pp 1892-93). Lord was asked if she had been provided the information on October 29, 2000, would she have believed Meyers should not be employed at Bedford. Lord replied that she had “grave concerns” about Meyers, but nothing had been substantiated; therefore she could not pinpoint when she formed the belief that Meyers should no longer be working at Bedford (T:204-07).

In December 2000, an inmate told an IG investigator that Meyers was looking into the inmates’ showers. Lord did not recall if she had been made aware of these allegations. She testified that, had she been apprised, she would have believed that Meyers posed a risk and would have grave concerns regarding his fitness to work in a women’s correctional facility. When asked if she thought Meyers should have been terminated, Lord responded that, by informing the IG, everything possible was being done within the rules to address the concerns about Meyers (T:211). Lord did not have the power to unilaterally terminate Meyers or to relocate him (T:235, 238).

Lord explained that in May 2001 she had heard rumors causing her concern that Meyers might be engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct, but she still had “no proof of anything” (T:298-301). However, her personal opinion was that she believed that Meyers posed a risk of engaging in sexual misconduct with inmates (T:301). Lord was shown a memorandum from Captain B. Gladding to the IG dated May 28, 2001 which stated, “upon conversing with Superintendent Lord, she has instructed me to forward the following information ... alleging Meyers’ ... inappropriate relationship with inmate” (Ex. 16, p 1969). On May 31, 2001, the IG received the complaint that Meyers was involved in an unauthorized relationship with an inmate. An investigator was assigned to the matter on June 29, 2001 (Ex. 16). Lord was troubled that the IG took so long to assign an investigator (T:246; Ex. 16 p 1952).

As part of her practice of making rounds in the facility, on January 8, 2002, Lord conducted an inspection of the West Wing Housing Unit and noted several cells out of compliance. She immediately commenced an investigation of the correction officers on the unit, which included Meyers. During the incident, Meyers was directed to go to the visiting room, but left the area without authorization. By this time, Lord believed Meyers was an unfit officer because of his lack of professionalism (T:280). While Lord had grave concerns about Meyers, she could not place him in a “non-contact” position without the approval of Labor Relations (T:292-93, 316-17). Lord further stated that without any evidence of sexual misconduct, she could not pursue termination of Meyers’ employment because it would never be granted (T:293). Lord testified that while “we couldn’t prove anything” (T:132), she believed that there had been an inappropriate relationship between Meyers and claimant, but she was not “exactly sure what kind of sexual activity occurred” (T:133). She believed the IG had done a thorough job on its investigation (T:134). Meyers’ assignment in the West Wing Housing Unit was a bid position, one he acquired by seniority through the procedures of selecting regular posts.

By letter dated February 11, 2002, T. J. Miller, First Deputy Superintendent at Bedford, requested the DOCS Director of Labor Relations to terminate Meyers from service. While Lord did not remember this letter, she assumed that she had been consulted at the time.

On March 28, 2002, Department Superintendent McElroy inspected the unit to which Meyers was assigned because McElroy had received complaints that Meyers’ unit was not in compliance and that he was engaging in inappropriate conduct (T:301-04). Lord believed Meyers was allowing inmates to engage in sexual conduct so he could watch them (T:305). A March 29, 2002 memorandum from McElroy to Lord indicates that Meyers voluntarily rescinded his position bid for West Wing (Ex. 21). Lord stated that Meyers did so at McElroy’s insistence after several previous requests to Meyers had been rejected as far back as 2001 (T:296-97).

Meyers was still having contact with inmates after he rescinded his bid position (T:316). Lord explained that this was possible if all the non-contact positions were filled (T:316-17). Because of labor rules regarding assignments, Lord had no control over correction officers’ posts. Lord did not recall any measures taken between May 2, 2002 and May 24, 2002 to protect claimant from Meyers (T:322).

The deposition of Correction Officer Iben Raheem Ghafoor, the unit officer in the West Wing who worked with Meyers on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, was received into evidence (Ex. 64). Ghafoor was responsible for taking the count slips to the watch commander. When Ghafoor was engaged in this activity, Meyers was the only officer on the unit. Ghafoor was never questioned by the IG regarding Meyers and no one ever apprised Ghafoor about the allegations of Meyers’ sexual misconduct. Ghafoor testified that, had he known of the allegations, he might have been more watchful of Meyers’ conduct and his whereabouts on the unit and Ghafoor might have been able to do his job faster so that Meyers was not alone on the unit for so long (Ex. 64, pp 80-81). Ghafoor was surprised that no one had ever spoken to him about the allegations of Meyers’ misconduct (Ex. 64, pp 71-72, 91).

Lieutenant Glenn Looney was employed as a Lieutenant at Bedford during 2002 and also acted as watch commander. His duties included staffing and discipline. The day to day running of the facility was left to the captains and sergeants. Sergeants oversee the officers, therefore the sergeants would monitor Meyers more directly than Lieutenant Looney. Meyers was not dependable and was insubordinate. He often left the West Wing door and cells open and there were cleanliness problems on the unit. Looney recalled one occasion when Meyers had lied about his whereabouts. Looney filed a notice of discipline about the incident, but did not know how it was resolved. In Looney’s opinion, Meyers needed more specific direction than most officers. Looney explained that counts are conducted by correction officers various times a day to verify the number of inmates on a unit. Inmates should be in their cells during the process. An initial verbal count is followed by a paper confirmation. A count usually takes approximately 25 minutes.

Looney testified that all correction officers were made aware that sexual conduct with inmates was forbidden and that it is a crime. He described Lord as a hands-on superintendent who knew what was going on in the whole facility. Looney had no personal knowledge of whether Meyers had sexual relations with an inmate or whether Meyers was under investigation. However, Looney conceded that prior to March 27, 2002, he had heard rumors of sexual misconduct between Meyers and claimant, but they were “just rumors” (T:447). Looney was not aware of any formal complaint or a specific allegation of misconduct in this regard. Looney did not recall any discussions or any implementation of increased supervision of Meyers.

John Vallo, a housing unit sergeant at Bedford since January 11, 2001, testified that he was assigned to the West Wing for the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Vallo stated that he supervised the correction officers and personally made two rounds a day in the housing unit. Vallo recalled that a supervisor had directed him to investigate an inmate complaint that Meyers had been lying about the location of two inmates so that he could watch them have sex (T:491-93). A memorandum dated March 9, 2002 from Vallo to Deputy Superintendent McElroy memorialized Vallo’s investigation of the matter and stated, “[m]y investigation has proven that the allegations against Officer Meyers could be possible. This situation needs to be more thoroughly investigated by the IG’s office” (Ex. 23).

Vallo testified that, as a sergeant, he was trained in issues involving sexual misconduct between inmates and correction officers and had received the handbook, “The Female Offender and You.” Vallo’s training directed that he not do his own investigations, but rather all allegations of misconduct should be forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Security who would then forward them to the IG. However, if Vallo personally observed any inappropriate sexual misconduct, he would remove the correction officer from the unit immediately. Pursuant to his training, Vallo did not discuss the ongoing investigation of Meyers with anyone (T:507-08). He did not recall speaking with any other supervisor about the investigation nor did he recall being directed to increase his supervision over Meyers.

The deposition of Terrance McElroy, Deputy Superintendent at Bedford in 2002, was received into evidence (Ex.65). When McElroy commenced his employment at Bedford in December 2001, he did not receive any briefings regarding any allegations of sexual misconduct by Meyers. When asked if he was shocked that this information was not provided to him, McElroy responded, “No” because the allegations had not been substantiated (Ex. 65, pp 152, 171). McElroy explained that his arrival at the facility did not warrant a briefing on Meyers and that the prior Deputy of Security had likely dealt with the issue prior to McElroy’s arrival (id. at 153). Ordinarily, the officer McElroy was replacing would provide the incoming officer with a briefing, but that was not done because that officer was on extended sick leave (id. at 181-82). McElroy stated that over time he would become familiar with cases and complaints since his arrival and deal with them accordingly. He explained that in the course of his time at Bedford, he would likely learn if an officer was previously investigated, but that IG’s investigations are confidential and not required to be shared with him (id. at 171). He further stated that he would not review 400 officers’ personnel folders to see if they have ever been investigated (id.).

When asked if he believed that he should have been briefed on the prior sexual misconduct complaints about Meyers, McElroy responded, “I can’t say what the facility should have done or shouldn’t have done upon my arrival there” (id. at 182). He did concede that, “I think it may have been an area that I would have liked to have known about ***” (id.). When asked if he would have conducted a preliminary investigation if he had received an allegation of sexual misconduct, he responded, “No” and explained that all such allegations are forwarded to the IG (id. at 19). “We will not investigate - we do not investigate these types of complaints” (id.).

When McElroy was shown an IG report containing numerous complaints about Meyers’ sexual misconduct, McElroy stated that he did not know why he was not briefed, given the number of complaints and their nature. He surmised that perhaps the facility did not want to taint McElroy’s view of Meyers (id. at 193-94). McElroy ultimately conceded that this was the kind of information that should have been provided to him when he arrived at Bedford (id. at 196-97). “I’d probably want to take a look to make sure that each one is investigated thoroughly and that it’s not just whitewashed ***” (id. at 172). When asked if he was troubled that he was not informed of three investigations of Meyers over a seven-year span, McElroy responded:

“I’m not troubled. There’s probably more things that I’m not aware of. Yes, would I like to have known? Yes. Is this information to aid and assist me as the deputy superintendent? Probably. But I’m sure that there are other things that I do not know about Bedford Hills or investigations that have been ongoing.”

(id. at 227). When asked if McElroy had been provided with this information upon his arrival at Bedford, would it have led McElroy to watch Meyers a little more closely, McElroy responded:

“I don’t know how I could have personally watched him any closer. But in retrospect, I mean, what you shared with me today, maybe if I had had this knowledge when I first got there, I may have looked at it a little differently. But again, as I’ve said, they’re just allegations.”

(id. at 244).

When asked about his opinion of Meyers, McElroy responded:
“I’ve seen better. I was not impressed when I made a tour of his unit, but I don’t form personal opinions. I only - to me it’s just business. Either you’re doing the job correctly or you’re not.”
(id. at 122). On March 28, 2002, McElroy conducted an inspection of the unit and found:
“[a]lthough I did not observe Inappropriate behavior, everything else was out of control. Inmates were out of place, cell doors open, Inmate not dressed in appropriate Attire *** Housing Unit not following established procedures concerning Security *** Housing Unit in total chaos.”
(Ex. 21). McElroy concluded:
“I concur with Sergeant Vallo that there is enough evidence to pursue this with the I.G. I am recommending that this matter be referred to Labor Relations and or I.G., failure of this officer to supervise his area, creating an unsafe environment for Inmates, and possibly Involved in inappropriate behavior.”
(id.). As a result of this investigation, Meyers voluntarily rescinded his post in the West Wing and took a position as a resource officer. McElroy did not recall any specific arrangements made to prevent Meyers from coming in contact with claimant (Ex. 65, p 269). Based upon McElroy’s review of Meyers’ unit, he believed Meyers needed improvement (id. at 125). Thereafter, Meyers was sent for an additional 40 hours of training (id.). McElroy explained that the additional training was not related to the March 28th incident, but would have been scheduled in any event (id. at 127). Linda Carrington, an IG investigator for six years, testified that she was in the sex crimes unit and investigated inappropriate relationships between DOCS personnel and inmates. She testified that it could take one to three weeks from the time the office receives a complaint until an investigator is assigned (T:553). She explained that her role was to gather evidence to prove or disprove misconduct. If misconduct is proved, it may go through the Labor Department to be handled as a criminal matter. Cases are considered substantiated or unsubstantiated. If allegations are unsubstantiated, it does not necessarily mean that something did not happen, rather that it cannot be proved. She stressed that every case is handled differently in both timing and activities. In the beginning stages of an investigation, Carrington usually interviews the complainant, witnesses and staff in the area. Sometimes she may monitor the inmate’s mail or telephone calls (T:555-56). She may also review if there have been previous allegations or investigations of the officer (T:563-64). During an investigation, the measures taken to protect inmates vary and an inmate can always request protective custody (T:557). The IG cannot unilaterally remove a correction officer from a post; the matter must be discussed with Labor Relations. Finally, Carrington collects staff memoranda and writes an investigative report that is part of the entire file reviewed by her supervisor.

On October 19, 2000, Carrington was assigned a complaint that alleged sexual harassment of an inmate by Meyers. She found the claim to be unsubstantiated (Ex. 14). Carrington only had a vague recollection of the matter. She recalled, however, that Meyers’ name “kept coming up” in investigations and that “sometimes it’s really hard to tell whether something inappropriate is going on or if inmates are making complaints because it’s a really strict officer” (T:574-75). She further stated that inmates make allegations for other reasons as well, e.g., when they have been disciplined or are angry about something (T:578). She could not say whether she believed that Meyers was engaging in sexual misconduct.

Carrington detailed the training she received as an investigator in the sex crimes unit. It included two and a half weeks training at the Albany Academy, seminars at the State Police and in-house programs. She was confident that she had thoroughly investigated the allegation against Meyers.

Elizabeth Ceballos, a Senior IG Investigator, testified that on March 22, 2000, she was assigned to investigate allegations from an inmate who claimed that she was fondled by Meyers. Ceballos found the allegations to be unsubstantiated (Ex. 13). When asked about her personal opinion about Meyers, she stated she bases her opinion on her investigations and if an allegation is unsupported, then it is unsupported (T:703-04). When asked if she was concerned if there are multiple investigations of one officer, she replied that it is very difficult to answer because sometimes inmates retaliate if they are disciplined (T:704). With regard to Meyers, she could not say either way because there was never any evidence found to corroborate the allegations made against him (T:704-05).

Kevin Burke, an IG investigator in the sex crimes unit from 2001 to 2004, testified that the IG receives 30 to 60 complaints a day. Once a complaint is reviewed, it is then assigned to a Deputy Investigator who decides which investigator will get the case (T:601). The process could take up to a month from the time the complaint is received until an investigator is assigned. Burke testified that his case load was 20 to 40 cases at any given time (T:590). He explained there was no one standard procedure for investigations; rather each case was handled in a manner appropriate to the allegation. For example, if there is an immediate threat, then a transfer may be authorized or if there is DNA evidence, then the State Police may be contacted. If an anonymous complaint is received, then steps are taken to discover the complainant’s identity and to review the inmate’s misbehavior history. Background information is also obtained regarding the persons named. Inmate misbehavior history is reviewed to determine if the allegation might be retaliatory or if an officer is harassing an inmate. During the course of an investigation, Burke conducted interviews and read communications from prison personnel. Burke did not consider whether an inmate had made any prior complaints about other officers because it was not relevant to the specific matter Burke was investigating and he did not want to be negatively influenced. Based upon everything Burke reviewed, he prepared a report that recommended that the case was either substantiated or not. Unsubstantiated meant that there was no evidence to give merit to the complaint (T:592, 594). Burke’s report was then reviewed by a supervisor who made the final determination.

Burke testified that the Meyers’ case was assigned to him on May 24, 2002, but Burke did not receive it until June 17, 2002 because he was on vacation (T:718). The complaint was initiated by an anonymous letter concerning an unauthorized relationship and a sexual relationship between Meyers and claimant. He interviewed claimant and performed a search of her cell. The search was for anything unusual or unauthorized (T:738). Burke also read any letters found in the cell which could provide information of an unauthorized relationship (id.). The search of claimant’s cell revealed nothing and claimant denied any sexual misconduct by Meyers toward her. Further, a review of the prison logbooks did not place Meyers in the locations mentioned in the complaint.

Burke explained that when an anonymous complaint is received, an extensive background check is done before approaching the alleged victim because if she denies the relationship, the investigator is armed with proof to contradict her denial. When that is effectively done, the victim usually admits to the relationship. Here, however, the complaint letter could not be substantiated as to the dates and locations specified regarding alleged sexual acts of Meyers and claimant (T:663-71; 821-25). Therefore, when claimant denied the relationship with Meyers, Burke had no basis of contradicting her denial or engaging claimant to admit to the relationship (T:663-71). Accordingly, there was no evidence except an anonymous complaint. Therefore, Burke considered the investigation to be a low-level complaint (T:620). Burke was about to close the case when he was contacted by his supervisor that there was new evidence discovered and that claimant had requested to speak with Burke. Burke immediately went to Bedford and interviewed claimant. She revised her story and Burke resumed his investigation in earnest.1[0]

Burke testified that he received specific training through the State Police when he entered the sex abuse unit. He learned interrogation techniques and evidence collection in addition to substantive training concerning inappropriate sexual relationships and collective bargaining. Burke explained that during the investigation he was assessing the credibility of both claimant and Meyers and “that was one of the hardest jobs in the world because to me they were both liars to a certain extent on different things, not directly connected with the case” (T:638). Burke stated that “the credibility of both parties involved was in question with me during the whole time of the investigation” (T:639). “In this case here, to me the credibility factor on both people weren’t quite up there, you know, you had to take the statements and put them aside and just look for physical evidence” (T:640). While Burke testified that he liked claimant and did not like Meyers because he was arrogant, Burke maintained that his personal beliefs were irrelevant.

Burke interviewed Meyers twice and inspected his datebook because claimant stated that she provided Meyers with the name, address, and phone number of a relative so Meyers could send claimant a money order under the relative’s information (T:858-63). A phone number was found on a loose slip of paper in Meyers’ datebook. The name and address were not listed, but the number was traced to claimant’s relative (T:863). Meyers did not know how the paper got into his book. He stated that he had left his datebook unattended on his desk and that anyone could have slipped the paper in his book. Burke believed Meyers’ explanation was plausible (T:631) and that the one piece of paper with the telephone number on it was not sufficient to prove an inappropriate sexual relationship (T:624).

The money order allegedly sent from Meyers was handwritten (T:855). The name listed was not Meyers, but rather one of claimant’s contacts at the address listed (T:856). Burke contacted postal authorities in an attempt to prove that Meyers bought and mailed the money order. Burke determined that the order had been purchased in a post office in Brooklyn (T:856-57). Burke sought the video surveillance from the post office, but it had not been equipped with such equipment (T:857). Burke then submitted the handwritten money order to the New York State Police laboratory for handwriting analysis (T:857). The State Police, however, have only one expert and cases are prioritized; therefore Burke submitted his report without waiting for the results of the handwriting analysis from the State Police (T:858). The analysis ultimately reported that it was not Meyers’ handwriting (T:858).

Claimant gave Burke the ring she alleged had been a gift from Meyers. Burke had it examined by a gemologist, but there was no proof, such as a credit card receipt, linking it to Meyers.

Burke met with claimant’s cousin Scott and received the letters claimant had sent to Scott. In these letters, claimant wrote that she was having a sexual relationship with “Blue” which she maintained was a code for Meyers, or police (Ex. 8, pp 901, 908). Burke thought this could have referred to anyone1[1] and possibly another inmate with the nickname Blue who was very close with claimant (T:776). Burke explained that it was not unusual in a prison homosexual relationship to use the pronoun “he” to refer to a female partner (T:779).

Burke interviewed two inmates chosen at random. One inmate confirmed that claimant left her cell after the count when Meyers was on duty and related that claimant said she and Meyers had engaged in sex. The inmate revealed that “I never saw the actual sex acts, but I saw them kissing and embracing all the time. I know they had sex because Nakia told me this would happen (sex) every day that Meyers worked” (Ex. 59, p 2361). Despite receiving this information that would appear to corroborate claimant’s account, since the inmate did not witness the sexual activities, Burke considered it hearsay and accorded it little weight (Ex. 59, p 2354). Burke did not mention in his investigative report that there had been an eyewitness to kissing and hugging (Ex. 59, p 2358; T:792). Burke could not explain this omission, but noted that kissing and hugging is only inappropriate behavior, not sexual misconduct. Burke did not recall speaking to any other correction officers or Meyers’ supervisors.

Burke never questioned Meyers about the type of underwear he wore, the kind of condoms he used, whether he was circumcised, or whether he had a sexual relationship with claimant or if they had kissed or hugged. When asked if he inquired whether Meyers was circumcised, he testified that it was relevant to a degree, but that it was not dispositive of the case because claimant had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly and generally speaking it is not the custom for black males to be circumcised (T:755-59). While Burke liked claimant, she had changed her story regarding her relationship with Meyers and although Burke disliked Meyers, that was not a basis for finding the allegation to be truthful. The evidence, or lack thereof, was all that was important and not whether Meyers had denied the allegation or not (T:636).

Ultimately, Burke concluded there was no evidence to prove a sexual relationship between Meyers and claimant. Burke did not believe Meyers had a sexual relationship with claimant because there was no physical evidence to corroborate claimant’s allegations (T:625). He also felt that claimant was not believable (T:628).

Burke found that the allegations that claimant and Meyers were involved in an unauthorized relationship were substantiated and that the allegations that they were involved in a sexual relationship were unsubstantiated. He explained that the telephone number in Meyers’ datebook established that Meyers and claimant had an unauthorized relationship, but it did not establish a sexual relationship (T:872). At the conclusion of his investigation, Burke forwarded his report to his supervisor Elizabeth Ceballos, who made the final determination of whether the complaint was substantiated. Burke’s report was also forwarded to the Labor Relations Office. According to Burke, the Albany Office reviewed his complete file. Burke explained that he considered the purported eyewitness statement uncorroborated and if Labor Relations thought it was important, they could have used it.

Burke testified at his examination before trial that he thought claimant might be motivated by a federal class action suit commenced by other Bedford inmates and that perhaps claimant believed she could add her claim to that lawsuit (T:645). At trial, Burke had no opinion whether or not claimant was motivated by the pending federal lawsuit (T:645-46). He just did not find any evidence to prove the relationship.

Dr. James Gilligan, a forensic psychiatrist and professor, testified as an expert on behalf of claimant. He received his medical training at Western Reserve School of Medicine and Harvard Medical School. Gilligan taught at Harvard Medical School for 30 years and has been in private practice specializing in individuals engaged in illegal behavior. His testimony was admitted solely to provide a possible explanation for claimant’s initial unwillingness to report Meyers and then later to report him (see People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277; People v Seaman, 239 AD2d 681). Gilligan’s testimony was not received to establish whether or not claimant had in fact been raped.

Gilligan explained that in a prison setting inmates are aware of the possibility of retaliation and they fear they will be punished. There is a strong tendency to conceal details about a rape until they are reassured that they will not be reprimanded. Gilligan also stressed that shame is a common reaction which motivates the desire to conceal the event.
It is well established that “[t]he State just as any other party *** is responsible, in the operation and management of its schools, hospitals and other institutions, only for hazards reasonably to be foreseen, only for risks reasonably to be perceived” (Flaherty v State of New York, 296 NY 342, 346). While the State is required to use reasonable care to protect the inmates of its correctional facilities from foreseeable risks of harm (see Flaherty v State of New York, supra; Dizak v State of New York, 124 AD2d 329; Sebastiano v State of New York, 112 AD2d 562), that duty does not render the State an insurer of inmate safety (see Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247). The State’s duty is to exercise reasonable care in light of what the State actually knew, and “what the State reasonably should have known” (Sanchez v State of New York, supra at 254 [emphasis in original]). The State, as an employer, may also be held vicariously liable for its employee’s tortious conduct when such conduct was “generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” (see Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932, 933). Additionally, even in cases where an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for its employee’s torts, the employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision; “[h]owever, a necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” (Sato v Correa, 272 AD2d 389, 389-90, quoting Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, 229 AD2d 159, 161). Thus, the critical issue in this case is whether the State should have reasonably foreseen that its correction officer might pose a risk to the safety of female inmates.

Upon consideration of all the evidence, including listening to the witnesses testify and observing their demeanor as they did so, the Court finds that, even according claimant an adverse inference for defendant’s failure to call the officer as a witness, claimant has failed to establish her burden of proof (see Detone v Bullit Courier Serv., 140 AD2d 278 [negligence of defendant in hiring and retaining employee must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence]). The record is devoid of any proof regarding the State’s hiring of Officer Meyers and there is an absence of proof sufficient to establish that the State was negligent in its training (see Ernest L. v Charlton School, 30 AD3d 649, 650 [claim of negligent hiring dismissed where claimant failed to submit proof establishing that anything in employee’s background would reveal a propensity to commit rape]). Rather, Lord testified extensively as to the materials and training provided to all correction officers regarding appropriate behavior in working with female inmates and issues regarding sexual misconduct.

Critical to the determination of the allegations that the State was negligent in its supervision, retention, and reassignment of Meyers is the Court’s assessment of what and when the State knew or should have known about Meyers. As with any liability in tort, the scope of duty is circumscribed by the risks which are reasonably foreseeable (see N. X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 NY2d 247, 253 [sexual assault committed by hospital employee is not in furtherance of hospital’s business or within scope of employment]). Contrary to claimant’s contention, the Court is not persuaded that the State should have known that its officer posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of engaging in an unauthorized sexual relationship with an inmate (see Doe v State of New York, 267 AD2d 913 [State not liable for rape by state trooper despite four prior complaints against the trooper]). Superintendent Lord testified that, in her 19 years of experience, an officer with disciplinary problems was not necessarily an officer who was more likely to engage in sexual misconduct. Additionally, Lord testified that unsubstantiated allegations of prior complaints against the officer would not establish that he posed a risk and such a conclusion would be unfair. Indeed, the IG’s investigators who had found other claims against Meyers to be unsubstantiated testified consistently with Lord and maintained that they had conducted a thorough investigation and that there was no proof to establish that any of the allegations were substantiated (see Travis v United Health Servs. Hosps., Inc., 23 AD3d 884, 886 [prior allegation that nurse had inappropriate sexual contact with a co-worker was investigated and could not be substantiated and, “even if true, did not make it reasonably foreseeable that the nurse would sexually assault a sedated patient”]). Additionally, Lord testified that there are numerous elements surrounding a complaint including the inmates’ motive to fabricate and that sometimes inmates make false allegations for their own personal gain.

Detracting from claimant’s credibility regarding her purported relationship with the officer was evidence of her manipulative conduct and venal motives, not only in her romantic relationships with male and female partners, but also with a female relative. It is also noted that claimant initially denied that there was any sexual relationship between her and the officer. Further, claimant told the IG investigator that the inmates had spread rumors about Meyers so that he would be transferred. Additionally, the anonymous complaint received by the IG could not be confirmed as to the dates, times, and locations of Meyers and claimant, when they were purportedly together. Finally, it was not until approximately one month after the IG had received the anonymous complaint that claimant first told the investigator that claimant had engaged in a sexual relationship with Meyers. At that time, Meyers was promptly removed from Bedford and the IG continued its investigation to substantiate claimant’s allegations.

Claimant testified that she engaged in sexual intercourse with Meyers because of her sexual attraction to him and because he gave her money and other items considered to be of value in a prison. If true, this testimony further evidences claimant’s self-serving, manipulative character and also provides a motive for claimant to conceal her relationship with the officer and to frustrate any investigations of this matter. Notably, there was never any evidence found by the investigator to substantiate a sexual relationship. The anonymous complaint was not confirmed as to the date and times when claimant and Meyers were allegedly together, nor did the handwriting analysis confirm that Meyers had sent claimant a money order. While claimant testified at trial that two inmates had witnessed her in the bubble with Meyers, she did not provide the names of these purported witnesses to the investigator, nor did she call these witnesses to testify at trial. The Court finds that, upon reflection of the many factors in this case, claimant, who was described by numerous trial witnesses as likeable, nonetheless appeared to the Court to be manipulative, inconsistent in her testimony, and generally lacking in credibility. It is the Court’s assessment that claimant sought to manipulate the State system in its investigation of Meyers and then brought suit against the State alleging it had failed in its efforts to provide claimant with a safe environment.

Moreover, to the extent that some of defendant’s official action involved the exercise of its discretion and expert judgment, it is well established that the State is not answerable in damages (see Mon v City of New York, 78 NY2d 309, 314 [“unquestionably, the responsibilities of *** investigating and evaluating the background and qualifications of police officer candidates and making the recommendations and final decisions for such appointments entailed the exercise of some judgment and discretion *** these functions and duties were sufficiently discretionary to call for immunity”]). Indeed, “the investigation of the complaints ***, the determination as to the level at which those investigations were to proceed, the evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility, whether the charges were founded, unfounded or unsubstantiated, and, if founded, the punishment to be imposed are discretionary decisions to which, if based on a reasoned judgment, governmental immunity attaches” (Doe v State of New York, supra at 915).

In sum, claimant has failed to meet her burden of establishing any basis upon which to hold the State liable for an alleged unauthorized sexual relationship between the officer and claimant (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v St. Elizabeth’s Hosp., 66 NY2d 684, 687 [employer not liable for employee’s conduct where complained of conduct was neither encouraged, condoned, nor approved by employer]). Any unauthorized relationship between the officer and claimant was a clear departure from the scope of his employment and committed for wholly personal motives (see Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., supra at 933 [hospital not liable for employee’s alleged sexual abuse of patient]). Finally, the State conducted an investigation of Meyers and took appropriate remedial action (see Martinez v Triangle Maintenance Corp., 293 AD2d 721 [defendants established that they took appropriate remedial action, especially in light of plaintiff’s lack of cooperation in their attempts to investigate her complaints]). While the State’s procedures for monitoring and disciplining its officers “may have been imperfect in some respect,” that does not detract from this Court’s conclusion (Doe v State of New York, supra at 913).

All motions not previously ruled upon are now DENIED.


August 10, 2007
White Plains, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1]. An inmate is deemed incapable of consent to a sexual act with a correction officer employed by the New York State Department of Correctional Services (Penal Law § 130.05[3][e]; see Barbosa v State of New York, 186 Misc 2d 926).
[2]. If claimant does not prevail on her negligence causes of action, then alternatively, she alleges a State constitutional violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (see Claimant’s Brief, p 23). A constitutional tort remedy will not be implied where a common law tort remedy is available (see Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78; Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172). Accordingly, a constitutional tort claim need not be implied in this case (see Waxter v State of New York, 33 AD3d 1180 [constitutional tort claim of inmate who was sexually assaulted by a correction officer was dismissed because claimant had another available common-law tort remedy]).
[3]. Although Meyers was present in Court with his attorney during the trial of this claim, neither side called him to testify.
[4]. References to the trial transcript are preceded by the letter “T.”
[5]. It was established that Meyers was not circumcised (Ex. 66).
[6]. Claimant testified that a “big trick” means he spends his money (T:1099).
[7]. These apparent inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony detracted from her credibility.
[8]. This was contrary to claimant’s testimony that she had no physical contact with Meyers after May 2002 (T:1072).
[9]. The complaint was later found to be unsubstantiated (Ex. 14).
1[0]. Once claimant admitted to a sexual relationship with Meyers, he was thereafter walked out of the facility (T:853).
[1]1. A female officer’s last name was Blue (T:777).