Dept. of Justice settles discrimination lawsuit against Bryan Co. Sheriff

By: KXII-TV Staff Email
By: KXII-TV Staff Email

MUSKOGEE, OK -- The United States Department of Justice today announced that they have settled a lawsuit against Bryan County Sheriff Bill Sturch alleging pregnancy discrimination.

The complaint alleges that the sheriff discriminated against female Bryan County Jail employees by forcing them to be reassigned to administrative duties when they became pregnant.

The Justice Department says this violates Title XII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex--including pregnancy, national origin or religion.

The settlement prohibits the sheriff from engaging in any act or practice that discriminates against any employee of the Bryan County Sheriff's Office, including the Bryan County Jail, on the basis of sex and pregnancy.

The consent decree also requires the sheriff to implement a policy that prohibits employment discrimination.

We tried to reach Sheriff Sturch, but our phone calls were not returned.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Anonymous on Jun 20, 2009 at 08:00 AM
    how can people be around here be so ignornt do people not see what is going on ever since john kiddman has taken on administrator the bryan count jail gone down hill he is the one who done that not sturch all thoug sturch did push for him to be brought in
  • by Outta context Location: But who cares?? blah blah... on Jun 19, 2009 at 06:53 PM
    I can name a few cops that are OK for my own reasons, and I'm an avid cop-hater. Officer Crank was top of the line in his duty when I needed help, as was (yes, I'll admit to it) Chief Durward Cook (he made up for letting me down in the worst possible time of my life--I've decided to forgive him) and Capt. Woodruff, who has the cutest da*n smile a human has ever been allowed and was very nice to me. Following that, there are few, VERY FEW I like and I sure know who I hate because the ones I hate hated my "now dead" son, who I love more than myself and I'm not going to forgive them. May the good ones prosper; may the trash be put out with the coffee grounds and old newspapers. Sheriff Sturch? I don't know him very well except he passed me and treated me like the lady I am in passing, which I liked. Yes, I am VERY opinionated. Don't ask me about the D.A. or the judges cause I'm really angry at them. I like the good guys for all the desirable reasons. Call me prejudice. I am.
  • by I DONT GET YOU PEOPLE on Jun 18, 2009 at 05:23 PM
    HOW COULD YOU JUDGE SOMEONE WHITOUT KNOWING THE WHOLE STORY BEHIND THIS WHEN A PERSON DOSE NUTHING BUT SIT AND BOOK AND TAKE PICS AND HAS LITTLE CONTACT WITH INMATES AND WHO TELLS OTHERS WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE INMATES AFTER THEY ARE DONE WITH THE BOOKIN THEN HOW CAN SHE BE PUTTING HER BABY AT HARM'S WAY AND BY BOSSING OTHER'S AROUND THEN THEY TAKE AND PUT YOU IN HARMS WAY WHEN THEY TELL YOU TO TEND TO THE INMATES THAT YOU HAD LITTLE TO NO CONTACT WITH AND THEN YOU HAVE ALL CONTACT WITH THEM AND THAY TAKE YOUR TITLE CAUSE YOUR PREG TELL ME IS THIS RIGHT FOR THEM TO DO THIS OR IS SHE THE ONE IN THE WRONG YOU DONT KNOW THE WHOLE STORY NOT YET
  • by Kim Location: Durant on Jun 18, 2009 at 01:24 PM
    I can't understand why any woman would want the kind of job that puts her and her unborn child in harm's way. Especially one that pays so badly. If you want to complain about discrimination atleast be in a profession that makes it worth the argument. As for Sturch, nothing surprises me anymore. The very least her could do is give a response. But then again he is getting paid to sit on his a** and point fingers in every direction of his own. Way to go voters, way to go! Hope You're proud!
  • by Ardmoreite1 Location: Ardmore on Jun 18, 2009 at 09:04 AM
    There's no discrimination, just stupid women that would put the safety of their child in harm's way!
  • by Anonymous on Jun 18, 2009 at 08:53 AM
    if thelady had become pregant after she was employed then she did nothing wrong and she should not have been punished because she became prgant and this is not the first person eitherthere has been a few others
  • by Scratching My Head on Jun 18, 2009 at 07:02 AM
    That's kind of a catch-22. If Sheriff Sturch assigns the pregnant employee to work in direct contact with the inmates, is he and Bryan County not then held liable if the employee or their unborn child are injured? One would certainly question why a mother would want to expose her unborn child to danger given the alternative that the sheriff provided.
  • by Not a sturch fan.. on Jun 18, 2009 at 06:59 AM
    You better get use to not getting phone calls returned. Sturch is a sorry example for a sheriff.....
  • by Beth Location: Durant on Jun 18, 2009 at 06:38 AM
    These same woman who complain..if they were to get hurt as an jailer they would file a lawsuit against that too. All I see as a woman is somebody looking out for my unborn child. Now if I did not get my job back from ADM duties then I would mad.
  • by in Location: calera on Jun 18, 2009 at 05:36 AM
    If he hadn't reassigned them then they would have been asking him to reassign them when they were getting into the last half of the pregnancy. Then if he didn't reassign him they would have taken him to court for the same thing-----discrimination! Sturch was in a no win situation. He was trying to limit the amount of physical contact these women would have with the suspects or inmates and they take him to court. It is these types of situations that has made it hard to be an American and make the hard choices. Even more difficult to be a business owner and have to fire someone.
  • Page:
Sherman 4201 Texoma Pkwy (903) 892 -8123 Ardmore 2624 S. Commerce (580) 223-0946
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 48290712 - kxii.com/a?a=48290712
Gray Television, Inc.