Lindsay Okownowsky  vs. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General United States Department of Justice

Case Background

On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff  Lindsay Okownowsky filed a workplace discrimination and harassment lawsuit in the United States District Court, California Central (Case number: 2:22cv422). This case was assigned toJudge Mark C. Scarsi and referred to Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar.

Cause

Lindsay Okonowsky, a GS-12 Staff Psychologist at FCI Lompoc, a federal correctional institution under the Department of Justice, sued the U.S. Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Prisons for workplace discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The lawsuit stemmed from social media harassment by Lieutenant Steven Hellman, who managed an Instagram page called “8_and_hitthe_gate.” The page featured sexist and vulgar content, much of which directly targeted Okonowsky.

Despite her repeated complaints, the Bureau of Prisons failed to take timely or effective action. The harassment continued for months, creating a toxic work environment. Several employees, including supervisors and HR personnel, engaged with and liked the offensive posts, further fostering workplace discrimination and harassment.

Injuries

The harassment caused Okonowsky severe emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish. She endured ongoing fear and discomfort at work, making it difficult to perform her job. The hostile environment led to anxiety, embarrassment, and stress-related physical symptoms. Each time she sought intervention, her concerns were dismissed, worsening the emotional toll and reinforcing the Bureau of Prisons’ failure to address workplace discrimination and harassment.

Damages

Okonowsky sought general and special damages for the harm caused by workplace harassment and discrimination. She requested compensation for emotional distress, psychological suffering, and reputational damage. Additionally, she sought legal costs, including attorneys’ fees, due to the defendants’ failure to take corrective action. Her complaint also requested prejudgment and post-judgment interest and any other relief the court deemed appropriate. The case highlighted systemic negligence in addressing workplace harassment, particularly within the federal prison system.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Lindsay Okownowsky
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Andrew Stephen Pletcher | Cory H. Hurwitz | Lee A. Cirsch | Lindsay L. Bowden | Donald James Aaron Brock
  • Defendant(s): Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons
    • Counsel for Defendants: Zakariya Koorosh Varshovi | Sarah M. S. Quist

Claims

Okonowsky’s lawsuit alleged that the Bureau of Prisons violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on sex. Despite multiple reports of harassment, the Bureau failed to take corrective action. A Threat Assessment Team convened months later and made recommendations, but officials took no substantial action against Hellman. Okonowsky argued that the defendants’ negligence allowed workplace harassment and discrimination to persist, warranting legal compensation.

Defense

The defense denied most allegations and argued that they complied with Title VII. They acknowledged the Bureau of Prisons had social media policies and that a Threat Assessment Team reviewed the complaints. However, they claimed they took appropriate action in response. They asserted that they exercised reasonable care in investigating the misconduct and argued that Okonowsky failed to take advantage of corrective measures. The defense also contended that some claims fell outside the statute of limitations or were not properly exhausted through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They requested dismissal of the complaint, a judgment in their favor, and reimbursement of legal costs.

Jury Verdict

On January 17, 2025, the jury found that Okonowsky experienced sexual advances, requests for sexual conduct, and other unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature. However, they determined that the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter her working conditions or create a sexually abusive or hostile work environment.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com