Library Hostile Environment Lawsuits in St Cloud, MN, and Birmingham, AL, for Title VII Sexual Harassment; Wilson v. Birmingham Public Library Foundation; ALA May Be At Fault and Should Be Sued

"Well, go and browse
somewhere else!"

Patrons are not the only victims of American Library Association [ALA] policy.  Sometimes it is the librarians themselves.  One such case may have just occurred in the Great River Regional Library in St. Cloud, MN.  See:  "In-Depth: Internet Sparks Library Complaint," by Kirsti Marohn, St. Cloud Times, 16 January 2011.  But that case is too new to say much at this time, so let's look at another.  Then I will provide information and reliable sources for people in St. Cloud or elsewhere to decide what's what.

Birmingham, AL, Suit for Librarian Harassment

In a case reminiscent of Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library, suit has been filed for Title VII Sexual Harassment of a Birmingham Public Library [BPL] employee.  I recommend the attorney amend the complaint to add the ALA as it may be partially responsible.

Allegations include:

• "computers are routinely used to access obscene and pornographic materials"
• "images displayed on the computer terminals are of an explicit sexual nature depicting heterosexual intercourse, homosexual acts, pictures of male and female genitalia, and apparent child pornography"
• "severe, pervasive, unwelcomed and offensive obscene and pornographic materials"
• "sexually aggressive comments, touching, including touching of her breasts, shoulders and buttocks and other conduct of a sexual nature by certain patrons of the library"
• "patrons who masturbate in the library in the presence of staff and other patrons, including children"
• "Defendants have completely failed to adequately address the sexually hostile work environment"
• "patrons accessing obscene and pornographic materials in the presence and/or plain view of children who were nearby"
• "Plaintiff has been stared at, screamed at, and followed around the library by patrons whom have engaged in said behavior"
• "Plaintiff has suffered severe and substantial emotional distress and mental anguish as a result of the Defendant’s failure to adequately protect her from a sexually hostile work environment"

ALA Culpability for Librarian Harassment?

Did the ALA come to the Plaintiff's aid?  No, it didn't.  It never helps the victims of its policies so far as I can see.

Have ALA policies affected this matter?  Yes, and I urge the attorney for the Plaintiff to amend the complaint accordingly to bring suit against the ALA.

Here is the basic theory of liability.  The Plaintiff was damaged by the Defendants as described in her Complaint.  The library's policy applies advice from the ALA that the ALA admits may be legally invalid ("Again, we must caution, however, that the options ... are untested in the courts and in the FCC, and there is no guarantee that they necessarily would be deemed legally sufficient.").  The advice is to allow patrons to disable Internet filters for themselves, e.g., even though the law (CIPA) requires librarians to disable the filters.  The BPL, having received certain CIPA funding while allowing patrons to disable filters for themselves, is in violation of the law.  That violation may reveal the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's damages.

Proof of Adherence of Birmingham Public Library to ALA Policy

One question may be how to prove the connection between the BPL and the ALA.  The BPL could have, after all, coincidentally hit upon the same CIPA response as the ALA, thereby breaking the chain to the ALA.

To rule out that the BPL's actions were made independently of the ALA, simply look at the library's "Collection Management Policy."  Right at the top, as the opening paragraph of the "Executive Summary," and the only text in italics and footnoted, appears the following "anything goes" policy:

Executive Summary

The public library exists primarily to provide access to information on all subjects, from all points of view, to all people who live in the geographic area served by the library regardless of race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, income, age, or any other arbitrary classification. 1

. . . .

1.  Office for Intellectual Freedom.  American Library Association.  Intellectual Freedom Manual.  7th ed.  Chicago: ALA, 2006: 8.

Most people would think "age" is a perfect reason to restrict access to certain material.  As the US Supreme Court said in a case the ALA lost big, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."

There are other indicators that BLP policy is guided by ALA policy.  For example, "The 2009 BPL collection management policy is dependent upon and guided by: ... [the ALA's] Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read statement."

CIPA Funding Obtained Fraudulently by the Birmingham Public Library?

The following amounts of CIPA funding for BPL's "Internet Access" were obtained from public records available at USAC Automated Search of Commitments.  Just click on "Advanced Search," then select the "Funding Year" one year at a time, type in "Birmingham" for "City," and select "ALABAMA" for "State":

2010:  $0
2009:  (6 * 1,425.17) + 15,219.90 = $23,770.92
2008:  (4 * 1,425.17) + 15,444.00 = $21,144.68
2007:  (4 * 1,425.17) + 1,630.04 = $7,330.72
2006:  13,449.46 + 74,898.00 = $88,347.46
2005:  $0
2004:  $959.52

TOTAL:  $141,553.30

If the facts of the harassment suit bear this out, there is a possibility that the CIPA funding shown above was obtained fraudulently.

Information for Consideration by the St. Cloud Community and All Communities

Great River Regional Library

Lastly, what follows is significant information for the people on all sides of the matter in St. Cloud and elsewhere to make an informed decision.  Remember, the St. Cloud Times article does not provide significant information to know exactly what happened, so please understand if these are not the exact issues involved.

Key Considerations

• Sometimes librarians cause problems for themselves by not appropriately handling various perceived challenges. 
• No filter will ever be perfect, but the simple and legal solution is to request that sites be unblocked.
• Pornography may be legal generally, but libraries may legally preclude pornography.
• Internet filters no longer block health-related information such as breast cancer.
• Unblocked sites may legally be reviewed for library policy compliance.
• Internet filters are legal and work well, much better than years ago.
• Library boards need not follow ALA diktat.
• Acceptable use policies do not stop crime.
• Libraries are aware ALA dogma is false.
• Privacy screens do not stop crime.

Sources for Key Considerations

Besides the sources of information linked elsewhere in this article, the following are relevant as proof of the matters asserted or contain links that are relevant:

Dean Marney,
NCRL Director,
Illustrates How to
Legally Filter Porn, and
Decries ALA Dogma

• "E-Rate, CIPA, and Library Filters:  What You Need to Know," by Mary Minow (LibraryLaw.com, IMLS) and Lori Ayre (LibraryFiltering.org), Infopeople, 15 December 2010.
• "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 November 2010.
• "Library Takeover Reveals Hidden Crime; Former Covina Public Library Director Roger Possner Waves Patron Policy as Evidence Crimes Never Occurred; Library Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 9 September 2010.
• "7-1 Vote FOR Internet Filters in Owosso, MI," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 4 July 2009.
• "ALA Ruse Keeping Porn Widely Available and Media Inaccuracies Force Council Bluffs, Iowa, Citizens to Endure Public Library Porn," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 25 August 2008.
• "ALA Controls Nicholasville, KY; Freedom of Speech Denied by Library; Library Director Says Kids Have First Amendment Right to Inappropriate Material," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 9 November 2008.
• "Library Director Lies to Stop Filters; Desperate Move to Mislead Public Contradicts the Library's Own Policy," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 18 April 2008.
• "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," by Dan Noyes, KGO-TV, 19 November 2007.
• ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
• US v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
• See For Yourself.
• Recent library crime news broadcasts.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone of the ALA Misleads the St. Cloud Community

Deborah Caldwell-Stone

I mention the above key considerations because Deborah Caldwell-Stone of the ALA is directly quoted in the St. Cloud Times article where she is misleading the St. Cloud community.  She is the Deputy Director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom.   She is reported to have said Internet filters are crude and overblock health-related information.  That is substantially false and she knows it.  She is reported to have advised the use of privacy screens and acceptable use policies.  Both are failures when it comes to preventing inappropriate activity and she knows it, though they are effective in providing political cover before and after crimes occur. 

Stay Focused on the Issues, Not on the ALA Misdirection

I fully expect the ALA will react to my comments, though not directly to me.  Deborah Caldwell-Stone herself has maligned me and others as she diverts attention from the issues and from the simple fact that a community need not allow itself to be misled from applying legal means to protect its citizens.  I do not tell communities what to do and I do not support censorship.  Rather, I provide information, backed up by reliable sources such as Mary Minow of the IMLS, to provide balance to the ALA's misinformation, or dogma, as one library director put it.   Then, fully informed and not merely misinformed, community members can make up their own minds.

Complaint:  Wilson v. The Birmingham Public Library Foundation

Below is the full text of the Wilson v. The Birmingham Public Library Foundation complaint.  I hope the complaint and the other documents posted at the case link just provided (and the Adamson case) help people on all sides in St. Cloud and elsewhere (and I ask the librarian involved to consider contacting me):

FILED
2010 Sep-02 AM 09:32
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

CV NO.:  2:2010cv02386

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARBARA ANN WILSON,

          Plaintiff,

v.

THE BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION;
and THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA;

          Defendants.

COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.  This is a suit for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et. seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

2.  The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

3.  The unlawful employment practices and acts of discrimination about which the
Plaintiff complains were committed in Jefferson County, Alabama.

PARTIES

4.  Plaintiff, Barbara Ann Wilson, is a female citizen of the United States over the age of nineteen (19) and is a resident of the State of Alabama.

5.  Defendant, Birmingham Public Library Foundation is an entity organized and operating in the State of Alabama.

6.  Defendant, City of Birmingham, Alabama is a municipal entity in the State of Alabama.

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

7.  The Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) within 180 days of the acts of discrimination of which she now complains.

8.  The Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC within 90 days of filing this action.

9.  All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10.  The Defendants operate the downtown branch of the Birmingham Public Library.

11.  The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants since on or about August 12, 2002.

12.  The Plaintiff is employed as a Library Assistant III.

13.  The Defendants have installed computers in various parts of the library in such a manner as to make it difficult, if not impossible, for staff and/or other patrons to avoid viewing the material displayed on the computer terminals.

14.  The computers are routinely used to access obscene and pornographic materials.

15.  The images displayed on the computer terminals are of an explicit sexual nature depicting heterosexual intercourse, homosexual acts, pictures of male and female genitalia, and apparent child pornography.

16.  During the course of her employment, the Plaintiff has been subjected to a sexually hostile work environment which consists of severe, pervasive, unwelcomed and offensive obscene and pornographic materials on said computers.

17.  In addition, the Plaintiff has been exposed to sexually aggressive comments, touching, including touching of her breasts, shoulders and buttocks and other conduct of a sexual nature by certain patrons of the library.

18.  Plaintiff has also been subjected to patrons who masturbate in the library in the presence of staff and other patrons, including children.

19.  The Plaintiff has reported the above sexual misconduct to library management multiple times, both verbally and in writing.

20.  The Defendants have completely failed to adequately address the sexually hostile work environment which, as a result of said failure, continues to exist at the downtown branch of the Birmingham Public Library.

21.  On numerous occasions, the Plaintiff has observed patrons accessing obscene and pornographic materials in the presence and/or plain view of children who were nearby.

22.  On many occasions, when the Plaintiff would attempt to confront patrons engaged in the above-described behavior, the patron would become belligerent. Plaintiff has been stared at, screamed at, and followed around the library by patrons whom have engaged in said behavior.

23.  The Plaintiff has suffered severe and substantial emotional distress and mental anguish as a result of the Defendant’s failure to adequately protect her from a sexually hostile work environment. It is increasingly difficult for the Plaintiff to come to the work place on a daily basis to be confronted with the obscene and sexual misconduct that is ongoing at the downtown branch of the Birmingham Public Library.

COUNT ONE
TITLE VII - Sexual Harassment
(Hostile Work Environment)

24.  The Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges each paragraph set forth above as if fully set forth herein.

25.  The above-described wrongful conduct on the part of the Defendants constitutes the creation and/or allowance of a sexually charged hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et. seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the entry of judgment under Title VII against the Defendants for sexual harassment and/or hostile work environment, pursuant to an Order by which the Court:

(a) awards compensatory damages for mental anguish;

(b) awards punitive damages;

(c) awards injunctive relief;

(d) awards that equitable relief which is fair, reasonable and just;

(e) awards a reasonable attorney's fee; and

(f) taxes costs against the Defendants.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY A STRUCK JURY.

                                       s/ Adam P. Morel           
                                       Adam P. Morel
                                       ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

OF COUNSEL:

LAW OFFICES OF ADAM MOREL, LLC
517 Beacon Parkway West
Birmingham, Al 35209
Telephone (205) 945-9210
Facsimile (205) 943-9338


Please Serve Defendants by Certified Mail

The Birmingham Public Library Foundation
c/o Renee Blalock, Registered Agent
2100 Park Place
Birmingham, AL 35203

The City of Birmingham, Alabama
c/o Paula R. Smith, City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City Hall-3rd Floor
710 North 20th Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

.