Justly Prudent files discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Prince George's County on behalf of correctional officer

For years, Keisha Hudson showed up for her overnight shifts at the Prince George's County Department of Corrections, did her job, and went home. She earned commendations. She kept a clean record. None of that mattered once she spoke up.

On June 4, 2025, Ms. Hudson filed a formal discrimination complaint against her supervisor, after a fellow officer revealed that the supervisor's mistreatment of Ms. Hudson was motivated by colorism—hostility directed at Ms. Hudson because of her light skin complexion. A colleague told Ms. Hudson, in the presence of two witnesses, that the unfair treatment she had been enduring was "because [you're] light skin."

On March 6, 2026, Justly Prudent filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on behalf of Ms. Hudson, bringing claims of race discrimination, sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment against the County, the responsible supervisor, and another Department official. The complaint details a sweeping campaign of retaliation that began almost immediately after Ms. Hudson dared to report racial discrimination.

Six days that changed everything. 

On July 15, 2025, Ms. Hudson followed up on her complaint with the Department's Human Resources Division, which confirmed receipt and forwarded it to the Office of Professional Responsibility and Legal Affairs for investigation. Just six days later, on July 21, 2025, the Department issued a disciplinary charge against Ms. Hudson for an incident that had happened nearly four months earlier—an incident in which the individual in question did not die on her watch. For four months, no one had pursued discipline. The moment her discrimination complaint reached investigators, the charges materialized.

A hearing board designed to convict. 

Four officers were charged with the same offense stemming from the same incident. Three were acquitted. Ms. Hudson was the only one found guilty. Distubringly, the hearing board was chaired by a close personal friend of the very supervisor Ms. Hudson had accused of discrimination. Another member on the hearing board member was also a known friend of the same supervisor. A fourth board member later disclosed that he voted to acquit Ms. Hudson, only to be told by the presiding chair that "his vote didn't count." Another board member was pressured to change his vote to guilty. Among the officers of comparable rank, Ms. Hudson was the sole female officer, and she was the sole officer convicted.

The punishment—and the message. 

On December 17, 2025, the Department suspended Ms. Hudson for 10 days without pay and placed an additional 10 days in abeyance, meaning any future investigation could trigger more punishment. During her suspension, Ms. Hudson was locked out of the facility, barred from working overtime, and blocked from participating in compensatory time programs. The conviction now sits in her permanent personnel file, and she was subsequently told she could not take the promotional exam for Corporal because of the incident.

The retaliation did not stop there. The complaint details how the defendant supervisor issued Ms. Hudson consistently negative performance evaluations only after the discrimination complaint. A friend of the supervisor wrote Ms. Hudson up for wearing red hair, despite the fact that the same friend was wearing bright purple nail polish with decorative stones and blonde hair at the time of the citation. The Department's own Director later confirmed that at least five other officers wore red hair without being cited. And in February 2026, the Department assigned another of Sergeant Johnson's associates to supervise Ms. Hudson's unit, while a colleague warned Ms. Hudson to leave her assignment because "they don't like you because you're light-skinned."

The lawsuit brings twelve counts, including violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983), the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, and the Prince George's County Code. Ms. Hudson seeks, among other things, the expungement of the disciplinary records from her personnel file, and an order requiring the County to implement conflict-of-interest protections for hearing boards—so that no other officer faces a tribunal stacked with friends of the person they reported.

"No correctional officer should have to choose between reporting discrimination and protecting her career," said Managing Attorney Jordan D. Howlette. "Ms. Hudson did what any employee should be able to do; she reported that her supervisor was targeting her because of her skin color. The County's response was not to investigate the complaint. It was to investigate the complainant. My team and I very much look forward to holding Prince George's County accountable for that choice."

The case is Keisha Hudson v. Prince George's County, MD, et al., filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland (Case No. C-16-CV-26-001330).