IN DOTHARD V. ROBINSON (1977) THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT ALABAMA WAS NOT REQUIRED TO HIRE WOMEN AS GUARDS IN ITS MAXIMUM SECURITY MALE PENITENTIARIES. THE DECISION WAS BASED ON THE BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION (BFOQ) EXCEPTION TO TITLE VII'S BAN ON SEX DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT. HOWEVER, THAT DECISION IGNORED THE ISSUE OF AN INMATE'S RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM OBSERVATION BY GUARDS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX WHILE UNDRESSING, USING TOILET FACILITIES, OR BEING SEARCHED. THE ARTICLE DISCUSSES THIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND EXAMINES THE COURT CASES (BOTH OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS AND OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT) IN WHICH THERE WAS COURT RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. IN BONNER V. COUGHLIN (1975) IT WAS HELD THAT AN INMATE DOES NOT TOTALLY SURRENDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY UPON INCARCERATION. THIS RIGHT WAS CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE A PROHIBITION AGAINST HUMILIATING AND UNNECESSARY SEARCHES. IN FRAZIER V. WARD (1977) A DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT INMATES HAD A FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST BEING SUBJECTED TO ANAL SEARCHES AS A ROUTINE PROCEDURE. YORK V. STORY (1977) INDICATED THAT FORCED EXPOSURE OF THE NAKED BODY TO GUARDS OR POLICE OFFICERS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX IS DEGRADING AND VIOLATES THE PRIVACY RIGHT. SINCE STATES HAVE NO SECURITY INTEREST IN HAVING GUARDS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX PERFORMING STRIP SEARCHES OR TOILET FACILITY SURVEILLANCE, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COULD BE BEST SERVED BY ASSIGNING GUARDS OF OPPOSITE SEX TO WORK IN AREAS WHERE THEY WOULD NOT INFRINGE ON PRIVACY RIGHTS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT IN INMATE PRIVACY SUITS, SELECTIVE WORK RESPONSIBILITIES SHOULD BE ORDERED IN PREFERENCE TO ABSOLUTE EXCLUSION. THIS WOULD FURTHER EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EFFORTS AND KEEP EMPLOYERS FROM USING BFOQ TO EMPLOY SEX DISCRIMINATION HIRING PRACTICES. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (MJW)