“Judicial branch employees continue to be harassed and discriminated against with little recourse,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said during the House Judiciary Committee hearing. “Time and time again, representatives of the judiciary have told us that there isn’t a problem, that we should let them handle it themselves.”
Three former federal judiciary employees — a law clerk, public defender and high-level administrative official — told the committee about a workplace culture that has discouraged reporting, describing harassment they had endured and what they said are shortcomings in the process for resolving misconduct claims.
Last year, lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation to extend to judiciary employees the same anti-discrimination rights afforded to other government employees and to protect whistleblowers. The proposal would create an independent special counsel to investigate workplace complaints and report its findings to Congress and an oversight commission made up of people with experience enforcing civil rights laws.
Leaders of the federal judiciary acknowledged their work is not done, but said Thursday that sweeping legislation is unnecessary and inappropriate. The court system, said U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson, has already made “significant strides and improvements and has done so expeditiously” by creating new paths for reporting, providing confidential guidance for employees and expanding protections against abusive conduct.
“Some changes don’t occur overnight. This is a continuing effort, and we expect some changes will need time to take root,” said Robinson, a member of an advisory group, which has recommended a long list of changes in judiciary policies.
Robinson and Judge M. Margaret McKeown echoed concerns of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. about Congress interfering with the inner workings of a separate, equal branch of government.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he understands the separation-of-powers concerns and the imperative for the judiciary to retain independence.
“Self-rule by a separate branch” of government is “acceptable, but it has to be comparable, accountable and transparent,” he said, adding “we have to hold everyone accountable.”
Laura C. Minor, who worked for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for more than two decades, told lawmakers that the judiciary has long struggled to deal with misconduct. The judiciary’s proposed changes are insufficient, she said, and many complaints are still not reported because people fear retaliation.
“From what I can see today and what we all have heard, the judiciary’s insistence on self-policing only serves its interest in self-protection,” said Minor, who was the equal employment opportunity officer for the court’s administrative office and former secretary of the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the federal courts.
Among the witnesses Thursday was former public defender Caryn D. Strickland, who for two years has been known in court as “Jane Doe” in her lawsuit challenging the judiciary’s handling of her misconduct claims. When Strickland initially reported sexual harassment and discrimination by her supervisors, she said she was “stonewalled at every turn, as judiciary officials protected my perpetrators and punished me.”
The Justice Department has defended the court system’s anti-discrimination policies as comprehensive and meaningful, and argued in Strickland’s case that she has no right to sue because court employees are not covered by certain civil rights laws.
“If their position prevails, then I will have absolutely no remedy for the denial of my right to be free from sex discrimination,” she told lawmakers Thursday.
Although Strickland said the effort to resolve her claims has been humiliating and intimidating, she decided to testify publicly because lawmakers “have the power to provide judiciary employees with meaningful protections from harassment and discrimination.”
More than 20 former and current judiciary employees filed a brief in support of Strickland, whose case is pending before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
Former employees and advocates also said Thursday that abusive treatment is pervasive in courthouses because of the power disparity between judges and their young law clerks, who depend on their bosses for job recommendations after a one-year apprenticeship.
Former law clerk Aliza Shatzman described the negative job reference she received after reporting harassment and discrimination by a D.C. Superior Court judge. The judge, who is no longer on the bench and is not named in a letter Shatzman supplied to the committee, criticized her for being “bossy” and “aggressive” and for not behaving the way he expected female clerks to act, she said.
Shatzman urged Congress to extend protections and expand the rights of those who work in the local D.C. courts, where judges are also nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
“For law clerks seeking to achieve justice for themselves and accountability for the judges who harassed them, the message from the D.C. judiciary is one of deafening silence in the face of misconduct,” Shatzman’s letter says.
“The judiciary is uniquely insulated from scrutiny, and uniquely unaccountable to the public.”