Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Thursday, April 25, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

#Metoo movement cast as threat to judicial independence in Roberts report

While the chief justice wants to focus on self-policing, advocates say internal reforms are not enough when it comes to workplace misconduct. 

WASHINGTON (CN) — Just a few bad apples. No need to burn down the orchard.

In his year-end report for 2021, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts suggests that misconduct really isn’t that big of an issue for the over 30,000 members of the federal judiciary.

“The Working Group recognized the seriousness of several high-profile incidents, but found that inappropriate workplace conduct is not pervasive within the Judiciary,” Roberts wrote, referring to a collective of judges and senior judicial administrators that the chief justice organized in 2017 to address allegations of serious workplace misconduct.

This assessment stands at odds, however, with reports that paint a picture of abusers who get promoted while their victims are left with emotional and professional turmoil.

In a system built on confidentiality and a well-defined power structure, advocates say reporting of harassment within the judicial branch is stymied by inadequate mechanisms that need reform.

But rather than embracing calls for reform from Congress, Roberts focuses on how the judiciary can police itself. In support of that idea, he leans on recommendations from 2018 that the Judicial Conference already adopted.

Accounts of what it is actually like to report harassment within the judiciary’s self-policing method suggest that Roberts’ workplace reforms scratch only the surface of what is needed to protect vulnerable employees from predatory supervisors.  

Olivia Warren testified to this in February 2020 before the House Judiciary Committee. After Warren detailed the obstacles she encountered while attempting to report sexually harassment she suffered while clerking for the late Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, more than 70 of Reinhardt’s former clerks — some who also experienced harassment — came forward to support her. 

Warren attempted to report Reinhardt’s harassment through the Office of Judicial Integrity — a new entity created specifically to deal with reports of workplace misconduct — but was ultimately unsuccessful. 

“There are systemic barriers to reporting harassment and misconduct by judges that are unique to the legal profession, and uniquely formidable in the context of the relationship between law clerk and judge,” Warren said in her 2020 congressional testimony. “The consequences of miscalculating the risk of possibly offending a judge are fraught with a peril that does not dissipate with time and can hang over one’s entire professional career. For a law clerk, at the precipice of his or her legal career, alienating a federal judge can spell doom for their life in the law.” 

Warren wrote about her experience again in a 2021 article for the Harvard Law Review. Looking back, she said the most painful part was that the outrage sparked by her testimony only distracted from the lack of action actually taken to change the experience of those who would come after her. 

“We are not safe when there continue to be no consequences for the people who determine the consequences for everyone else,” Warren wrote. “We are not safe when we live in a world where harm and consequence are articulated by such limited minds. When someone with the personal views of women that Judge Reinhardt expressed to me is heralded for writing the opinions endorsing the most expansive vision of women’s rights and roles in the world, imagine what the law would look like if written by someone who actually believed women. Imagine a system that did not deny the unimaginable, but instead named it, found a way to rectify it, found a way to move on.” 

Warren’s experience in facing obstacles when reporting abuse was not a one-off occurrence. A former employee of the federal judiciary — identified as Jane Roe — came forward to report months of sexual discrimination, harassment, and retaliation she endured between 2018 and 2019. Roe felt so unsafe in her workplace that she began carrying pepper spray to work. When she reported her concerns to a senior manager, they decided to bring her and her abuser into a room together to discuss the situation and find a compromise for both parties. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Roe brought her case to court, but the Western District of North Carolina dismissed it. She asked for reconsideration but was denied. Her appeal remains pending with the Fourth Circuit. An amicus brief filed in Roe’s case cites accounts from other current and former employees who also endured misconduct. 

“When it comes to employment law, the federal judiciary is a uniquely insulated institution: responsible for interpreting laws but exempt from many of them, run by judges who dole out justice for a living but are functionally immune from lawsuits,” the employee’s brief states. “As a result, judiciary employees — unlike most other workers in the United States — lack basic workplace protections, including those guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.” 

Taking into account the experiences of those who have tried and failed to report misconduct, Ally Coll, president and co-founder of the Purple Campaign, said Roberts’ reliance on the working group and the Judicial Conference of the United States is insufficient to adequately address the judiciary’s workplace harassment problems. 

“In the year-end report this year in 2021 Roberts outlines the recommendations the working group made and says we implemented all of those, but the point of Olivia's testimony is that those are insufficient because she was still unable to get clear guidance, despite going through every avenue that was available to her about how to confidentially report the harassment she was subjected to,” Coll said in a phone call. 

Roberts’ recommendations are not only insufficient but his comments could discourage other victims of abuse from coming forward. 

“I think the general message is one that I worry will discourage people from coming forward in the future to report,” Coll said. “In particular, I'm troubled by his statement that the working group concluded that there is not a serious problem with workplace misconduct in the federal judiciary.” 

While Roberts doesn’t seem to think the federal judiciary has a pervasive problem with workplace misconduct, that’s nearly impossible to know considering the difficulty in reporting incidents and possible professional consequences of coming forward. A study from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2016 found that 70% of employees don’t report workplace harassment and that 75% of those who do report experience retaliation. 

“We still live in a world where people who speak up about harassment and discrimination are often treated as problems or whistleblowers, and I think that's especially true in a work environment like the federal judiciary that really prizes confidentiality and has a very clear power structure and hierarchy and with roles — especially with clerkships,” Coll said.  

Roberts’ working group itself found that employees were hesitant to report workplace harassment. 

“The most significant challenge for accountability, however, arises from the reluctance of victims to report misconduct … Victims are hesitant to report harassment and other inappropriate behavior for a variety of reasons, including lack of confidence that they will be believed, fear that no action will be taken, and concerns that a complaint will subject them to retaliatory action or affect future job prospects,” the working group said in a 2018 report to the conference states. 

Part of the recommendations from the working group included creating the Office of Judicial Integrity, a resource Warren attempted to use to report her abuse. Warren was unable, however, to get any specific answers from the OJI on who to contact to report the misconduct. Roberts and the working group also acknowledged that employees need multiple channels to report misconduct and that there needs to be a prohibition on retaliation for reporting harassment.

“In reality, both Olivia's experience and also the experience of Jane Roe … they both found that there were not actually clear channels that were available to them that that would protect them from this conduct,” Coll said. 

With Roberts’ self-policing method proving ineffective, advocates say Congress should step in to protect federal judiciary employees. They could do this by passing the Judiciary Accountability Act, which draws on reforms Congress itself implemented to stop workplace harassment within its ranks. The legislation would provide clear legal protection for whistleblowers, create more comprehensive channels for reporting harassment, and provide more resources for employees. 

“To their credit," Coll said, referring to Congress, "they actually did pass sweeping legislation that created the same kinds of accountability mechanisms on members of Congress, as they put in place for the private sector and that's what the Judiciary Accountability Act would do for the federal judiciary."

Follow @KelseyReichmann
Categories / Civil Rights, Courts, Employment, National

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...