WASHINGTON (CN) — Allegations of civil rights abuses in the very halls where justice is supposed to prevail brought former judiciary employees to the House Thursday in support of a bill that would give the men and women who work for the nation's highest courts stronger protections against workplace harassment and discrimination.
While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects other federal employees against such wrongs, the law does not extend to the more than 30,000 employees of the federal judiciary, leaving workplace protections up to the judiciary itself.
The Judiciary Accountability Act would change that, expanding whistleblower and federal workplace protections to federal judiciary employees and establishing a formal office to oversee the branch's complaint reporting system. It would also create an independent special counsel to investigate complaints and an Office of Employee Advocacy to represent and consult with employees alleging misconduct.
Three women who previously worked within the federal judiciary testified Thursday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, urging lawmakers to pass the legislation.
Caryn Devins Strickland, a former federal public defender in North Carolina, told the panel about pressure she felt to resign after she reported being sexually harassed at work by a high-ranking attorney in her office.
"I was stonewalled at every turn. Judiciary officials failed to take the most basic steps to address the sexual harassment," Strickland said.
Strickland filed a lawsuit in 2020 challenging the federal judiciary's handling of sexual harassment complaints, saying she was no longer considered for career advancement and that higher-ups failed to thoroughly review her complaint.
After a federal judge dismissed her lawsuit against the Judicial Conference, Strickland is appealing now to the Fourth Circuit.
Until now, Strickland was known as Jane Roe, the pseudonym used in her suit, but she shed that title to testify publicly before lawmakers about her experience reporting workplace misconduct.
"I don't know if my career will ever be the same as what it was," Strickland testified.
Lawmakers heard as well Thursday from Caitlyn Clark, a law clerk in the Middle District of Georgia who was fired 10 days before giving birth to her second child. Before the judge she clerked for, C. Ashley Royal, found out about her pregnancy, Clark had just gotten an extension on her clerkship and felt confident about her career.
"I quickly learned that 'pregnant' is something that law clerks cannot be. My pregnancy was blatantly treated as a burden and an inconvenience, and I felt belittled because of it. I believe that I was ultimately terminated because of my pregnancy," Clark testified.
She told lawmakers that her boss's approach to her work turned increasingly critical until her ultimate firing.
Clark said the power dynamics within the judicial system, particularly between federal judges and their clerks, can create a chilling effect that prevents employees from coming forward with formal complaints about discrimination.
"They can make or break your career, so people don't want to come forward with this information for fear of retaliation, " Clark said.
Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler asked Clark what she would tell a federal judiciary employee considering reporting misconduct at work.
"I would say that it's a waste of time," Clark said.
Laura Minor, former associate director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, testified that during her time working within the bureaucracy of the federal judiciary, she observed that employees often left their jobs after reporting misconduct, and management would regularly question the accuracy of complaints.
"Although I am disheartened by your experiences, I am sadly not surprised," Minor said.
Minor said management showed opposition to systemic change and viewed those who filed misconduct complaints as "problem employees."
"Complaints were frequently chalked up to bad management instead of discrimination or harassment," Minor said.
The Judicial Conference, which makes policy for the federal judiciary, has expressed staunch opposition to the legislation, claiming existing protections go far enough to protect employees.
“Unfortunately, the bill fails to recognize the robust safeguards that have been in place within the Judiciary to protect Judiciary employees, including law clerks, from wrongful conduct in the workplace, including protections against discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and abusive conduct,” U.S. District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf said in a letter to the committee as secretary of the conference.
After allegations of sexual harassment arose in 2018 against the Ninth Circuit's then-Judge Alex Kozinski, the federal judiciary created a group to evaluate the work environment within the judicial branch. The group led the judiciary to create an Office of Judicial Integrity and edit its code of conduct to specify that employees have a duty to report workplace misconduct.
"These enhancements provide robust mechanisms for reporting and addressing instances of misconduct. They also provide additional avenues for employees to express their views so that we can learn from all perspectives in striving for an exemplary workplace," Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts wrote in his year-end report on the federal judiciary.
Roberts asserted in the report that allowing the judiciary branch, rather than Congress, to manage its own workplace-conduct protections and internal affairs protects the branch from "inappropriate political influence."
U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson, a Kansas-based member of the judiciary's workplace conduct working group, testified before the committee, calling the Judiciary Accountability Act, a "sweeping legislative overhaul."
"The Judiciary’s process for protecting employees is demonstrating its promise and should be given time to build upon the significant strides made to date. Making premature or sweeping changes could undo several years of steady improvement, with no assurance that alternatives would lead to an improved workplace, more reporting, greater employee trust, or more effective responses to complaints," Robinson testified.
But some argue recent changes to the federal judiciary won't do enough to empower and protect judicial employees.
"Those changes are insufficient. Despite my faith and belief in the justice system as an institution, I feel hopeless about the justice system as an employee. The inefficient reporting procedures are simply a symptom of a larger problem: a culture that no amount of self-policing can fix," Minor said, referencing congressional action as a necessary remedy.
Follow @@rosemwagner
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.
Additional Reads
-
-
Google to pay $62 million for tracking users without consent April 18, 2024