Connect with us

News

Federal courts trumpet steps to protect workers after #MeToo movement

Published

on

Federal courts trumpet steps to protect workers after #MeToo movement

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York stands in the Brooklyn borough of New York City in 2019.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The federal courts have taken “extensive” steps to protect workers from abuse, discrimination and harassment since the rise of the #MeToo movement, by creating more paths to report misbehavior and offering a new training session for in-house investigators, U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad Jr. said Wednesday.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which handles the judiciary’s administration, reported that the overall number of complaints against federal judges remains small, with just three brought by judiciary employees under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act in the last fiscal year. Many more complaints are handled internally, through mediation, court leaders said.

“In some ways, we have more of a middle management problem than a judicial problem,” said Conrad, who was named director of the Administrative Office earlier this year — pointing to statistics showing many complaints are not about judges per se but about other court employees.

Advertisement

However, some outside critics and former court employees say workers they’ve talked to don’t trust the internal system and don’t use it to report complaints, meaning any statistics are likely to be undercounted.

Conrad said the courts are making “steady, sustained” progress toward tearing down barriers to report misconduct for the 30,000 people who work in their buildings — from judges and their staff, to federal public defenders.

“This is not the systemic failure that some critics stuck in a six-year time warp have used to describe the judiciary’s efforts,” Conrad added. “The journey has not reached its destination, but we are committed and have demonstrated this commitment with concrete steps.”

Abusive conduct, retaliation complaints

The bulk of complaints against judges involve abusive conduct, the new report said, followed by allegations of retaliation against people who report problems.

In July, a federal judge in Alaska resigned after investigators found he engaged in a sexual relationship with a former clerk and created a hostile working environment in his chambers.

Advertisement

Aliza Shatzman, who interacts with many current and former federal law clerks through her Legal Accountability Project, said the people she talks with “have not and would not report misconduct” because they do not believe it would be taken seriously or investigated vigorously.

“(W)ith limited remedies available, no legal protection against retaliation, and, sadly, often no legal counsel to assist them, it is difficult to convince law clerks to stick their necks out and blow the whistle on misconduct,” Shatzman said. “Law clerks face enormous headwinds in reporting misconduct, and the federal judiciary does not make the process any easier.”

The quality of legal protections for judiciary employees have been hotly debated in Congress and reviewed in two separate audits this year. A pair of reports by the Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Public Administration offered recommendations the judiciary continues to review.

Rep. Norma Torres, a California Democrat who has called on the judiciary to do more to shield workers from abuse, said in a written statement Wednesday that “deep concerns and significant questions” linger about the courts’ commitment to reform.

“Sexual assault and harassment are pervasive issues that demand substantive and urgent action, not rhetoric,” Torres said. “It is troubling to continue to see insufficient steps being taken to address the concerns raised by the House Appropriations Committee, and I will continue to closely monitor the judiciary’s efforts, or lack thereof, to protect the safety and dignity of all individuals, inside and outside the courthouse.”

Advertisement

Workforce survey not public

Torres is one of several critics who want to see the results of a national workforce survey the federal courts administered in 2023, but which is still not public. Judge Conrad said confidentiality concerns meant the findings would remain under wraps, but that administrators are assessing the survey results and would follow through early next year.

Court leaders emphasized that in some ways, their systems go beyond other offerings for federal workers, by, for instance, allowing people to report instances of hostile or abusive behavior. Conrad said the code of conduct for federal judges now prohibits abuse or harassment by judges themselves as well as failing to report “reliable” instances of potential wrongful acts they observe by others.

The Office of Judicial Integrity at the courts’ headquarters in Washington, D.C., has expanded to include three people, with two more expected to come on board. That office holds training for court systems nationwide. Since the federal courts operate in a patchwork, with different rules and management across a dozen or so circuit court systems, there are about a dozen more employees who handle workplace complaints spread out across the country.

The systems for reporting misconduct can be byzantine, and contribute to employees’ inability to find lawyers to help them navigate the process. Some auditors have recommended employees who bring complaints with merit should be able to recover attorney fees.

“I get that the judiciary is trying to do more to protect its workers,” said Gabe Roth, who fights for more transparency through his nonprofit group Fix the Court. “But there remain obvious reforms they appear to not even be considering, from ensuring mistreated staff have access to legal assistance to mandating workplace conduct training for judges and other managers, and these omissions do not instill a lot of confidence.”

Advertisement

Roth and other close observers of the federal courts said the internal system for resolving employee disputes remains rife with potential conflicts of interest, because a judge overseeing the dispute can work in the same courthouse as the judge who is the subject of a complaint.

The judiciary has said multiple ways to report complaints are meant to mitigate the problem of conflicts of interest.

Were you harassed or bullied by a federal judge or do you know someone who was? We want to hear about your experience. Your name will not be used without your consent, and you can remain anonymous. Please contact NPR by clicking this link.

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending