Judges’ dispute sends one packing
Done sharing space with non-masker
A months-long disagreement over COVID-19 mask mandates has taken a toll on the relationship between two Franklin County Common Pleas judges who had been suitemates for more than six years, prompting one of them to move to a courtroom three floors away.
The dust-up serves as a microcosm of the larger debate that has raged across the country about safety precautions imposed during the pandemic.
Judge Chris Brown moved from courtroom 6F, next door to Serrott’s courtroom on the sixth floor of the Common
Pleas courthouse, to courtroom 3F on the third floor in early September.
Asked by The Dispatch about the relocation, Brown said he moved because Serrott wasn’t complying with the court’s administrative order mandating that all court employees must wear face masks.
“I’m troubled on a public-health/ public-safety level and on a personal level, because of how far back we go,” Brown said of the dispute.
Serrott said that while they disagree on “the nuances” of the court’s mask policy, their separation, so to speak, “was more of a personality issue than a mask issue.
“Like family, you are in close proximity with somebody for six years ... and we just had some personality issues over various things over time that I’m not going to get into. It got to the point
where we thought maybe you go your way and I’ll stay here.”
Brown contends his move was driven strictly by the dispute over masks.
“It’s all about the masking,” he said. “Whatever differences we have had, we had put that in the past. I never wanted to leave 6F. My staff didn’t want to leave 6F. It’s all because he wouldn’t enforce the administrative order.”
The judges are fellow Democrats and both describe a long-term relationship in which Serrott has served as a mentor to Brown. Both times that Brown has been sworn in — after he was first elected in 2015 and after his reelection in November — Serrott did the honors.
“The reason I asked him to swear me in was as a show of respect and to show that we’re still friends, even though we’ve butted heads in the past,” Brown said.
Judge Stephen L. Mcintosh, who as the court’s administrative judge helped facilitate the move, said the disagreement stems from differing interpretations of the court’s mask mandate.
“As I understand it, the way (Serrott) interprets the order is, if you maintain social distancing he doesn’t see why you have to be masked,” Mcintosh said. “The concern with that, obviously, is in (common areas) you can’t always guarantee that you are going to be the only person standing there or the people who are standing next to you are going to be socially distant. I don’t know that he’s said, ‘I’m not going to follow it.’ He has a slightly different interpretation of the order.”
The court’s original mask mandate was issued on May 19, 2020, in the early days of the pandemic, after a vote of the 17 Common Pleas judges to impose it and other safety precautions in response to guidelines issued by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The mask order, signed by Mcintosh, requires “any individual entering the courthouse,” including all court employees, to wear a mask “at all times” and “adhere to the 6-foot social distancing protocols.” Masks are not required “when working alone in an assigned work area.”
The order was modified on July 27 of this year to require masks only for visitors and employees who were not fully vaccinated.
However, less than two weeks later, amid a surge in COVID cases linked to the highly-contagious delta variant, the judges voted to return to the court’s previous policy requiring masks for everyone — regardless of vaccination status.
Brown said that the failure of Serrott and his staff to comply with that Aug. 6 order was the last straw in his decision to move. He said he has grown weary of the courthouse and the national debate.
“I’m tired of it,” Brown said. “People need to get vaccinated and they need to wear a mask. All the nudging and encouraging, I’m done with that.”
As suitemates, the judges shared a secretary and a common area between their private offices, or chambers. Each has his own bailiff and staff attorney. A hallway between their offices also includes an area with a copy machine, microwave and other shared space.
Mask wearing in those areas appeared to be at the heart of the dispute, with Serrott satisfied that social distancing is a sufficient safety precaution for him and his staff and Brown taking a strict approach to the order.
In their courtrooms, all judges require jurors and others to wear masks, but some permit witnesses and attorneys to remove their masks when talking, as long as they maintain social distancing. Serrott said he doesn’t wear a mask when he’s on the bench in his courtroom because no one is within six feet of him.
Of the half-dozen jury trials he has conducted since the beginning of the pandemic, he said, “I’ve had no complaints from any of our jurors. They indicated they were happy with their service and felt safe.”
Serrott considers himself in compliance with the court’s order.
“Now, we do have some leeway as it relates to our chambers area and our personal work spaces,” he said. “So my rule of thumb in the back, for my employees and staff, is if you want to wear a mask, that’s great. If you’re not wearing a mask, that’s fine but make sure you’re social distancing and maintain the six feet.”
Serrott offered that he is fully vaccinated and is “not completely antimask. I question sometimes some of the policies and the efficacy of some of the rules. There are legitimate differences of opinion . ... I respect the differences of opinions on all these issues and, in my mind, Judge Brown did not respect those differences of opinion.”
Brown said it’s more than a difference of opinion. Serrott, he said, simply hasn’t been complying with a mask mandate that, as written, leaves little room for interpretation.
His concerns aren’t just for his own health and others at the courthouse, but that of his two children, ages 4 and 8, who are too young to be vaccinated, Brown said.
Mcintosh said the dispute is complicated by a long-standing tradition of judges having a considerable amount of autonomy over the operation of their courtrooms and the hiring of their individual staff members.
Some judges have accepted the court’s COVID-19 protocols “grudgingly,” Mcintosh said. “I think it has to do with whether we are going overboard, and them believing that many of the protections and safety precautions we are putting in place, they can achieve by doing things their own way.” jfutty@dispatch.com @johnfutty