CHIEF JUSTICE TARGETS COURT HARASSMENT
Chief justice says “judicial branch is not immune” to sexual harassment
Chief Justice Roberts plans protections for employees from sexual harassment, saying the judiciary “is not immune” from the problem.
WASHINGTON» Chief Justice John Roberts announced an initiative Sunday to ensure there are proper procedures in place to protect law clerks and other court employees from sexual harassment, saying it is clear that the federal judiciary “is not immune” from a widespread problem.
The statement, in Roberts’ 2017 State of the Judiciary Report, follows the retirement last month of Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The influential 67-year-old judge stepped down after two reports in The Washington Post detailed allegations he had subjected former law clerks and other women to inappropriate sexual behavior.
“Events in recent months have illuminated the depth of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, and events in the past few weeks have made clear that the judicial branch is not immune,” Roberts wrote.
“The judiciary will begin 2018 by undertaking a careful evaluation of whether its standards of conduct and its procedures for investigating and correcting inappropriate behavior are adequate to ensure an exemplary workplace for every judge and every court employee.”
Just days after Kozinski’s Dec. 18 retirement, Roberts directed James Duff, director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, to put together a working group to examine the issue. CNN reported at the time that Duff will report back by May 1.
A group of nearly 700 former and current law clerks also sent Roberts a letter requesting action and asking that he highlight the concern in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary.
“I have great confidence in the men and women who comprise our judiciary,” Roberts wrote. “I am sure that the overwhelming number have no tolerance for harassment and share the view that victims must have clear and immediate recourse to effective remedies.”
Of particular concern has been the relationships between judges and their law clerks — usually recent law school graduates whose careers are significantly boosted by a year working with a federal judge, particularly on one of the 12 courts of appeal.
An appeals court judge usually has four clerks and a secretary, and the chambers
operate independently and under a strict code of confidentiality. Some of the clerks who eventually talked to The Washington Post about their experiences with Kozinski had wondered whether that confidentiality meant they could not report their experiences.
There is a natural reluctance to complain about a judge instrumental to their futures, the clerks said, and it was even unclear as to whom such reports would be directed.
The letter from the clerks asked Roberts and other court officials to examine “the risk that these confidentiality principles can be used to shield, if not enable, harassment,” according to a copy published by the HuffPost.
In his report, Roberts said he expected the working group “to consider whether changes are needed in our codes of conduct, our guidance to employees — including law clerks — on issues of confidentiality and reporting of instances of misconduct, our educational programs, and our rules for investigating and processing misconduct complaints.”