Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. A study of judicial workplaces has found significant problems with courts’ efforts to regulate themselves.
Andrew Harnick/AP/Associated Press
hide title
Switch title
Andrew Harnick/Associated Press/Associated Press
A powerful new study of workplace issues within the federal judiciary finds significant problems with the courts’ efforts to regulate themselves, including a lack of oversight, no central system for tracking misconduct and a lack of records for most complaints.
Many judges remain unwilling to “judge” their colleagues, and legal staff who rely on judicial employers to help their legal careers succeed are reluctant to report abuses because of a severe “power imbalance.” Center’s report, obtained exclusively by NPR.
Unlike other workers across the United States, the 30,000 people employed by the federal judiciary are not protected by federal anti-discrimination laws. Because federal courts enjoy significant autonomy and many federal judges are tenured, it can be especially difficult for employees to report hostile behavior or other abuse. Despite years of promises of a reckoning, staffers and others said in interviews that the system’s internal checks had been broken.
Rep. Norma Torres, D-Calif., said: “It is disheartening to hear about incidents of sexual assault and harassment involving judicial employees who lack reliable and safe avenues to report and process these horrific and traumatic encounters. .
“The federal judiciary must urgently develop a robust system for handling sexual harassment claims, as it is clear that its longstanding reliance solely on an individual’s good character and conduct is insufficient.”
Limited employee access
Torres commissioned the study after judicial authorities appeared to limit cooperation with a separate investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. House members, including Torres, have expressed concerns about the lack of transparency and effectiveness of the harassment reporting mechanism and want an audit to review it.
But despite clear instructions from members of Congress that the Justice Department should share information, GAO auditors were only able to interview one current Judiciary employee.
“We have been waiting for the judiciary to prove that it has the ability to protect its employees, but unfortunately it has failed to do so,” Torres added. “Congress will be forced to step in.”
The federal court promised a reckoning in 2017 after prominent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski abruptly resigned amid sexual harassment accusations from more than 15 women.
Six years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts created a task force of federal judges and the Office of Judicial Integrity in Washington, D.C. People help provide informal advice.
The new study relies in part on interviews with judges, administrators and other employees and makes nearly three dozen recommendations to reform the current system. The groups leading the study said their goal was to “pursue and encourage” change but that they lacked the power to force the judiciary to act.
Key findings include: The judiciary provides training but judges and other staff are not required to attend. Only about a quarter of judicial websites open to the public contain all the information they need to share about resolving workplace and employee rights disputes, the study said. Eleven percent of websites had no information about workplace misconduct at all.
“The ability of the courts to fulfill their mission and perform their functions depends on the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary,” the authors of the new study wrote.
Alaska judge resigns after whistleblower report
But those who follow the issues closely say the Justice Department has not done enough to police misconduct within its ranks. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Alaska resigned after just four years on the job after an investigation found he created a hostile work environment in the courtroom. The investigation apparently began with a tip, rather than a formal complaint made by a staff member using the avenue created by the justice department.
Olivia Warren, who blew the whistle on another federal judge years ago, told NPR after reading the Justice Department’s report on Alaska judges that the system still fails to protect clerks.
“This is another day of shame, shame, shame for the Justice Department,” Warren said earlier this month. “To the extent that the Justice Department says their reporting mechanisms and the changes they’ve made are working, there’s nothing in this report that Nothing indicates that the legal staff actually made the report.”
Employees who want to hire an attorney to represent themselves during the complaint process must pay out of their own pocket, according to the sweeping new study. More than a half-dozen whistleblowers told NPR it was difficult to hire lawyers to navigate the labyrinthine system.
And, unlike staff at other organizations, Justice Department employees cannot seek or receive monetary compensation if their complaints are deemed to have merit. The new research suggests that offering financial damages may help encourage more people to raise concerns.
The report also highlights the lack of tools available to employees for confidential reporting and the potential conflicts of interest inherent in judges hearing employment disputes involving their colleagues. Some judges told the researchers that these cases would be better served by jurists from other courts.
NAPA and FJC research also suggests that the judiciary may need to consider publishing more information about its decisions in employee dispute cases to help build confidence among its workforce and the public. The findings could also help guide judges hearing disputes, reducing differences or inconsistencies between similar cases.
The judiciary launched a nationwide inquiry into its workforce in January 2023, but the results have not yet been made public. The judges told NAPA and the FJC that they believed obtaining this information would help highlight issues and areas of concern. The study authors said they also could not review the data or results from the labor force survey.
