Courts

Attorney's Sex Harassment Lawsuit Against Federal Judiciary Officials Allowed To Move Forward

The Fourth Circuit revived some of the plaintiff's claims.

By  
on

gavel Workplace Harassement text on Document and gavel isolated on office desk. Law conceptIn 2020, former federal public defender Caryn Strickland filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment from a supervisor while she was a public defender in the Western District of North Carolina. The lawsuit further alleged that the judiciary’s Employment Dispute Resolution system is unconstitutional.

The district court dismissed Strickland’s claims on sovereign immunity grounds (and holding the complaint didn’t properly allege claims against the named defendants in their personal capacity). But this week, the Fourth Circuit revived some of Strickland’s claims against several officials, including Roslynn Mauskopf, the chair of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and Roger Gregory, the Fourth Circuit’s chief judge. (The panel found sovereign immunity protected the officials from claims seeking back pay.)

As reported by Law.com:

The panel held that Strickland’s due process claims alleging the judiciary officials deprived her of her property rights could continue, as well as her equal protection claim alleging the courts violated her right to be free from sex discrimination. Certain provisions in the Fourth Circuit’s EDR plan define protected property interests for all employees, the judges said.

“The plan effectively affords employees with the substantive right to work under conditions free from discrimination and harassment, as well as the substantive right to be free from retaliation in the event that they file a claim under the EDR plan,” the opinion states. “The plan also creates a clear and specific set of procedures that are to be followed in the event that an employee claims that his or her substantive rights afforded under the EDR Plan have been violated.”

The panel said the EDR plan may have been implemented in an unconstitutional manner in Strickland’s case. They pointed to the judiciary’s refusal to disqualify former federal Public Defender Anthony Martinez from being involved in the internal investigation into her claims even though he was named in her complaint.
The judges said that move created a conflict of interest that “infected the entire investigation,” and could have been a violation of her due process rights.

“Leading Strickland to believe that her only way forward was to obtain a favorable decision from one of the key subjects of the investigation could be found to have deprived Strickland of her property interest in the right to a remedy from injuries incurred because of harassment and discrimination,” the panel wrote.

Jeannie Suk Gersen, attorney for Strickland, noted the impact of the decision: “Today’s decision is a major victory. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Strickland’s constitutional claims for equal protection and due process violations can proceed, and made clear that the federal judiciary as an employer is not immune from suits for sex discrimination.”

The Attorney’s Office didn’t comment on the specific case, but noted the new procedures put in place in 2019. The changes came after the harassment claims were made by former clerks of Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski.

“The Judiciary has made significant, far-reaching improvements to its workplace conduct policies, complaint procedures, and ethics codes, including significant improvements in the employment dispute resolution processes. The Judiciary remains committed to promoting an exemplary workplace through engaged leadership, meaningful policy improvements, and more expansive education in the areas of civility, respect, and communication,” the AO said in a statement.

Sponsored

Ally Coll, president of the Purple Campaign, noted that while the Fourth Circuit’s decision is a positive development, it also supercharges the need for the Judicial Accountability Act, introduced in Congress last year.

“I think [the ruling will] go a long way toward increasing these rights for employees and also for others in different contexts who might be trying to vindicate the right to work in an environment free from harassment under the Constitution,” Coll said. “[But] the second half of the opinion just shows that there are still limits on judiciary employees who are trying to get relief through the court system in this way because they don’t have those statutory rights. That highlights to me the continued need to push for the Judicial Accountability Act and also for the judiciary to consider whether its EDR plan provides enough in terms of relief.”

Read the full decision below.

Sponsored

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Topics

, , , ,