Thurgood Marshall Federal Court Building. A study of the judicial workplace finds significant problems in the courts’ efforts to police themselves.
Andrew Harnik/AP/AP
hide caption
convert caption
Andrew Harnik/AP/AP
A sweeping new study of workplace issues in the federal judiciary finds significant problems in the courts’ efforts to police themselves, including a lack of oversight, no central system to track misconduct, and poor recordkeeping of most complaints.
Many judges are still reluctant to “sit in judgment” on their colleagues, and law clerks who rely on their judicial employers to help make or break their legal careers are also reluctant to report abuses because of a severe “power imbalance,” according to report from the National Institute of Public Administration and the Federal Judicial Center, obtained exclusively by NPR.
The 30,000 people who work for the federal judiciary are not protected by federal anti-discrimination laws, unlike other workers across the country. Because federal courts have so much autonomy and many federal judges serve for life, employees can find it especially difficult to report hostility or other abuses. Despite years of promises to account, employees and others said in interviews that the system’s internal checks have been broken.
“It is disheartening to hear about sexual assault and harassment involving law enforcement officers who do not have a reliable and safe avenue to report and address these horrific and traumatic encounters,” said Rep. Norma Torres, a Democrat from California.
“The federal judiciary must urgently establish robust systems for resolving sexual harassment complaints, because it is clear that its long-standing reliance on individual character and good behavior is not enough.”
Limited access for employees
Torres commissioned the study after the Justice Department appeared to be less cooperative with a separate investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. House lawmakers including Torres have raised concerns about the lack of transparency and effectiveness of harassment reporting mechanisms, and want the audit to review them.
But GAO auditors were only able to interview one current judicial employee, despite clear directives from members of Congress that the judiciary share information.
“We’ve been waiting for the courts to show that they have the ability to protect their employees, and sadly they haven’t,” Torres added. “Congress will be forced to step in.”
The federal court promised to hear the case in 2017, after 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski abruptly resigned following sexual harassment allegations from more than 15 women.
Six years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts established a working group of federal judges and the Office of Judicial Integrity in Washington, D.C. Across the country, regional appeals courts have hired workplace relations directors and appointed others who work for the federal courts to help provide informal advice.
The new study, based in part on interviews with judges, administrators and other staff, makes nearly three dozen recommendations for reforming the current system. The groups leading the study said their goal is to “pursue and encourage” change, but they do not have the authority to force the judiciary to act.
Among the key findings: The judiciary provides training, but judges and other workers are not required to attend. And only about one in four public judiciary websites contain all the information they are required to share about resolving workplace disputes and workers’ rights, the study found. Eleven percent of the websites have no information about workplace misconduct.
“The ability of courts to fulfill their missions and functions depends on public confidence in the judiciary,” the authors of the new study write.
Alaska judge resigns after secret information leaked
But those who closely follow these issues say the judiciary has not done enough to control misconduct within its ranks. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Alaska resigned after four years on the job after an investigation found that he had fostered a hostile work environment in his office. That investigation appears to have started with a tip, rather than a formal complaint filed by an employee through a path the judiciary has created.
Olivia Warren, who blew the whistle on another federal judge years ago, told NPR after reading the judiciary’s report on the Alaska judge that the system still fails to protect clerks.
“This is another day of shame, shame, shame for the judiciary,” Warren said earlier this month. “To the extent that the judiciary says their reporting mechanisms and the changes they’ve made are working, there’s nothing in this report that suggests that law clerks actually reported.”
A comprehensive new study finds that employees who want an attorney to represent them during the complaint process have to pay for one themselves. More than half a dozen whistleblowers told NPR that hiring an attorney is difficult to navigate through the complex system.
And, unlike workers in other organizations, judicial officers cannot seek or receive compensation if their complaints are determined to be valid. New research suggests that having compensation available may help encourage more people to voice concerns.
The report also highlighted the lack of tools for employees to report confidentially and the potential conflicts of interest inherent in judges handling labor disputes involving their own colleagues. Some judges told researchers that it would be better if jurists from other courts presided over those cases.
The NAPA and FJC study also suggests that the judiciary may want to consider releasing more information about its decisions in employee disputes, to help build trust among its own workforce and with the public. The findings could also help guide judges who hear disputes, to reduce disparities or inconsistencies between similar cases.
The judiciary conducted a national survey of its workforce in January 2023 but has not yet made the results public. Judges told NAPA and the FJC that they thought access to that information could help highlight issues and areas of concern. The study authors said they also could not review the data or findings from the workforce survey.
