Judicial system fails at policing workplace misconduct, study finds

A hard-hitting new study on workplace issues within the federal judiciary finds significant problems with the courts’ effort to police themselves, including lack of oversight, no central system to track misconduct and little record-keeping about most complaints.

Many judges remain reluctant to “sit in judgment” of their colleagues, and law clerks who rely on their judicial employers to help make-or-break their legal careers are reluctant to report abuses because of the severe “power imbalance,” according to the report by the National Academy of Public Administration and the Federal Judicial Center, obtained exclusively by NPR.

The 30,000 people employed by the federal judicial branch are not protected by federal anti-discrimination laws, unlike other workers across the American landscape. Because federal courts enjoy a great deal of autonomy, and many federal judges serve for life, it can be especially difficult for employees to report hostile conduct or other abuse. Despite years-long promises of a reckoning, clerks and others have said in interviews that the system's internal checks are broken.

“It is disheartening to hear about incidents of sexual assault and harassment involving judicial employees who lack trustworthy and safe avenues to report and navigate these horrifying and traumatic encounters,” said Rep. Norma Torres, a Democrat from California.

“The federal Judiciary must urgently establish robust systems to handle sexual harassment claims, because clearly its longstanding reliance on the good character and conduct of individuals alone has been grossly insufficient."

Limited Access to Employees

Torres commissioned the study after judicial authorities appeared to limit cooperation with a separate probe by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. House lawmakers including Torres had raised concerns about a lack of transparency and efficacy of the mechanisms to report harassment, and wanted an audit to review them.

But GAO auditors were able to interview only one current judiciary employee, despite clear instructions from members of Congress that the judicial branch should share information.

“We have waited on the Judiciary to prove it is capable of protecting its employees, and sadly it has failed to do so,” Torres added. “Congress will be forced to step in.”

The federal courts promised a reckoning in 2017, after prominent 9th Circuit appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski abruptly resigned following sexual harassment accusations from more than 15 women.

Six years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts created a working group of federal judges and an Office of Judicial Integrity in Washington, D.C. Across the country, the regional courts of appeals have hired directors of workplace relations and appointed others who already work for the federal courts to help provide informal advice.

The new study relied in part on interviews with judges, administrators and other employees and offered nearly three dozen recommendations to overhaul the current system. The groups that led the study said their goal is to “pursue and encourage” change, but they lack the power to compel the judiciary to act.

Among the key findings: the judiciary offers training, but judges and other workers are not required to attend. And only about one in four judicial web sites open to the public contain all the information they are required to share about resolving disputes on the job and employee rights, the study said. Eleven percent of the web sites have no information at all about workplace misconduct.

“The ability of courts to fulfill their mission and perform their functions is based on the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary,” wrote the authors of the new study.

Alaska Judge Resigns After Tip

But people who closely follow the issues say the judiciary has not done nearly enough to police wrongdoing within its own ranks. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Alaska resigned after only four years on the bench following an investigation that found he fostered a hostile work environment in his chambers. That probe apparently began with a tip, not a formal complaint filed by a clerk using the path the judiciary has created.

Olivia Warren, who blew the whistle on a different federal judge years ago, told NPR after reading the judiciary’s report on the Alaska judge that the system still does not protect clerks.

“This is another day of shame, shame, shame on the judiciary,” Warren said earlier this month. “To the extent that the judiciary says that their reporting mechanisms and the changes they’ve made are working, there is nothing in this report that suggests that law clerks actually reported.”

The comprehensive new study pointed out that employees who want a lawyer to represent them in the complaint process must pay for one out of their own pockets. More than a half dozen whistleblowers have told NPR that it’s difficult to hire an attorney to navigate the byzantine system.

And, unlike workers in other organizations, judiciary employees are not able to ask for or receive money damages if their complaints are found to have merit. The new study suggests that the availability of financial damages could help encourage more people to come forward with concerns.

The report also highlighted the lack of tools employees might use to report confidentially, and the potential conflicts of interest inherent in judges hearing employment disputes involving their own colleagues. Some judges told researchers it would be better for jurists from other courts to serve as presiding officers in those cases.

The study by NAPA and the FJC also suggested that the judiciary may want to consider publishing more information about its decisions in employee dispute cases, to help build confidence within its own workforce and with the public. Those findings could also help guide judges who hear the disputes, to reduce disparities or inconsistencies among similar cases.

The judiciary conducted a nationwide survey of its workforce in January 2023 but it has not made those results public. Judges told NAPA and the FJC that they thought having access to that information could help highlight problems and areas of concern. The study authors said they were not able to review the data or findings from the workforce survey, either.