Please disable your adblock and script blockers to view this page

Federal courts drop survey question about workplace misconduct after judges? staffers said they?d witnessed such problems


the workplace.”The
the U.S. Courts
Congress
the Office of Judicial Integrity
Van Nest & Peters
D-Calif
the U.S. Court of Appeals
the 9th Circuit
The Washington Post
Workplace Conduct Protections & Employment Dispute Resolution
EDR
tactic.”Sellers
Judiciary
Justice Department


David Sellers
John G. Roberts Jr.’s
Deeva Shah
Keker
Norma J. Torres
Alex Kozinski
Michael Henry
concern.”Glenn Fine

No matching tags

No matching tags

No matching tags

No matching tags

No matching tags

Positivity     35.00%   
   Negativity   65.00%
The New York Times
SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federal-court-workplace-misconduct/2022/01/13/1c4a0b6e-7481-11ec-bc13-18891499c514_story.html
Write a review: The Washington Post
Summary

The judge stepped down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit after The Washington Post reported in 2017 that 15 women had accused him of a range of misconduct.As part of the judiciary’s response, its administrative office is holding training sessions for the people who work inside judges’ chambers — often an insular environment in which individual judges wield tremendous power and influence over their employees’ careers.Last week, the administrative office invited all law clerks, paralegals, judge secretaries and judicial assistants to attend an online training session titled “Workplace Conduct Protections & Employment Dispute Resolution” to “explore employment rights in the federal judiciary, the avenues for reporting misconduct and obtaining guidance, the EDR process, and options for resolution.”The training, scheduled for Jan. 25, is for those who work in judges’ chambers — about 6,500 employees throughout the country.A few hours after the invitation and registration link were distributed on Jan. 5, the query about workplace conduct was removed.This week, judicial integrity officer Michael Henry began contacting the 34 individuals who responded affirmatively to the question to provide guidance on resources related to workplace protections.The court’s administrative office declined to provide details about the locations or job titles of the employees who answered yes.Torres said she was concerned to learn that the judicial integrity officer had contacted the employees, saying such a step could be viewed as an “intimidation tactic.”Sellers, the court spokesman, said Henry had assured respondents that their “confidentiality would be preserved.”“The Judiciary has multiple well-established avenues for employees to report,” Sellers said.

As said here by Ann E. Marimow