House Questions Effectiveness of Sexual Misconduct Reforms in Wake of Judge's Repeated Harassment
The lawmakers focused on sexual harassment by U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia, who admitted to repeatedly sexually harassing female judiciary employees.
February 06, 2020 at 05:04 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A bipartisan group on the House Judiciary Committee is questioning the judiciary's efforts to address harassment in the workplace after a federal trial judge in Kansas was found last year to have repeatedly sexually harassed his employees.
A letter, dated Thursday and signed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and Reps. Hank Johnson, Jim Sensenbrenner and Mary Gay Scanlon, focuses on the conduct of U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia, who was found to have sexually harassed staff and had an extramarital affair with a felon on probation.
The Judicial Council for the Tenth Circuit issued a public reprimand of Murguia in September, the strongest sanction in its arsenal. However, the lawmakers on Thursday questioned whether reforms being taken up by the federal judiciary aimed at preventing that kind of judicial misconduct are strong enough.
The House members said the council's order on Murguia's conduct "calls into question the adequacy of the Judiciary's recent steps to better protect its employees from wrongful workplace conduct—steps which we would like to welcome as much-needed progress in this area."
The letter notes that while the Judicial Conference has been addressing workplace misconduct through a working group, formed in 2017 at the direction of Chief Justice John Roberts, the council's findings "document very troubling workplace behavior by an active judge that was never reported."
"We support the Judiciary's attention to these important matters but find it difficult to square the public record regarding Judge Murguia's misconduct with the Working Group's guiding principles and status report," the members wrote.
The letter is addressed to James Duff, the secretary of the Judicial Conference, as well as U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich and Chief District Judge Julie Robinson for the District of Kansas.
The lawmakers included a series of questions about what steps have been taken in light of Murguia's conduct, including whether the employees he harassed still work for him and whether there have been any investigations into why none of Murguia's staff felt comfortable reporting his behavior. They requested answers by Feb. 20.
"We hope there will be a frank examination of the adequacy of the steps taken to address what the Tenth Circuit has documented as Judge Murguia's misconduct and what further actions are needed to ensure that the Judicial Branch provides a safe workplace for all of its employees," the letter reads.
The House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the courts also announced Thursday a hearing on Feb. 13 focused on misconduct within the federal judiciary.
The Tenth Circuit Judicial Council found that Murguia gave preferential treatment to female employees in the judiciary and engaged in "sexually suggestive comments, inappropriate text messages, and excessive non-work-related contacts, much of which occurred after work hours and often late at night."
Murguia admitted to committing the alleged actions, apologized and promised to not continue the behavior in the future, according to the council's order.
The council's sanction is not the last action that can be taken against Murguia. Under the federal judiciary's rules, the matter has been transferred to the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability for further review.
Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the creation of a working group focused on workplace conduct within the federal judiciary in 2017. That group issued recommendations in 2018, including changes to the code of conduct for judges and offering new ways to report issues, and published a status report in September 2019.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 2Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 3Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 4Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 5UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250