Massachusetts Courts Mum About Policy After Judge's Alleged Sexual Misconduct
Massachusetts implemented a policy last year prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation within its court system. The policy came soon after a state judge stepped down following sexual misconduct claims.
July 10, 2020 at 04:31 PM
4 minute read
It should have been good news, but Massachusetts court officials are silent about a policy aimed at preventing retaliation and discrimination.
The policy followed a case that made statewide news in Massachusetts, when a former drug court clinician filed a 2018 lawsuit against a state judge for allegedly forcing her to perform sex acts on him in chambers.
That judge—Thomas Estes—resigned in June 2018, a day after being suspended indefinitely, according to news reports. He denied the allegations, claiming the sexual encounters were consensual.
And then in 2019—soon after the Estes episode—the Massachusetts Trial Court implemented policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the court system and created a new Office of Workplace Rights & Compliance, which helped develop a detailed training program for all court judges and staff.
Daniel Sullivan, general counsel for the Trial Court, declined numerous requests for interviews to discuss the policy, and the Trial Court denied a request to provide data on sex harassment and discrimination cases in that state's court system going back seven years. The Trial Court said that, as part of the judicial branch of government, it is not subject to either the Freedom of Information Act or the Massachusetts Public Records Law.
The timing of the court's addressing discrimination within its ranks didn't come as a surprise to some in the legal arena in the Bay State.
While Boston attorney Elisa Filman said she doesn't know for sure whether the new Trial Court policies were in reaction to the Estes case, she said, "What happened with Judge Estes was probably the tipping point."
Filman, a founding partner with Rodman Employment Law, represents employees in disputes with their employers.
"The trial courts are adjudicating cases that are involving employment law like sexual harassment, when things like with Judge Estes is going on behind closed doors," she said. "They have some work to do."
Filman said that while it would have been better for the policies to have been implemented years ago, it's never too late.
"Maybe the Trial Court took culture cues and realized the system's credibility was on the line, and then promulgated this policy to thwart future bad acts," Filman said.
Others said the #MeToo movement could have also played a part in the Trial Court acting when it did.
Tara Swartz, founder of Swartz Law Boston, said the Estes saga, "coupled with the #MeToo movement," could have played a part in the timing of the new rules.
"It's never too late to institute a policy that will help train the workforce to be more knowledgeable of their actions in order to ensure that people are treating each other appropriately in the workplace," said Swartz, an attorney for two decades who said her practice dealing with sex harassment cases has grown over the last few years, in part, due to the #MeToo movement.
Boston attorney Nick Carter, a litigation partner at Todd & Weld, said Friday, "Certainly what is going on nationally with the #MeToo movement and the Black Lives Matter movement impacts the courts, as they do everything else. I'm sure the Trial Court is sensitive to those issues. … But the court system, like every institution, has a way to go."
Carter, also a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association's Judicial Administration Section Counsel, continued: "I think Ralph Gants, the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, has a keen eye for making the justice system in the state more just."
Related stories:
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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
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