Supreme Court Keeps 'Fairness and Diversity' Change
The change came amid a high-profile push by Gov. Ron DeSantis to curb diversity-related programs in state colleges and universities.
September 08, 2023 at 04:36 PM
4 minute read
Cases and CourtsThe Florida Supreme Court kept in place a decision to delete part of a rule that allowed judges to take courses in "fairness and diversity" to meet continuing-education requirements.
The justices in February approved the change but then accepted comments about the decision. In a 5-1 order Thursday, the court said it had considered comments and determined that "no further amendments to the rule are warranted at this time."
As he did in February, Justice Jorge Labarga criticized the change.
"I continue to believe that fairness and diversity education is of great benefit to Florida's judiciary and those who interact with Florida's state courts. To that end, I dissent to today's order and reaffirm my belief that 'the purpose of providing express consideration to fairness and diversity education has been to complement the canons [in the Code of Judicial Conduct], and in the hopes of addressing the extremely complex issue that is discrimination, to educate the judiciary on strategies for recognizing and combatting discrimination,'" Labarga wrote in Thursday's dissent, partially quoting from his comments in February.
The majority Thursday was made up of Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices Charles Canady, John Couriel, Jamie Grosshans and Renatha Francis. Justice Meredith Sasso, who was appointed to the court in May, did not take part.
The issue involves a requirement that judges receive training in judicial ethics. In the past, the rule said, "Approved courses in fairness and diversity also can be used to fulfill the judicial ethics requirement."
The revised rule says, "The portions of approved courses which pertain to judicial professionalism, opinions of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, and the Code of Judicial Conduct can be used to fulfill the judicial ethics requirement."
The Supreme Court, which determines rules for the court system, did not detail reasons for the change Thursday. But in the February decision, the majority pushed back against Labarga's criticism and said the "pre-amendment rule text was overbroad, because course content about 'fairness and diversity' might or might not pertain to judicial ethics."
"Although we have deleted from [the part of the rule] the unilluminating and frequently contested term 'fairness and diversity,' course content on procedural fairness and nondiscrimination will continue to qualify for ethics credit," the decision said. "The revised rule text explicitly says that ethics credit will be given for classes on the Code of Judicial Conduct. And a review of the relevant Code provisions shows that civility and equal regard for the legal rights of every person are at the heart of judicial professionalism."
The change came amid a high-profile push by Gov. Ron DeSantis to curb diversity-related programs in state colleges and universities. DeSantis and Republican lawmakers last year also passed what he dubbed the "Stop WOKE Act," which placed restrictions on how race-related issues can be addressed in schools and workplace training, though federal-court battles continue over whether the restrictions are constitutional.
In February, the Supreme Court said it made the continuing-education changes "on its own motion," meaning it was not acting on a petition that had been filed.
But in comments submitted in April, the Cuban American Bar Association asked justices to reconsider the decision, which it described as "ill advised."
"CABA [the Cuban American Bar Association] was founded, in part, because of a perception that the administration of justice was not always handled fairly or uniformly, particularly when persons on the opposite side of the bench are perceived as different, 'diverse,' or 'other,'" leaders of the group wrote. "While numerous studies suggest that this perception has a basis in reality, it does not necessarily mean that the unequal administration of justice is done with ill intent. Judicial ethics education categorized as 'fairness and diversity' tends to address those issues directly and is often an invaluable tool in assisting a judge to administer justice in a manner closer to that 'fair' ideal."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
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