Georgia Courts Urged to Overhaul Sexual Harassment Policies
An eight-judge committee appointed by Georgia's chief justice issued a report Friday recommending all courts implement or revise sexual harassment prevention policies based on the report's suggested best practices applicable to judges and all judicial branch employees.
December 06, 2019 at 02:43 PM
4 minute read
The majority of Georgia's courts do not have sexual harassment policies that define prohibited conduct, nor do they have a reporting and investigation process that judicial branch employees can turn to, according to a report released Friday by a Supreme Court of Georgia committee.
The committee found most courts across the state do not conduct regular sexual harassment training for judges and judicial branch employees, although some staff may receive training from the city or county where they are employed, according to the report. As a result, anti-harassment policies that may have been put in place by individual courts, the state's judicial councils or cities and counties "may not be enforceable against judges by the entities that promulgated the policies," the report concludes.
The report was presented to the Judicial Council of Georgia, the state judiciary's policymaking body, on Friday by Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren. Warren was appointed in February by Chief Justice Harold Melton to chair the Ad Hoc Committee to Prevent Sexual Harassment.
Melton created the committee in February to encourage courts across the state to establish sexual harassment policies and procedures for accepting and responding to complaints, as well as to provide training to prevent harassment, intimidation and reprisals.
The committee is comprised of eight judges representing each kind of court in Georgia. It reviewed and evaluated anti-harassment policies from state and federal courts, as well as policies that apply to Georgia's executive branch before issuing Friday's report.
The committee realized early on that sexual harassment policies put in place by cities or counties across the state "do not necessarily apply to judicial branch employees within the same class of court, let alone to employees throughout the judicial branch as a whole," according to the report. "That is because judicial employees in a given class of court may not be employed by the same entity, and some may not be covered by any policy at all. To make matters even more complex, the judges in a given class of court may be employed by a different entity than the employees."
"These differences work against the ability to impose a uniform policy for the entire judicial branch," the report said.
The Supreme Court of Georgia, the Court of Appeals, the Council of Superior Court Judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts currently have anti-harassment policies in place.
Currently, the primary recourse against a judge regarding sexual harassment allegations is the state Judicial Qualifications Commission, the report found. The 10-member JQC, which operates largely in secret, investigates alleged violations of the state Code of Judicial Conduct by judges but not their staff or other court officers. Complainants are barred from publicly discussing their cases on penalty of contempt of court. Investigations and other proceedings are handled in secret unless formal charges are brought against a judge or the JQC recommends that the state Supreme Court take disciplinary measures.
The report recommends that all courts implement or revise sexual harassment prevention policies based on a set of best practices included in the report that would apply to judges and all judicial branch employees. The report also urges individual courts to mandate that judges and judicial branch employees alike participate in sexual harassment prevention training and advocates the adoption of a uniform system for reporting and investigating sexual harassment claims.
Read the report:
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
© 2025 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 AllGeorgia's Governor Details Spending Plans but Not His Top Priority of Lawsuit Reform
6 minute readFourth Circuit Seeks More Legal Briefs in Unresolved N.C. Supreme Court Election
4 minute readFulton DA Seeks to Overturn Her Disqualification From Trump Georgia Election Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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