Court System to Survey Attorneys About Sexual Harassment, Gender Bias in Courts
Starting this month, the New York State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts will administer an online survey to a random sample of attorneys to see what progress has been made in eliminating gender bias in the courts and if there is more work to be done, according to a release from Office of Court Administration.
November 15, 2018 at 05:18 PM
4 minute read
More than 30 years since the release of a landmark report detailing pervasive discrimination against women in New York courts, an Office of Court Administration committee of judges and attorneys tapped to address bias issues is conducting a new survey to get a comprehensive look at gender fairness in the courts.
Starting this month, the New York State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts will administer an online survey to a random sample of attorneys to see what progress has been made in eliminating gender bias in the courts and if there is more work to be done, according to a release from the OCA.
When conducting its survey on bias in the courts more than three decades ago, the task force that eventually gave rise to the women's committee focused its energies on assessing the treatment of women litigants, attorneys and court employees.
This time, the committee will focus on facility issues that affect female attorneys, such as making accommodations for lactation; and sexual harassment, said committee chairwoman Betty Weinberg Ellerin, a retired state Supreme Court justice who served on the Appellate Division, First Department and who is now senior counsel at Alston & Bird.
Over the past year, since the #MeToo movement has led to the ouster of powerful people in a wide array of institutions, sexual harassment and abuse has become a top priority in many workplaces.
New York's court system has not seen the kind of high-profile exits that have shaken up Hollywood and Washington, D.C., though as the Law Journal reported earlier this month, the court system, with more than 16,000 employees, has not gone without its own allegations of sexual misconduct.
Since the task force conducted its work in the mid-1980s, society has reframed its views of what is considered inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
“The fact is that in many instances the same kind of conduct maybe existed in the 80s,” Ellerin said.
The women's committee is building off of work started by a task force created in 1984 at the behest of Sol Wachtler, then the chief judge of the state Court of Appeals, to study how women are treated in the courts—as employees, judges, attorneys and litigants—and launched a 22-month investigation into the matter.
When the task force handed over its report in 1986, the picture it painted for what women endured in the court system was a dark one: bias against women was rampant, the report states, and women disproportionately faced a “climate of condescension, indifference and hostility.”
At the time, physical abuse was cited as the reason for divorces granted in almost 40 percent of cases, the report states. Yet some Family Court judges on the bench back then seemed underinformed about domestic violence. It was not uncommon for victims to be blamed for provoking attacks against them, and not to be believed that they were being abused unless their injuries were visible.
As for female attorneys, while their numbers were growing in the mid-1980s, with some reporting significant improvements in the way they're treated, there was a “widespread perception” that judges, male attorneys and court employees did not treat female attorneys with the same dignity as their male counterparts.
The most commonly cited examples of inappropriate conduct toward female attorneys were being subjected to being addressed in familiar terms, comments about their appearance or sexual advances, according to the task force report.
“While we have come a long way in eliminating gender bias in the courts since the release of the task force's seminal report, our work is not yet finished,” said Chief Judge Janet DiFiore in the news release. “We must continue, through study, education and reform, to open the doors of opportunity and tear down barriers to justice.”
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 AllCourt System's Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission Presents Annual Diversity Awards
Trending Stories
- 1The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
- 2Del. Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 3Another Senior Boeing Attorney Exits, This One for CLO Post at Jet-Maintenance Company
- 4Bridge the Communication Gap: The Benefits of Having (and Being) a Bilingual Mediator
- 5CFIUS Is Locked and Loaded, but What Lies Ahead for CFIUS Enforcement Activity?
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