California Court Leaders Mum on Judiciary Harassment Settlements
In providing the sexual harassment settlement amounts in aggregate, lawyers for the Judicial Council declined to identify the judges, the terms of the settlements or the nature of the allegations.
March 27, 2018 at 10:39 PM
3 minute read
California's court leaders are staying mostly mum about revelations that the judiciary branch paid more than $600,000 to investigate and settle harassment complaints against judges and court employees over the last eight years.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye addressed the payments briefly Tuesday during an interview with Michael Krasny, host of San Francisco public radio station KQED's public affairs show “Forum.” She confirmed the settlement figures cited in The Recorder and elsewhere were “accurately reported.”
“Unacceptable,” Krasny said.
“Absolutely,” Cantil-Sakauye responded.
“Egregious,” Krasny continued.
“Shocking,” Cantil-Sakauye replied.
The interview didn't explore any additional thinking from Cantil-Sakauye, and she didn't elaborate.
A spokesman for the chief justice later declined The Recorder's request for an interview, saying she could not comment on the settlement records “because of the possibility of litigation.” He did not elaborate.
In providing the sexual harassment settlement amounts in aggregate, lawyers for the Judicial Council declined to identify the judges, the terms of the settlements or the nature of the allegations.
Judiciary officials cited broad exemptions in the California Rule of Court—Rule 10.500—that governs requests for judicial administrative requests. The Judicial Council adopted the rule in 2009 after the governor signed legislation requiring the branch to craft and abide by its own public records laws.
The courts have largely escaped the “Me Too” scrutiny that forced the Legislature—which, like the courts, operates under its own public records rules—to reveal this year the names of lawmakers and high-ranking legislative aides facing credible accusations of harassment. The criticism compelled legislative leaders to revamp their harassment complaint processes and to propose numerous bills addressing sexual misconduct in the workplace.
The judicial settlement records caused no such public response. Branch leaders have issued no calls for a review of harassment reporting policies.
The documents were made public Friday, a day after legislators left Sacramento for their annual weeklong spring recess.
Assembly Judiciary Committee Chairman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, reached by email Tuesday, said that just because the judiciary or any other state entity claims an exemption from public records laws “does not mean that it should.”
“The Legislature has stepped up and made many of its formerly confidential records public, something that the public appreciates and deserves.,” Stone said. “I believe that all three branches of government, as well as the public, would be better off if more of this information were released.”
Read more:
Judicial Council Paid $500K-Plus to Settle Sexual Harassment Claims
Misconduct Claims Against Appellate Judge Raise Novel Workplace Questions
California Weighs Banning Workplace Secret Settlements
Federal Judiciary Unveils First Reforms From Harassment Working Group
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 AllAdvisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
3 minute readSonoma County Judge Disciplined for Diving Too Far Into Local School Debate
5 minute read'Clear Abuse of Discretion': 9th Circuit Says Judge Should Have Recused From Death Row Inmate's Lawsuit
Judges Say Social Media and Political Polarization Puts Them in Danger
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
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