Four years ago, Olivia Warren made a choice that would change her life.
Warren described to Congress how Stephen Reinhardt, a prominent federal appeals court judge who died in 2018, left a drawing of women’s body parts at her desk, demeaned her appearance, and questioned her husband’s masculinity while she served as his law clerk.
Looking back now, Warren said, she would not recommend others follow her path and speak out about abuse by federal judges. In fact, she said, she advises young lawyers not to pursue elite clerkship opportunities, because she thinks the risks are too great.
“I don’t think anything has changed,” she said. “I still have not received an apology from the judiciary about what happened to me. I no longer expect one. I’m not holding my breath.”
Above the law?
Millions of people who experience harassment on the job enjoy workplace protections, whether they report to private companies, nonprofit groups or even the U.S. Congress. But that’s not the case for some 30,000 people who work for the federal judiciary. That branch of government is largely exempt from the civil rights law that protects workers and job applicants from discrimination.
“I think the judiciary sees itself in a lot of ways as above the law,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of the watchdog group Fix the Court, a group that advocates for more transparency and accountability in the federal court system. “It sees itself as separate and different.”
Jeremy Fogel, who served as a state and federal judge for 37 years, explained why judicial employees have been considered different.
“The history of that distinction is separation of powers and the concerns for judicial independence and worrying that Congress would over-regulate how the judiciary conducts its business,” Fogel said.
Fogel, who now runs the Berkeley Judicial Institute, said he does not think Congress necessarily needs to act.
“But I think if you don’t legislate something, then the judiciary has to be proactive,” he added.
For more on this story, please visit npr.org.