Lifting the Robe a Little Too Much?

Every now and then, a story comes along that is likely to dominate the blogosphere and, because it relates to an employment situation, demands HR Law Guy's attention. 

Here is such a case. 

The 11th Circuit, which is headquartered in Atlanta and administers the federal courts in the southeastern part of the United States, issued an order recently, following a judicial complaint about one of its judges (who is not identified), alleging conduct that under almost any other circumstance would be disqualifying. Amazingly, the judge has not been recommended for impeachment or removed from hearing cases but merely given a private reprimand for: engaging in multiple sex acts inside chambers, doing so with a high-ranking police official (who is also not identified), having such a good time that it was audibly apparent to the clerks that the judge was having sex in chambers, lying about it to judicial investigators when this conduct was reported, and then targeting the clerk that the judge believed made the initial report of judicial misconduct.  

A couple of points.  In addition to providing a new definition for the legal term "noisy withdrawal" (sometimes the jokes write themselves, folks), this situation raises a host of fairly serious issues.  First and foremost is why the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, which acts as a kind of human resources department for federal judges, felt it was appropriate to just reprimand a judge who lied about crucial matters being investigated by his/her employer.  In almost any other corporate setting, mendacity like this gets you terminated.* This is particularly true when the potential fallout from the misconduct is so wide-ranging; depending on the actual role of the police official, the judge's romantic involvement could put at risk dozens, if not hundreds, of criminal convictions in which this official or his/her reports were involved.  

If that wasn't enough, you have the relatively straightforward issue of illegal retaliation directed against a clerk who was simply doing the right thing in reporting judicial misconduct. That also should get you more than a wrist-slap.

And it's not like this is the first time a situation like this occurred. Fairly recently, a federal judge in Alaska who engaged in a tryst with one of the attorneys that appeared before him was forced to resign.  Why the different result?

Finally, I'm hoping that some enterprising attorney who knows the identities in this matter files a bar complaint against the judge. There should be some kind of professional and permanent hit for this type of conduct on the part of an official that the public relies on for guidance and temperament.  

*Federal judges are appointed for life, and can only be removed by impeachment and trial in Congress.

UPDATE:  As predicted, once the judge at issue was identified as U.S. District Judge Eleanor L. Ross, the motions to remove her from cases began rolling in.  In addition, a Georgia Congressman indicates he will start impeachment proceedings.  That seems appropriate.

NFL Fumbles DEI Policies

An interesting blend of sports and employment law is developing down in Florida, where the attorney general has launched an inquiry into the National Football League's hiring practices. 

No, this isn't a challenge to the Dolphins’ lousy draft picks over the last several years. Rather, it relates to the NFL’s so-called “Rooney Rule,” which mandates that clubs seeking to hire for certain positions must interview minority candidates as part of any hiring process. The intent of the Rule originally was to diversify NFL coaching ranks, allegedly in light of the fact that although the majority of the league's players were African American, only about 10 to 15% of the head coaches were black.  The Rule has since expanded to require NFL teams to interview at least two candidates who are either persons of color and/or women for open head coach, general manager and offensive and defensive coordinator positions.  The League used the same principle to encompass several other hiring requirements, some of which the AG maintains were clearly discriminatory because they required teams to hire minority or women staff members or game officials.

 In response to the AG’s challenges, the NFL immediately modified some of its policies' language, which didn't make them look guilty or anything, and which simply aroused the suspicions of the AG investigative team. The Attorney General also points to other statements from the NFL indicating that it was looking to increase the number of minorities hired across its senior management positions. 

 You can read the letter here . What seems to be happening to the NFL is the same thing that is happening to a number of corporate entities across the country that embraced DEI policies over the last 10 years. Outright expressions of racial or gender preferences in those DEI policies now make those companies targets for both federal investigators and state Attorneys General looking for high profile cases with relatively straightforward evidence of illegal preferences in hiring or promotion.

 This one's going to drag on for a while. Stay tuned.

Follow-up:  Just in case you thought this wasn't going to reach any other major corporate players, the Attorney General of Texas just announced that his team is going after CVS with an eye to cutting their Medicaid participation because of their announced DEI policies.  We're talking some real money here now.