Law clerks and federal public defenders are often left with little to no legal recourse when subjected to mistreatment by members of the judiciary, due to the federal judiciary’s exemption from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such employees are unable to pursue legal action and claim damages caused by such misconduct. However, Caryn Devins Strickland, a former North Carolina federal public defender, is challenging this status quo through a lawsuit, representing the interests of over 31,000 federal judiciary employees across the United States.
Strickland experienced harassment and stalking by the first assistant, the second most powerful member of the Federal Defender Office (FDO) for the Western District of North Carolina from 2017 to 2019. The implications of this harassment extended beyond her work environment, leading to her departure from the organization, and causing irreversible damage to her career and reputation.
The judiciary’s primary mechanism for internal redress, Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR), widely criticized due to its lack of procedural fairness and effectiveness, was ironically the only option available to Strickland. She filed a lawsuit in 2020, arguing that her Fifth Amendment right to a discrimination-free workplace was infringed upon, and challenging the fairness of the EDR Plan and its operation.
Strickland’s lawsuit against the judiciary, which was dismissed and later partially revived in 2022, initiated crucial conversations on the credibility of sexual harassment allegations, and could potentially urge the judiciary towards a #MeToo reckoning. Despite its shortcomings and inefficiencies, the judiciary insists on implementing EDR and remains opposed to applying Title VII to itself. The judiciary’s refusal to recognize and address this issue sends a disturbing message to law clerks and public defenders, who already struggle for anonymity, confidentiality, and protection against retaliation.
The EDR’s systemic issues—lack of neutrality, non-standardization, absence of outside oversight, ineffectual retaliation protection, unavailability of monetary remedies through EDR, unduly burdensome requirements for complainants, refusal to release data on Plan’s utilization, and lack of procedural due process—reflect the judiciary’s belief in its immunity from the laws they interpret, and its ignorance toward the daily experiences of law clerks.
If Strickland’s case leads to a favorable decision, this could potentially call for an overhaul of the EDR Plan, which the judiciary could currently amend without the intervention of Congress. However, Congress’s attention and judiciary committee hearings could also drive changes in the Third Branch. The Judiciary Accountability Act contains several desirable changes to the EDR Plan and is expected to extend Title VII protections to law clerks and federal public defenders, pending congressional approval.
Strickland’s case signifies a notable shift in the discussion around workplace protections for judiciary employees and highlights the urgent need for a reckoning within the judiciary. As the widespread implications of her lawsuit become more apparent, it is crucial that the voices of struggling judiciary employees are honored and the necessary steps are taken to reform the system.