First-ever report on federal judiciary workplace misconduct shows dozens of abuse allegations

More than 100 allegations of abusive conduct were reported by federal court employees between 2021 and 2023, according to data released Wednesday from the federal judiciary’s first workplace report.

The report, which was released in response to concerns about how the judiciary handles workplace harassment, defines abusive conduct as “a pattern of demonstrably egregious and hostile” behavior that interferes with an employee’s work or creates an abusive environment.

It details the steps the federal court system has taken since 2018 to provide employees with pathways to report and address workplace concerns, including hiring individuals to offer confidential advice to workers about their options.

Judiciary leaders have sought to encourage more courthouse employees to report misconduct since Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California retired in 2017 amid allegations of workplace sexual misconduct.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who oversees the nation’s federal courts, and others have strongly resisted calls from advocates and members of Congress who have backed legislation to impose independent oversight on the courts and extend antidiscrimination protections to the judiciary’s employees.

And critics say problems have persisted, citing the case this summer of an judge in Alaska who gave up his lifetime appointment to the bench after he was investigated and found to have engaged in sexual misconduct with his employees.

The report released Wednesday details 105 allegations of abusive conduct, along with 89 allegations of retaliation for reporting misconduct and 29 alleged violations of whistleblower protections. It also details scores of other allegations of misconduct, including discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, age, disability and religion. In many instances, a single allegation of misconduct is reported in multiple categories.

According to the report, there were 178 cases filed in the federal judiciary’s employee dispute resolution process between fiscal 2021 and 2023. Of those, 150 were resolved as of Sept. 30, 2023, which was the end of that fiscal year.

One case concerned U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Kindred of Alaska, who stepped down from the bench after the 9th Circuit Judicial Council concluded he had violated the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The council referred the matter to the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the U.S. courts, which asked Congress in September to consider impeaching Kindred.

The former law clerk, who is unnamed, made the complaint while working for the U.S. attorney’s office in Alaska, which is part of the Justice Department. She also filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and with the Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative agency, accusing the agency of retaliation against her by failing to appoint her to a permanent position.

The Office of Special Counsel announced Wednesday that it had closed its investigation after the former law clerk and the Justice Department reached a settlement.

[Federal prosecutors: Resigned Alaska federal judge had conflict of interest in 23 criminal cases]

Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, pointed to the multiple investigations into Kindred’s conduct by the court system - and the recommendation by the judicial council that he resign - as a “robust example of our judicial conduct structure.”

While allegations of wrongdoing remain rare, Conrad told reporters, “we want to be serious about responding to it.”

The report also outlines how the federal court system has tried to encourage its 30,000 employees to come forward with any misconduct claims. The judiciary has expanded its workplace conduct education and training efforts and encouraged judges take action to “address concerns of wrongful conduct brought to their attention, even if the judge is not in a supervisory role with respect to the alleged wrongdoer,” it says.

Conrad pushed back against lawmakers and court transparency advocates who say the system has done little to address misconduct since Kozinski retired under pressure. Change takes time to implement, he told reporters, and recent efforts are starting to pay off.

“This is not the systemic failure that some critics stuck in a six-year time warp have used to describe the judiciary’s efforts. It is rather sustained systemic improvement,” Conrad said. “There is some sense that some of the criticism is stuck in 2018 and ignores the very real, concrete steps the judiciary has taken over the last six years.”

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, welcomed the report but said more action is needed, including the release of results from a large-scale survey of court employees early last year that asked about workplace issues.

“Impeding or delaying robust reforms is a disservice to the employees of the courts, and I encourage the office to take additional steps to ensure every judiciary employee is entitled to a workplace free of misconduct,” Durbin said in a statement.

Conrad told reporters that the results of the national workplace survey would be kept confidential but that a working group would release recommendations based on the findings in “the first quarter of 2025.”

Rep. Norma J. Torres (D-California), who has worked alongside Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia) in the House to address sexual harassment and workplace misconduct concerns in the judiciary, said she was disappointed that Conrad denied there were systemic problems in the courts.

“Sexual assault and harassment are pervasive issues that demand substantive and urgent action, not rhetoric,” she said in a statement.

Johnson issued a statement calling on the courts to extend antidiscrimination protections to their employees. “This report demonstrates progress towards strengthening the judiciary’s internal processes for workplace protections,” his statement said. “But these small steps alone are not enough. Judiciary employees deserve equal protection under the law.”