Alarming Results from U.S. Judiciary Workplace Survey Reveal Widespread Misconduct and Urgent Need for Reform

Introduction: A First-Ever Look Inside Courtroom Workplace Culture

In a landmark step toward transparency, the U.S. federal judiciary has released the results of its first-ever nationwide workplace survey. The 2023 survey reveals troubling insights: more than 8% of employees report experiencing harassment, discrimination, or other forms of abusive conduct in their jobs. These findings have spurred new reform proposals aimed at strengthening workplace protections across the court system.

The results underscore deep-rooted issues within the judiciary’s culture and highlight the continued fallout from the #MeToo movement, particularly within elite legal institutions previously seen as above reproach.

Key Findings from the Judiciary’s Workplace Survey

Conducted by the Federal Judicial Center at the request of the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group, the anonymous survey drew responses from 13,895 federal judiciary employees—nearly half of the court system’s 30,000-strong workforce.

Here are the most striking statistics:

• 34.7% of respondents reported experiencing some form of inappropriate behavior, such as being ignored, talked down to, or treated unprofessionally.
• 8.3% specifically reported experiencing wrongful conduct, including:
  • Sexual harassment
  • Employment discrimination
  • Abusive behavior by judges or supervisors

Of the respondents:

• 63 employees reported being harassed by a judge.
• 49 employees reported employment discrimination by a judge.
• 174 employees described other forms of abusive conduct by judges.

Notably, law clerks and judge’s chambers staff—often thought to be most vulnerable—reported the lowest rate of misconduct (4.6%). In contrast, federal public defender offices showed the highest misconduct rate (10.4%).

Showcase your excellence—earn a BCG Attorney Search ‘Top Law Firm’ badge today!

Culture of Silence: Most Employees Don’t Report Misconduct

Despite the concerning data, just 42% of employees said they would currently feel comfortable reporting misconduct. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson of Kansas, a member of the workplace reform group, said the low reporting rate points to a significant fear of retaliation and a lack of trust in the judiciary’s internal dispute resolution system.

“We have much work to do to address the reluctance of employees to seek help or report wrongful conduct,” said Judge Robinson.

Judges Under Scrutiny—But They’re Not the Only Problem

Although high-profile cases involving federal judges have drawn headlines, the survey shows that the majority of misconduct is committed by non-judicial supervisors and managers, as well as co-workers. The judiciary’s hierarchical and insular culture may be shielding bad behavior from scrutiny and accountability.

Get An Unfair Advantage In Your Career With BCG Attorney Search-Upload your resume to receive matching jobs at top law firms in your inbox.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit emphasized that while misconduct by judges is serious, it represents a small fraction of overall complaints.

Proposed Reforms: From Policy Tweaks to Legal Protections

In response to the survey findings, the working group has recommended new reforms to the U.S. Judicial Conference, the judiciary’s top policymaking body. These include:

• Clearer definitions of wrongful conduct, to reduce ambiguity.
• Improvements to internal dispute resolution procedures, such as:
  • Greater transparency
  • Stronger employee protections
  • More support for victims

Crucially, the reforms may also include provisions to allow employees to recover damages and attorneys’ fees, a right currently denied due to the judiciary’s exemption from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other federal employment laws.

Legal Loopholes: Why Court Employees Aren’t Protected Like Others

Unlike most federal workers, judiciary employees are not covered by Title VII, meaning they cannot sue for discrimination or harassment in the same way other government employees can. This legal gap has drawn bipartisan criticism from lawmakers and sparked calls for Congressional action to close loopholes in judicial accountability.

Advocacy groups argue that true reform requires external oversight, not just internal policy changes.

The Road Ahead: Can the Judiciary Police Itself?

While the judiciary’s willingness to conduct and publish this survey is a promising sign, critics warn that voluntary reforms may not be enough. Meaningful change will likely depend on a combination of:

• Legislative action
• Greater transparency
• Stronger protections for whistleblowers
• Independent mechanisms for investigation and enforcement

As courts continue to demand accountability from others, the public is increasingly demanding the same from them.

FAQs: U.S. Judiciary Workplace Misconduct Survey

What is the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group?
It is a task force established in 2018 by Chief Justice John Roberts to address workplace misconduct in the federal court system in response to the #MeToo movement.

Why are judiciary employees excluded from Title VII protections?
Federal judges and their staff are part of a constitutionally independent branch of government and are not covered by standard federal employment statutes unless Congress acts to include them.

What percentage of judiciary employees reported misconduct?
According to the 2023 survey, 8.3% experienced wrongful conduct such as harassment or discrimination, while 34.7% reported some form of inappropriate behavior.

What are the proposed reforms?
Recommendations include clearer definitions of misconduct, improvements to internal resolution systems, and potential compensation rights for victims.

Are judges the main offenders in misconduct cases?
No. While some judges were reported, the majority of complaints involved managers, mid-level officials, or co-workers.

Will these changes be enforced externally?
Currently, the reforms are internal, but pressure is mounting for Congress to enact statutory protections to ensure enforcement.

The post Workplace Misconduct in U.S. Courts: Survey Shows 8% Face Harassment or Discrimination first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The U.S. Justice Department concurred on Friday with the New York attorney general’s determination that former Governor Andrew Cuomo violated federal law by sexually harassing female staffers and retaliating against those who spoke up. This agreement between federal authorities and the state’s Executive Chamber was reached following a thorough examination of Cuomo’s actions.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Settlement Agreement and Reforms

The federal agency endorsed a settlement with the New York Executive Chamber, endorsing the reforms initiated by Cuomo’s successor, Kathy Hochul, to prevent and address such misconduct. Hochul’s measures included the termination of employees involved in facilitating or supporting retaliation against Cuomo’s accusers, the establishment of a human resources department, and the creation of additional channels for reporting instances of sexual harassment.

Expanded Reforms and Legal Actions

The Justice Department settlement expands upon Hochul’s reforms, mandating an enlargement of the human resources department, introducing new avenues for reporting and resolving complaints involving high-ranking officials, and implementing enhanced training and anti-retaliation initiatives.

In response to the announcement, Cuomo’s attorney, Rita Glavin, reiterated Cuomo’s denial of the allegations, criticizing the Justice Department’s investigation as solely reliant on the state attorney general’s report, which Glavin deemed biased and inaccurate.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Background and Conclusion

This development concludes an investigation initiated in August 2021, prompted by findings from New York’s Democratic attorney general, which revealed Cuomo’s inappropriate behavior toward 11 women and subsequent retaliatory actions against the first accuser to come forward. Cuomo resigned from his gubernatorial position under pressure from various quarters, including President Joe Biden.

In 2023, one of Cuomo’s aides filed a civil lawsuit alleging ongoing sexual harassment, which began in December 2019. Despite earlier criminal complaints, only one proceeded to the prosecutor’s office, which ultimately did not pursue charges due to insufficient evidence.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Justice Department Validates Cuomo Sexual Harassment Allegations first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent decision, the Ohio Supreme Court has delivered a rebuke to Mark Bennett, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Akron, who openly admitted to engaging in sexual misconduct. Despite the acknowledgment of wrongdoing, the court’s ruling allows Bennett to continue practicing law without immediate suspension, which has sparked dissent and raised concerns about the legal system’s response to such misconduct.

Court’s Verdict

In a 4-2 decision, the justices determined that Bennett deserved a two-year suspension for inappropriate conduct involving a 24-year-old law school intern working in his office. However, the suspension would only be enforced if Bennett engages in further misconduct, leading to criticism from those who believe a more decisive action should have been taken.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Legal Perspectives

Bennett’s lawyer, Richard Koblentz, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating they were “gratified the court saw it was appropriate not to remove him from the practice of law.” The court’s punishment exceeded Bennett’s recommendation of a six-month “stayed” suspension. Still, it fell short of the Ohio attorney ethics board’s suggestion of a six-month license revocation for what they deemed “open and notorious” unprofessional behavior.

Details of Misconduct

The court’s decision outlined Bennett’s inappropriate actions, revealing that he had asked the intern to send him nude photos and engaged in discussions about his marital sex life with her. Additionally, the intern alleged that Bennett had inappropriately touched her breasts with the back of his hand in a law library within the U.S. attorney’s office.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Bennett’s Response

Mark Bennett did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the court noted his expression of regret and remorse for his misconduct in their order.

Dissenting Opinion

Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy dissented, expressing concern that the majority ruling sends the wrong message to attorneys and the public. Kennedy argued that Bennett had “demeaned both the legal profession and his government office” and advocated for temporarily losing his license.

Kennedy’s dissent highlighted the potential implications of the decision, stating that it could convey to attorneys and the public that those in positions of power could engage in sexual harassment without facing significant consequences.

Disciplinary Office’s Stance

The state Office of Disciplinary Counsel supported Bennett’s argument for a stayed licensed suspension. The disciplinary office and Bennett’s lawyer asserted that while the behavior was inappropriate, it did not warrant the same punishment as instances where actual suspensions were imposed.

Bennett’s Current Status

According to state records, Bennett registered a law office in northern Ohio in 2020. His website indicates that he specializes in defense work, internal investigations, and commercial litigation. The controversy surrounding the court’s decision raises questions about the adequacy of disciplinary measures in attorney misconduct cases.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Ohio Supreme Court Issues Controversial Ruling on Former U.S. Prosecutor's Misconduct first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Introduction

Kiwi Camara, once celebrated as the youngest-ever graduate of Harvard Law School and one of the highest-paid CEOs in 2022, is now embroiled in a scandal that has tarnished his reputation. A recent Wall Street Journal exclusive report sheds light on allegations of sexual harassment against the former CEO. This article delves into the unfolding controversy, the abrupt nature of Camara’s departure, and the claims of sexual misconduct that have rocked the legal tech industry.

Camara’s Sudden Departure

The legal tech industry was stunned when news broke on September 11 about Kiwi Camara’s abrupt resignation as the CEO of DISCO, the e-discovery company he co-founded. What made the announcement even more shocking was the speculation that Camara might be relinquishing a substantial portion of his $110 million compensation package.

The official press release regarding Camara’s departure provided minimal insight, stating that he had “decided to step down from his roles as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors.” He would assist interim CEO Scott Hill during the transition as DISCO initiated the search for a permanent replacement.

Don’t miss out on exciting legal job openings – sign up for LawCrossing today.

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

The Wall Street Journal’s investigation exposed a troubling pattern of alleged sexual misconduct involving Camara. These allegations include the groping of a young female employee and other inappropriate actions that date back over a year, at least one of which resulted in a formal complaint. The most recent incident, alleged to have occurred during a September 6 dinner, prompted a formal investigation by the law firm Cooley on behalf of DISCO’s board.

Calls for Accountability

The Reddit thread also featured claims that the company terminated Camara due to specific sexual misconduct. These allegations underscore concerns that prior reports of sexual misconduct and harassment within DISCO were not adequately addressed by the HR team and the board, allowing such behavior to persist for years.

The allegations against Camara have prompted a call for accountability for him and other male chief executives within the company who are accused of similarly unacceptable behavior.

Stay ahead in the legal game! Subscribe to JDJournal for hassle-free access to the latest legal news in your inbox.

Employee Reviews on Glassdoor

Further condemnation of Camara’s leadership can be found in the scathing DISCO reviews on Glassdoor. Several reviews highlight employees’ dissatisfaction with the company’s work environment under Camara’s guidance, some even urging prospective employees to “run” or “avoid” joining the company.

Conclusion

Kiwi Camara’s swift fall from grace, from celebrated CEO to facing allegations of sexual harassment, has sent shockwaves through the legal tech industry. As the investigation unfolds and the allegations are scrutinized, the spotlight remains on DISCO’s HR team and board to address concerns of a toxic workplace culture that may have allowed such behavior to persist unchecked for years.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Kiwi Camara, Former CEO of DISCO, Faces Allegations of Sexual Harassment first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Michigan State University Engages Jones Day Law Firm to Investigate Confidentiality Breaches in Mel Tucker Sexual Harassment Inquiry

University Takes Action to Safeguard Confidentiality in Sensitive Matter

In response to concerns regarding the security of confidential information related to the sexual harassment investigation involving football coach Mel Tucker, Michigan State University (MSU) has taken proactive measures. MSU has enlisted the services of the esteemed law firm Jones Day to delve into alleged breaches of confidentiality.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Uncovering Confidentiality Breaches

The primary objective of this investigation is to ascertain whether sensitive and confidential details, such as the identity of Brenda Tracy, the complainant who came forward in December, were improperly shared by MSU officials or any other individuals involved in the case. Maintaining such sensitive matters’ confidentiality is paramount, particularly in Office for Civil Rights cases.

Jones Day: A Trusted Investigative Partner

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Jones Day has been chosen to spearhead this crucial investigation. The firm brings a wealth of experience to the table, having previously collaborated with MSU to assess how the university’s athletic department handled a 2018 report of sexual assault that involved multiple football players. Their expertise is instrumental in ensuring a comprehensive and impartial inquiry.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Commitment to Comprehensive Investigation

Emphasizing its dedication to upholding confidentiality and uncovering the truth, MSU has pledged to conduct a thorough investigation. With Jones Day at the helm, the inquiry will relentlessly pursue facts, leaving no stone unturned. Confidentiality remains central to the integrity of this investigation as the university takes strides to protect all parties involved.

By engaging in this process, Michigan State University aims to address the immediate concerns and reinforce its commitment to safeguarding the privacy and integrity of sensitive cases like this one.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Michigan State University’s Confidentiality Investigation with Jones Day first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and one-time personal attorney to former President Donald Trump, is facing yet another legal battle. A lawsuit filed in New York state court in New York County alleges that Giuliani offered a woman named Noelle Dunphy a $1 million annual salary to be the director of business development for his companies in 2019, but it was “a sham motivated by his secret desire to pursue a sexual relationship.”

According to the lawsuit, Giuliani never paid Dunphy the promised salary, citing the need to defer the compensation during his acrimonious divorce. After she was hired, the suit said, Giuliani “made clear that satisfying his sexual demands—which came virtually anytime, anywhere—was an absolute requirement of her employment.”

The suit, which was filed on May 15 and covered by publications such as Law360 and Reuters, further alleges that Giuliani drank excessively, making his behavior unpredictable, and he “took Viagra constantly.” He often forced Dunphy to perform oral sex on him, the suit alleged, and later allegedly pressured her to have intercourse. The suit said that Giuliani sometimes paid Dunphy in increments of no more than $5,000 in cash to tide her over and keep her obedient to him. She was paid no more than $12,000 for two years of work, she said.

Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that Giuliani directed Dunphy not to talk to the FBI and asked Dunphy for help “Googling information about obstruction of justice,” the suit alleged. According to the suit, he also told Dunphy that the team for then-President Donald Trump would claim voter fraud if he lost the 2020 presidential election.

Ready to make a change in your legal career? BCG Attorney Search can help you find the perfect job.

The lawsuit also alleges that Giuliani offered to represent Dunphy for free “in connection with an ongoing dispute arising from an abusive ex-partner,” in what the suit describes as an attempt to further control and manipulate her.

Causes of action in the suit include breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation of New York labor laws, assault, battery, retaliatory discharge, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination.

In response to the allegations, Giuliani spokesperson Ted Goodman told Reuters that Giuliani “unequivocally denies the allegations,” while a Giuliani representative told Law360 that the suit is harassment and an attempt at extortion.

Dunphy’s suit is the latest in a series of legal troubles for Giuliani. In April, the FBI executed a search warrant on Giuliani’s Manhattan apartment and office, seizing electronic devices. The search was reportedly related to an investigation into whether Giuliani violated lobbying laws by working on behalf of foreign officials and entities without registering with the U.S. government. Giuliani has denied any wrongdoing.

Giuliani is also facing a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems, which alleges that Giuliani made false statements about the company’s voting machines during the 2020 election. Giuliani has asked a judge to dismiss the suit, but the judge has allowed the case to proceed.

Overall, the allegations in Dunphy’s lawsuit paint a disturbing picture of Giuliani’s behavior towards women and his alleged abuse of power. The outcome of this case, as well as Giuliani’s other legal battles, will likely have significant consequences for his reputation and legacy.

The post Lawsuit Reveals Giuliani’s Million-Dollar Job Offer Concealing Hidden Sexual Desire first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a language model trained to generate human-like responses, has been scrutinized after falsely accusing several law professors of sexual harassment. The accusations were made in response to a request by Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, who asked ChatGPT to list law professors who had sexually harassed someone. The Washington Post reported that one of the falsely accused professors, Jonathan Turley, was shocked to learn of the accusation, stating it was “incredibly harmful.”

The incident has raised questions about the potential liability of OpenAI for defamatory statements made by ChatGPT. Eugene Volokh is reportedly writing a law review article examining whether the creators of ChatGPT could be sued for libel. The Washington Post noted that one potential issue is whether OpenAI could avoid liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online publishers from suits based on third-party content. Another issue is whether a plaintiff could show reputational damage from a false assertion.

Cartoonist Ted Rall has also considered suing ChatGPT after it falsely claimed that he had been accused of plagiarism. Rall spoke with experts about the possibility of a suit, with Laurence Tribe, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, stating that it shouldn’t matter for purposes of liability whether a human being or a chatbot generates lies. However, a defamation claim could be complex for a public figure, who would have to show actual malice to recover, according to RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. Jones suggested that a product-liability model may be more appropriate than a defamation model for such cases.

Volokh’s request for feedback on the libel issue online prompted many to argue that ChatGPT’s assertions should not be treated as factual claims because they are the product of a predictive algorithm. However, Volokh argued that in libel cases, the critical inquiry is whether the challenged expression, however, labeled by the defendant, would reasonably appear to state or imply assertions of objective fact. He noted that OpenAI had touted ChatGPT as a reliable source of assertions of fact, not just as a source of entertaining nonsense and that its credibility for producing reasonably accurate summaries of the facts is crucial to its current and future business model.

Put your legal career in the hands of experts – submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search today.

In response to the incident, a spokesperson for OpenAI told the Washington Post that improving factual accuracy is a significant focus for the company and that when users sign up for ChatGPT, OpenAI strives to be as transparent as possible so that it may not always generate accurate answers. The incident highlights the potential legal implications of using artificial intelligence and the need for developers to ensure that their products do not generate false or defamatory statements.

The post ChatGPT’s False Accusation of Sexual Harassment Against Law Professor – Could This Lead to a Libel Suit? first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Law firms are quick to dish out advice to others facing sexual harassment accusations but they have their own matters that they need to be using their advice on.

The #MeToo movement has caused a stir among organizations with law firms dishing out advice on how to handle sexual harassment claims. The problem is that no organization is exempt from harassment issues, even law firms have their issues handling the sensitive matters.

According to Bloomberg Law, law firms need to be addressing their own harassment issues. Law firm employees report that they don’t know how to report harassment and don’t trust their firm to handle the matter anyways when it involves a top lawyer. The concern is that even if law firms work on training and discipline within their firms, there still exists an imbalance in power between employee levels fueling harassment issues.

Two major law firms – Dentons and Ogletree Deakins – are already dealing with sexual harassment lawsuits of their own. The American Bar Association and California Supreme Court have responded to the #MeToo movement and recent lawsuits with instructions detailing law firms’ responsibilities.

Vedder Price labor and employment shareholder Sadina Montani told Bloomberg Law, “Huge differences in power dynamics and relatively little check on that power” play into when misconduct occurs. The imbalance in power relates to likelihood of reporting since it’s often the one in power being the perpetrator and the victim being the one lower on the ladder. An Association of Legal Administrators survey done by consultant Elizabeth Mell found that employees avoid telling their firm “due to fear” or a sense that “nothing will happen.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports a decrease in the number of sexual harassment claims against law firms in the past years. In 2011 there was a high of 18 complaints. In 2017, there were only four reported.

The drop in claims may be due to a move by law firms to handle problems before they get big. Montani explained, “I’m seeing complaints being raised on a lower threshold” when misconduct is at “a level 3 instead of a level 8” so “the behavior is still manageable.”

Employers, including law firms, are more willing than before to dismiss employees accused of misconduct. Montani said, “If an employee has three verified complaints” for midlevel offenses that don’t include allegations of a major offense, employers will dismiss the employee.

Those trying to be proactive are turning to harassment training in the workplace. Even with the increase in law firms trying to take care of harassment before it becomes an issue, it still happens. The Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association Survey found that roughly 38 percent of respondents received an unwanted email, text, or instant message of a sexual nature at work. Around 21 percent claim to have experienced or witnessed unwelcome physical contact at work. The numbers were consistent across all law firm sizes and respondent ages. Of the over 1,200 attorneys that answered the survey, 80 percent were women.

Do you think anti-harassment training helps? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.

To learn more about the #MeToo movement’s effect on law firms, read these articles:

• Latham & Watkins Chair Bill Voge Resigns over Sexual Communication Scandal
• Sexual Harassment Claims Against Law Firm Settle
• How to Handle Sexual Harassment at Law Firms

Photo: pixabay.com

The post Law Firms Need to Address Their Own Sexual Harassment Issues first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Harvey Weinstein’s criminal attorney calls herself “a feminist” in new interview.

Last year, Harvey Weinstein hired criminal attorney Blair Berk as the scandal surrounding his alleged years of sexual impropriety first broke. The movie producer was accused by dozens of women of sexual misconduct, and eventually, he was charged with rape in New York state.

Weinstein’s hiring of Berk was a smart decision because she is known as an attorney that celebrities can rely on. She has represented Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and numerous other A-listers, and she is currently the lawyer for Sylvester Stallone, who is also facing sexual misconduct claims.

This week, Haaretz, published an exclusive interview with Berk, and she said that she was a proud feminist who believed the #MeToo movement has gone too far.

“As a feminist, this is a conversation that is important to me to have,” Berk said. “We deal with terms like sexual harassment and we talk inappropriate behavior, but we don’t discuss [the terms], not least because it’s complicated. True, we shouldn’t have someone with too much power in a workplace, for instance, abusing his power to be vulgar or to put his hand on someone who’s not interested, but it’s important we don’t conflate this with rape. These actions are not rape. They’re also not criminal. They’re certainly actions that need to be discussed, but not necessarily something that needs to be incriminating.”

Berk said that women who engaged in sexual acts in order to get something sometimes regret that decision but that should not be viewed as criminal because it is currently not a law.

“One of those very uncomfortable truths is that there are women who engaged in sexual contact with a man in situations when they’re not necessarily attracted to that man but that more powerful man was offering them something they want, advancement, the Golden Globe, something they want, and they decided to have that sexual encounter in order to get that. Intentionally, consensually and later regret that they did that. We can decide that that is a fundamentally coercive act and should criminalize it, but right now it’s not a crime and I believe it shouldn’t be a crime,” Berk said.

Berk said that the current climate is treating women like children, not responsible for their own actions.

“I believe one of the dangerous things about what’s happening here is we’re treating women as children. We are infantilizing women. It’s a thing that as feminists we don’t want to do, which is to claim that a woman doesn’t have the ability to choose,” Berk said. “And while it’s uncomfortable and while it’s a difficult truth people getting something from someone more powerful whether if the currency of sex, or whether if of doing something outside of their work in order to curry favor that’s not okay that there’s expectation from a more powerful person, but it’s not a crime. Unfortunately, in this moment we’re doing things that blur those lines.”

• Harvey Weinstein Pleads Not Guilty to Rape 
• Harvey Weinstein Posts $1 Million Bail 
• Ashley Judd Sues Harvey Weinstein for Ruining Her Career 

Do you agree or disagree with Berk’s views? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Harvey Weinstein’s Lawyer Blair Berk Shares Thoughts on #MeToo first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Two law school journals will feature a special symposium on the #MeToo movement and how related issues pertain to the law.

The Stanford Law Review and Yale Law Journal are teaming up to publish a special companion symposium on the #MeToo movement, according to a Yale Law School announcement.

The special symposium titled, #MeToo and the Future of Sexual Harassment Law” will launch June 18, 2018. The symposium will outline teachings from #MeToo activists, policymakers, lawyers, scholars, and judges. There will be a series of articles from 12 leading scholars on the way sexual harassment results in and leads to greater inequality in the workplace and beyond. These essays challenge the traditional understanding of sexual harassment claims that the media has covered recently as part of the #MeToo movement.

Yale Law Professor Vicki Schultz said, “These essays develop a much broader conception of sexual harassment than most media reports in the #MeToo era have adopted. This symposium focuses not only on sexualized advances and assaults, but also on the many other, even more common ways that harassment upholds workplace sexism, policies gender roles, and limits opportunities at work and elsewhere.”

The movement began in 2006 by Tarana Burke. In the past year, the movement has gathered greater support and opened dialogue into how sexual harassment claims are handled. Thousands of victims have found the courage to speak up and tell their stories.

The timing of the symposium coincides with action by lawmakers to implement legal reforms to protect vulnerable workers. The articles aim to show how reforms will change how sexual harassment interacts with gender policing, sex segregation, and arbitrary and unchecked power in the workplace. They explain what kinds of reforms will work best in crushing sexual harassment in American society.

The Yale Law Journal collection leads with Professor Schultz’s article “Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment, Again.” The Stanford Law Review collection leads with “Open Statement on Sexual Harassment from Employment Discrimination Law Scholars” by ten of the top scholars in the field. There are also 10 principles to aid in addressing sexual harassment and 60 specific reform proposals.

The statement reads, “Inspired by recent events and renewed activism, we wish to contribute to the current momentum by broadening the conversation about the law. We know that law alone cannot create change. Yet we know also that change rarely occurs without the law.”

The symposium also addresses the needs to extend protections to those accused of harassment, understanding there must be a balance to both sides to achieve fairness and equality.

Do you think the #MeToo movement will curb the amount of sexual harassment? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.

To learn more about the #MeToo movement, read these articles:

• Time Names Silence Breakers of the #MeToo Movement as Person of the Year
• Harvey Weinstein Posts $1 Million Bail after Arrest for Rape
• Los Angeles Investigating Sylvester Stallone for Alleged Rape

Photo: pixabay.com

The post #MeToo Movement Headlines Law Journals in Special Symposium first appeared on JDJournal Blog.