Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Page 1
Chief Justice Calls for Court Rule Precluding Secret Settlements of Claims Against Judges
Says Public Has a Right to Know of Expenditure of Monies to Satisfy Demands of Purported Victims of Sexual Harassment or Discrimination
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said yesterday she is calling upon the Judicial Council to revamp a rule of court to bar secret settlement agreements resolving sexual harassment or sexual discrimination complaints against judges.
The move comes in the aftermath of the March 23 disclosure by the Judicial Council that nearly $600,000 in taxpayer funds has been expended since 2011 to investigate and settle three complaints of sexual harassment against judges and two against court employees.
In a radio interview on March 27, Cantil-Sakauye termed the revelation “shocking.”
Resolve Ambiguities
In yesterday’s statement, she said:
“I want to make sure there’s no ambiguity as to whether courts should be required to disclose those records now. The current rule does not make it clear enough that these records should be disclosed. Judicial independence relies in part on judicial accountability.
“The judiciary relies on the trust and confidence of the public it serves, and the public has a right to know how the judicial branch spends taxpayer funds.”
She directed five members of the Judicial Council—including former Los Angeles County Bar Association President Gretchen Nelson—to craft a proposed rule. The others are Court of Appeal Justice Marsha G. Slough of the Fourth District’s Div. Two, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stacy Boulware-Eurie, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Kyle S. Brodie, and Fresno attorney Rachel W. Hill.
Third District Court of Appeal Justice Harry E. Hull Jr., who chairs the Rules and Projects Committee, would be working with the committee, it was announced.
Current Provisions
California Rules of Court, rule 10.500(f)(2) presently exempts from disclosure “[r]ecords pertaining to pending or anticipated claims or litigation to which a judicial branch entity is a party or judicial branch personnel are parties, until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise resolved.”
Rule 10.500(f)(7)further exempts “[r]ecords related to evaluations of, complaints regarding, or investigations of justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), subordinate judicial officers, and applicants or candidates for judicial office.”
The Judicial Council has declined to reveal the identity of the three judges.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company