Judge Weighs Judiciary’s Role in Ex-Defender’s Harassment Suit

A former assistant federal public defender’s complaints about the way judiciary officials handled her harassment claim appear stronger than her allegations that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender, a federal judge suggested during closing arguments Thursday.

Caryn Strickland claims that her allegation of sexual harassment by her supervisor, J.P. Davis, was mishandled by federal judiciary officials in violation of her constitutional rights. The US Justice Department argues that officials utilizing the Employment Dispute Resolution process, the mechanism the federal judiciary uses to resolve formal complaints about workplace misconduct, properly handled her complaint. Davis repeatedly denied sexually harassing Strickland.

Senior US District Judge William Young seemed to agree that workplace communication between Strickland and her supervisor was inappropriate, but appeared to doubt that evidence met the legal standard for sexual discrimination.

Strickland told the judge that the record is full of evidence that she faced “a sexist double standard in the workplace environment,” including “profanity-laced” communication and emails that included “derogatory gender stereotypes.”

“I’m not sure that it demonstrates sex discrimination, but I have to reflect on that,” Young said. He signaled that she may fare better on her claims that some judiciary officials violated her due process rights in the way they handled her complaint.

Due Process Claims

The former federal public defender is asking the court for the alleged lost wages she would have earned if she’d stayed in her role for the rest of her career. She said she has faced “long term career damage” from the fallout of her harassment claims.

Strickland claims there is enough evidence in the record to demonstrate that officials didn’t properly address her allegations of sexual harassment at the federal defender’s office for the Western District of North Carolina.

“What process here do you think you were owed?” Young asked Strickland.

She argues that the federal defender involved in the resolution of her report of wrongful conduct should have been disqualified from the process, despite judiciary officials’ testimony that he was properly involved. Anthony Martinez, who has since left the role as defender, earlier testified that he recused himself from an investigation into Strickland’s harassment claim.

“The government responded promptly and effectively” to Strickland’s claims, including by offering her remote work accommodations and rearranging the office’s supervisory structure so she could avoid contact with her alleged harasser, DOJ lawyer Joshua Kolsky said.

Young asked the DOJ lawyer whether front pay would be available if he sided with Strickland on her due process claims.

“Front pay is not a remedy for a due process violation,” Kolsky said.

Discrimination Claims

Kolsky said Strickland cannot prove that she was harassed, which is fatal to her equal protection claim.

“She experienced sexual harassment only in her mind,” Kolsky said.

Strickland called Kolsky’s rhetoric “a gender-based trope about sexual harassment victims” and said the record “confirms yet again that the allegations contained in my complaint are true.”

Young presided over the case from his Boston courtroom while lawyers presented evidence in Asheville, North Carolina. He suggested he will try to rule on the case promptly.

—With assistance from Jacqueline Thomsen

The case is Strickland v. US, W.D.N.C., No. 1:20-cv-00066, closing arguments 1/4/24