Sexist Remarks Lead To Judge’s Proposed Removal From Office

The New York Commission on Judicial Conduct has determined that a family court judge should be removed from office, in part for comments made to support staff

The Rules require judges to “be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity …. ” (Rules §100.3(B)(3)) In his interactions with two female court employees at the courthouse, respondent failed to meet this high standard. After a courthouse luncheon in May 2017, respondent stopped in the chief clerk’s office, told Ms. Singer that he liked the dish she had prepared and stated, “If I knew you could also cook, I would have gone for the widow.” Ms. Singer is a widow. The following month, when Ms. Singer apologized for using a fan while having a hot flash, respondent stated, “It’s nice to know I still have that effect on you.” That same month, respondent again stepped into Ms. Singer’s office and made the extremely inappropriate and sexist remarks: “You look really hot in that outfit. You should always wear that outfit.” Such sexist comments by a judge to a court employee are shocking and unacceptable. Indeed, Ms. Singer testified that she was “disgusted” by respondent’s offensive commentary about her appearance and by his statement that he would have “gone for” her if he had known that she was a good cook. In addition to his highly inappropriate comments to the chief clerk, respondent also berated and demeaned a female court assistant. Respondent’s conduct was improper and violated his ethical responsibilities.

Compounding his misconduct, respondent appears to be under the misapprehension that the women he denigrated and to whom he made the sexist comments had an obligation to tell him that they did not approve of his comments.  To the contrary, it was incumbent upon respondent to not make sexist comments to a court employee. Similarly, it was also his responsibility to avoid behaving discourteously toward court employees.

There were also findings of failure to disclose information on judicial financial forms and

It is also undisputed that respondent failed to disclose his income from the practice of law and rental income from two properties on his federal and state income tax returns.

Nothing funny

Our colleagues dissent on the issue of sanction in part because they seem to credit the referee’s finding that respondent may have intended the comments to the chief clerk to be humorous. We find it implausible that respondent – a longtime judge with prior run-ins with this Commission, a family man by his own account, a coach and volunteer – would think telling his chief clerk that she was “really hot” and “should always wear that outfit” was humorous. Nor is it appropriate to state “It’s nice to know I still have that effect on you” when one is explaining the use of a fan in response to a momentary flash. Indeed, we voted to remove respondent not only for the reasons previously stated, but also because when he appeared before us respondent still seemed to not fully accept responsibility for these comments. Obviously not every comment made about a clerk’s appearance would be misconduct and even if misconduct, a removable offense. But these are particular statements using particular words that have particular meanings – and in our view, warrant removal given the additional misconduct described above and respondent’s prior censure.

The dissent would impose censure

Respondent, who has been a judge since 1996, was elected to the Family Court in 2014 for a term ending in 2024. The evidence before the Commission supports the conclusion that he is a hardworking judge. In addition, witnesses testified at the hearing before the referee that respondent treated all who appeared before him, both men and women, with respect. The referee’s finding regarding respondent’s intent is significant, and casts further doubt on the majority’s decision to depart from this Commission’s past precedent.

As to review

If a Commission determination is reviewed by the Court of Appeals, the Court may accept the determined sanction, impose a different sanction including admonition, censure or removal, or impose no sanction.

Case documents are linked here. (Mike Frisch)