Loose Screws
The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended a tactile judge for 30 days without pay
Respondent was appointed judge of the Lake Superior Court in July 2007 and began serving in that capacity two months later.
After his appointment to the bench, Respondent began a pattern of conduct that included unwanted hugs and inappropriate comments toward his staff. Respondent began supervising J.P., a court staff member, in 2007. Between 2007 and 2020, Respondent made unwanted physical contact with J.P., including hugging J.P. and trying to rub her arms or shoulders. Respondent also commented on J.P.’s physical appearance sporadically throughout the years in a manner that made her uncomfortable. Specific instances included when she wore makeup or wore a sleeveless blouse. In 2023, J.P. met with Respondent to discuss the training of another staff member on Trial Rule 41(E) dismissals. During their interaction, Respondent stated in reference to the contemplated 41(E) training, “Shall we have a threesome?” J.P. paused to make sure she understood what Respondent said, but he did not rephrase his question.
J.P. consistently told Respondent that his physical advances were unwelcome, including by: (1) informing Respondent that she did not want to be hugged by him because it made her uncomfortable; (2) informing Respondent not to come near her work area in the courthouse because it made her uncomfortable; and (3) turning her back to Respondent and telling him to keep his hands to himself. In his 2024 deposition, Respondent acknowledged that on one of the last occasions when he hugged J.P., he knew she was uncomfortable due to the look on her face. Respondent agrees he engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behavior towards J.P. that included unwelcome comments and physical conduct of a sexual nature.
On October 19, 2023, Respondent was scheduled to preside over a civil jury trial in Lake Superior Court, Civil Division Room Two. But due to malfunctioning equipment, the trial moved to Room One. Court staff for Room One and Room Five assisted with setting up the recording equipment for the trial in Room One. Respondent introduced himself to one of the staff, F.R. In doing so, Respondent rubbed F.R.’s shoulder in an unwanted manner. Although F.R. was wearing a turtleneck at the time, she put on an additional sweater after her interaction with Respondent due to the unwanted touching and the manner in which Respondent stared at her chest.
Staff member T.B. also helped that day. While T.B. was kneeling to work on equipment set-up, Respondent made a comment about T.B. being “on her hands and knees.” T.B. interpreted the comment as a sexual reference and became uncomfortable because of the way Respondent looked at her after making the comment. Another staff member heard the comment and also interpreted it as a sexual reference.
The next day, Respondent went to Room Five’s offices for jury paperwork. Respondent spoke with F.R., who agreed to retrieve the paperwork. F.R. told Respondent she would bring the paperwork to him, but Respondent went to F.R.’s office and stood in her doorway anyway. F.R. was uncomfortable because of the way Respondent greeted her and because there was not adequate space for both of them in her office. When F.R. handed the paperwork to Respondent in the hallway, Respondent tried to hug F.R. by attempting to put his arm around her and leaned in to try to kiss her. F.R. physically pushed Respondent away. T.B. observed the attempted hug and kiss.
On October 25, 2023, F.R. received a card from Respondent in the mail, which stated, “It was such a pleasure meeting you last week. Thank you for being so gracious as I have some ‘loose screws’ in my head and may have appeared too forward.” F.R. was concerned how Respondent learned her last name, as she was not listed in the courthouse directory. Respondent learned F.R.’s name from T.B.
Respondent agrees that the foregoing interactions constitute harassment.
Between 2007 and 2023, Respondent also habitually hugged people with whom he came into contact, including court staff and others around the courthouse. And Respondent’s inappropriate touching continued into early 2024 when he hugged and kissed staff member C.G. on her head or cheek when C.G. returned from an overseas trip. In his March 2024 deposition, Respondent acknowledged that his unwelcome physical contact with court staff had a negative effect on the integrity of the judiciary.
Sanction
The parties agree that an appropriate sanction is a thirty-day suspension without pay. A judicial suspension is a very severe sanction, and it is fully warranted here.
Dissent on sanction
Rush, C.J., and Goff, J., dissent, believing Respondent should be removed from office due to his repeated acts of sexual harassment in the workplace.
(Mike Frisch)