i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OF

THE REPORT OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY WORKPLACE CONDUCT 

WORKING GROUP

TO

THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 1, 2018 

 On December 20, 2017, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., asked the Director of the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts to establish a working group to examine the 

sufficiency of the safeguards currently in place within the Judiciary to protect court employees 

from inappropriate conduct in the workplace. The goal of this undertaking is to “ensure an 

exemplary workplace for every judge and every court employee.” On January 12, 2018, the 

Director announced formation of the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group 

(Working Group), consisting of eight experienced judges and court administrators from diverse 

units within the Judiciary. The Working Group consulted with Administrative Office staff to 

collect information and formulate recommendations, meeting collectively on four occasions and 

collaborating continuously through telephonic and electronic means. 

 The Working Group proceeded from the premise that the Judiciary shares many common 

features with other public and private workplaces. Accordingly, studies conducted in those 

environments—most notably, a Select Task Force of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission Study of Harassment in the Workplace in 2016 (EEOC Study)—provide pertinent 

guidance. But the Working Group also recognized that the judicial workplace is different in 

significant respects that can affect—both positively and negatively—the potential for 

inappropriate conduct. The Working Group accordingly embraced the guidance contained in the 

EEOC Study, but additionally focused on those distinguishing factors in evaluating the 

Judiciary’s current workplace standards, its procedures for addressing inappropriate behavior, 
ii

and its educational and training programs. In the course of its review, the Working Group 

received input from current and former law clerks, court employees, Judicial Branch advisory 

councils, and individual circuits. It received that input through face-to-face meetings, 

anonymous and attributable comments from an electronic mailbox, and court surveys. 

 This Report sets out the findings and the recommendations of the Working Group. Some 

of the recommendations require action by the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is 

the national policy-making body for the federal courts. Other recommendations can be instituted 

by the Administrative Office, which administers judicial policies, or the Federal Judicial Center 

(FJC), which conducts judicial education. The Report sets out 24 specific recommendations to 

the Judicial Conference of the United States and its relevant committees for further action. 

Those recommendations are in addition to numerous actions that have already been initiated by 

the Administrative Office or the FJC. 

I. Findings

 The Judiciary employs 30,000 individuals in a broad range of occupations, ranging from 

life-tenured judges to temporary interns. The Working Group sought to assess the quality of the 

workplace environment across that broad spectrum. Based on the input from the electronic 

mailbox, the advisory groups, individual interviews, and court surveys, the Working Group 

believes that inappropriate conduct, although not pervasive within the Judiciary, is not limited to 

a few isolated instances. Of the inappropriate behavior that does occur, incivility, disrespect, or 

crude behavior are more common than sexual harassment.

 The Working Group assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the Judiciary’s current 

workplace practices through five considerations that the EEOC Study identified as key elements 
iii

in preventing inappropriate conduct: leadership; accountability; policies; procedures; and 

training. In summary, the Working Group found:

• The Judiciary has demonstrated committed leadership in addressing inappropriate 

conduct, but that leadership is not uniform throughout all court units and supervisory 

levels. The Judiciary should encourage leadership on workplace conduct and civility 

throughout the branch through educational programs, performance reviews, and other 

mechanisms for motivating positive change. 

• The Judiciary has also shown a commitment to accountability in its formal processes for 

receiving and resolving complaints. There is room for improvement in terms of both 

accessibility and transparency, but the most significant challenge to accountability lies in 

the understandable reluctance of victims, especially law clerks and other temporary 

employees, to report misconduct. The Judiciary should reduce barriers to reporting and 

provide alternative avenues for seeking advice, counseling, and assistance for all 

employees. Judges have a special responsibility to promote appropriate behavior and 

report instances of misconduct by others, including other judges. 

• The Judiciary has long had in place policies, expressed through codes of judicial and 

employee conduct, to maintain high standards of behavior while preserving the 

independence and integrity of the Judicial Branch. Those policies, however, were not 

developed with the aim of addressing the particular issues of workplace harassment or 

incivility. The codes should more clearly communicate the rights and responsibilities of 

employees, including the scope of confidentiality and the availability of remedial 

procedures. 
iv

• The Judiciary has two formal mechanisms for reporting misconduct—the Judicial 

Conduct and Disability Act (JC&D Act), which sets out statutory procedures for 

complaints against judges, and the Employment Dispute Resolution Plans (EDR Plans), 

which are judicially created mechanisms in each of the circuits for making claims against 

judges and other judicial employees. They are effective when invoked, but they should 

not be the exclusive avenue for employee recourse. Employees should have other 

options, apart from filing a formal complaint, for guidance, counseling, assistance, and 

relief. Those options, calibrated to the nature of the conduct, should exist at the local, 

regional, and national levels. 

• The FJC, as well as the Administrative Office and individual courts, have a broad range 

of publications, on-line resources, and in-person training programs to promote fair 

employment practices and workplace civility. These vigorous training programs can be 

improved through refinements placing more focus on workplace civility, integrating 

civility principles into other training programs, emphasizing proactive measures to 

prevent bad conduct, and encouraging “bystanders” who witness misconduct to take 

action through channels for reporting and response. Educational programs should be 

continuously evaluated to determine their effectiveness. 

II. Recommendations

 Based on its findings, the Working Group offers recommendations in three discrete areas 

for achieving the goal of an exemplary workplace. First, the Judiciary should revise its codes 

and other published guidance in key respects to state clear and consistent standards, delineate 

responsibilities, and promote appropriate workplace behavior. Second, the Judiciary should 

improve its procedures for identifying and correcting misconduct, strengthening, streamlining, 
v 

and making more uniform existing processes, as well as adding less formal mechanisms for 

employees to seek advice and register complaints. Third, the Judiciary should supplement its 

educational and training programs to raise awareness of conduct issues, prevent discrimination 

and harassment, and promote civility throughout the Judicial Branch.

A. Codes of Conduct and Guidance Documents 

 The Judicial Conference has adopted codes of conduct for judges and judicial employees 

that indicate, either expressly or by clear implication, that judges and judicial employees have a 

duty to refrain from and prevent harassment and other inappropriate workplace conduct. Those 

codes—and public confidence in the Judiciary—would be strengthened if the Judicial 

Conference made clear, through express language in the canons or the associated commentary, 

that judges have an obligation to promote civility and maintain a workplace that is free from 

harassment. The Working Group recommends that the Committee on Codes of Conduct 

formulate more precise language in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to make clear

that:

• A judge has an affirmative duty to promote civility, not only in the courtroom, but 

throughout the courthouse. The admonitions that judges show patience, dignity, respect, 

and courtesy to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and the public also apply to judicial 

employees. 

• A judge should neither engage in nor tolerate inappropriate workplace conduct, including 

comments or statements that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, abusive 

behavior, or retaliation for reporting misconduct. 

• A judge has a responsibility to curtail inappropriate conduct by others, including other 

judges. The judicial virtues of mutual respect, independence, and collegiality should not 
vi

prevent a judge from intervening when necessary to protect an employee (including a 

fellow judge’s chambers employee) from inappropriate conduct. 

The Working Group recommends that the Committee also revise the Code of Conduct for 

Judicial Employees to formulate more precise language to make clear that:

• Judicial employees, including supervisors, have a duty to promote workplace civility, 

avoid harassment, and take action when they observe misconduct by others. 

• Confidentiality obligations do not prevent any employee—including law clerks—from 

revealing abuse or reporting misconduct by any person.

• Retaliation against a person who reports misconduct is itself serious misconduct. 

The Judiciary has a wide range of guidance documents, policy statements, and instructions 

issued by the Administrative Office, individual courts, and other Judiciary entities that all need to 

be revised in parallel fashion to ensure that the Judiciary’s substantive standards of workplace 

conduct are set out and explained in a consistent and cohesive manner. The Working Group 

recommends that the Administrative Office and the FJC take on the challenge of reviewing all of 

their guidance respecting workplace conduct and civility to ensure that they provide a consistent, 

accessible message that the Judiciary will not tolerate harassment or other inappropriate conduct. 

Many of those efforts are already underway. 

B. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Misconduct

The Judiciary enforces its standards of conduct through two procedural mechanisms. 

Judges are subject to discipline through the statutory procedures set out in the JC&D Act, which 

the Judicial Conference has implemented through its Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial 

Disability Proceedings (the Conduct Rules). In addition, both judges and employees are subject 
vii

to EDR Plans already in place in each regional circuit. The Working Group suggests some 

changes to each of those procedures. 

In the case of the JC&D Act, the Working Group recommends that the Judicial 

Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability revise the Conduct Rules or 

associated commentary to make clear that:

• Traditional judicial rules respecting “standing”—viz., the requirement that the 

complainant himself or herself must claim redressable injury from the alleged 

misconduct—do not apply to the JC&D Act complaint process. Complainants should 

clearly understand that they need not themselves be the subject of the alleged misconduct. 

That clarification should encourage and facilitate early reporting and action on potential 

misconduct.

• Workplace harassment is within the definition of misconduct. The Committee on 

Judicial Conduct and Disability should adopt language and examples in its procedural 

rules that are congruent with any changes that the Committee on Codes of Conduct 

makes to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. 

• Confidentiality obligations should never be an obstacle to reporting judicial misconduct 

or disability. Complainants should understand that the obligations of confidentiality that 

judicial employees must observe in the conduct of judicial business do not shield a judge 

from a complaint under the JC&D Act.

• A judge has an obligation to report or disclose misconduct and to safeguard complainants 

from retaliation. The Committee on Codes of Conduct should state these principles in the 

Code of Conduct for United States Judges, but they warrant repetition in the Conduct 

Rules.
viii

In addition, the Working Group recommends that the Judiciary as a whole consider possible 

mechanisms for improving the transparency of the JC&D Act process. Public confidence in the 

JC&D Act will benefit by efforts, already agreed upon by the Administrative Office, to identify 

harassment complaints in its statistical reports. Individual circuits also should investigate 

making decisions on complaints filed in their courts more readily accessible to the public through 

searchable electronic indices. 

In the case of EDR Plans, the Working Group recommends that the Judicial Conference’s

Committee on Judicial Resources consider revisions to the Judiciary’s Model EDR Plan, which 

provides the template for the EDR Plans in each of the federal Judiciary’s regional circuits. The 

Working Group recommends the Committee consider revisions to accomplish several discrete 

goals:

• The Model EDR Plan should be rendered more “user-friendly” through simplified 

language and more succinct direction on the steps to be followed in the dispute 

resolution process.

• The Model EDR Plan should ensure a uniform scope of coverage throughout the 

Judiciary. Some circuits have excluded certain classes of individuals from access to 

their EDR Plans. The Committee should consider mandatory coverage for all persons 

working in the court system, including interns, externs, and chambers employees. 

• The Model EDR Plan’s reference to sex discrimination should be examined to ensure it 

is consistent with established legal definitions and to make clear that harassment, 

without regard to motivation, is wrongful conduct. 

• The Model EDR Plan should make clear that, when a chief district judge or chief 

bankruptcy judge receives a report of wrongful conduct that could constitute reasonable 
ix

grounds for inquiry into whether a judge has engaged in misconduct under the JC&D 

Act, the chief judge should inform the chief circuit judge of the report and any actions 

taken in response. 

• The Model EDR Plan’s time limit for initiating a claim should be extended from 30 

days to 180 days from the date of the alleged violation or when the complainant became 

aware of the violation. That time limit will better accommodate the time employees 

may reasonably need to ascertain and assess their options under the EDR Plan.

• The Committee should consider steps to improve the training and qualifications of EDR 

Coordinators, who play a critical role in providing information and training to 

employees regarding their rights under the EDR Plan and assist employees in accessing 

the claims procedures.

The JC&D Act and the EDR Plans provide useful formal mechanisms for responding to 

serious cases of harassment and workplace misconduct, but the Working Group found that they 

are not well suited to address the myriad of situations that call for less formal measures. 

Accordingly, the Working Group recommends the establishment of offices at both the national 

and circuit level to provide employees with advice and assistance with their concerns about 

workplace misconduct apart from the JC&D Act and EDR Plans. The assistance should range 

from a discussion of options to address their concerns, to intervention on their behalf with 

appropriate court personnel and related support.

• At the national level, the Working Group recommends that the Administrative Office 

establish an internal Office of Judicial Integrity that would provide counseling and 

assistance regarding workplace conduct to all judiciary employees through telephone 

and email service. This office should provide advice on a confidential basis to the 
x

extent possible. The newly created office could be combined with existing offices that 

already exist to ensure the integrity of the Judiciary, including offices that provide and 

coordinate independent financial auditing and management analysis services to the 

courts to prevent and expose waste, fraud, and abuse. 

• At the circuit level, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council recently announced the creation 

of a new office for a Director of Workplace Relations to oversee workplace issues and 

discrimination and sexual harassment training in that circuit. The Working Group 

recommends that the Judicial Conference encourage and approve funding through its 

budgeting process for all other circuits to provide similar services for their employees.

• In addition to these national and circuit-level resources, every court should clearly 

identify for its employees local sources to which they can turn for advice or assistance 

about workplace conduct issues. Courts should include contingency plans and funding 

to provide for a transfer or alternative work arrangements for an employee, including a 

law clerk, when egregious conduct by a judge or supervisor makes it untenable for the 

employee to continue to work for that judge or supervisor.

C. Education and Training Programs

The Judiciary already has in place vibrant educational and training programs for judges, 

supervisors, and other employees. Those programs, managed by the FJC, the Administrative 

Office, and individual courts, include a wide array of publications, on-line resources, and inperson training programs to promote fair employment practices and workplace civility. 

Nevertheless, there are several areas related to education and training in the Judiciary that would 

benefit from further direction and refinement:
xi

• The Judiciary should ensure that all new judges and new employees receive basic 

workplace standards training as part of their initial orientation program, with “refresher” 

training conducted at regular intervals. The FJC has developed high quality educational 

programs, but they are not reaching all employees—in significant part, because the 

programs are not consistently offered throughout the Judicial Branch.

• The FJC should develop advanced training programs specifically aimed at developing a 

culture of workplace civility. The FJC is already considering opportunities to integrate 

civility training into existing programs on judicial management, court administration, and 

courtroom practices to make civility an essential component in all aspects of court 

operations. Those efforts should include training on “bystander intervention,” which 

would encourage judges, supervisors, and other employees who witness misconduct to 

take action through channels for reporting and response.

• The FJC, the Administrative Office, and individual courts should continuously evaluate 

their educational programs to assess their effectiveness, paying close attention to new 

learning techniques, and developments in the field. Those components should consider 

new or revised offerings on specific topics of special relevance to the judicial workplace. 

Where feasible, the FJC should tailor its advanced programs to specific groups. For 

example, programs for judges, court executives, and supervisors should emphasize 

leadership, accountability, and risk identification, while programs for court employees, 

including law clerks, should emphasize standards and procedures, and highlight where 

and how to get advice and help. 

In conclusion, the Judiciary should aspire to be an exemplary workplace, taking strong 

affirmative measures to promote civility, minimize the possibility of inappropriate behavior,
xii

remove barriers to reporting misconduct, and provide prompt corrective action when it occurs. 

The Working Group remains committed to assisting with that effort and offers its continued 

service in whatever capacity the Chief Justice and the Judicial Conference direct.