REPORT OF THE 

FEDERAL JUDICIARY WORKPLACE CONDUCT WORKING GROUP

TO

THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 16, 2022 

INTRODUCTION

The Workplace Conduct Working Group (Working Group) was launched in January 

2018, at a time when many individuals came forward as part of the #MeToo movement to relate 

distressing accounts of sexual abuse and sexual harassment in workplaces throughout the 

country. The federal Judiciary was not immune. In his 2017 year-end report, Chief Justice John 

G. Roberts Jr. called for the creation of a Working Group to recommend any changes needed to

promote an exemplary workplace and to protect Judiciary employees from harassment and other 

misconduct. 

“These concerns warrant serious attention from all quarters of the judicial branch,” the 

Chief Justice wrote. “I have great confidence in the men and women who comprise our judiciary. 

I am sure that the overwhelming number have no tolerance for harassment and share the view 

that victims must have clear and immediate recourse to effective remedies.” 

For the past four years, the Workplace Conduct Working Group, the Judicial Conference, 

the courts and circuits, the Federal Judicial Center, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts, have been engaged in a substantive and deliberate effort to ensure a safe, respectful, and 

professional environment. The federal Judiciary is committed, without reservation, to sustaining 

an exemplary workplace and to the well-being of all its employees.

Workplace protections have long existed for Judiciary employees, including explicit 

prohibitions on discrimination and harassment. Soon after its formation, the Working Group 

began a dialogue with Judiciary employees to identify necessary improvements to the Judiciary’s 

workplace policies and procedures. These conversations led to a series of policy changes and 
2

new initiatives. Significant revisions have expanded and clarified the scope of employee 

protections, strengthened the obligations of judges and employees to report misconduct, and 

expanded the avenues for addressing reports of misconduct. 

This report summarizes the extensive steps the federal Judiciary has taken since January 

2018, when the Working Group was formed. The Judiciary’s priorities have included not just 

meaningful revisions and improvements to its conduct policies, complaint procedures, and ethics 

codes, but an equally important and enduring commitment to promoting an exemplary workplace 

through engaged leadership and more expansive education in the areas of civility, respect, and 

communication. In brief, the Judiciary has improved the environment in which its employees 

work and serve the public in numerous ways: 

- The Judiciary’s employment dispute resolution processes have been significantly 

streamlined and improved, including effective formal and informal avenues to address 

concerns.

- Workplace protections were significantly expanded to include an express prohibition 

against abusive conduct, addressing harassing behavior even when it is not 

discriminatory. 

- A national Office of Judicial Integrity was established and Directors of Workplace 

Relations were hired in every circuit, creating an interlaced network of local, circuit, and 

national workplace specialists who are outside the supervisory chain of command, 

positioned to provide confidential guidance and assistance to all Judiciary employees. 

- Codes of Conduct have been updated to clarify confidentiality obligations, to remove 

barriers to reporting, and to emphasize the responsibility of all judges and Judiciary 

employees to take appropriate action upon learning of potential misconduct.

- The Judicial Conduct and Disability (JC&D) Rules were expanded and, among other 

changes, now include a mandatory “bystander” reporting obligation. 
3

- A new Model Federal Public Defender Organization Employment Dispute Resolution 

(EDR) Plan was developed, addressing the issues unique to the federal public defender 

community.

- An EDR Interpretive Guide and Handbook was created and made available Judiciarywide, providing detailed explanations and step-by-step directions for each of the EDR 

options for resolution, which is especially useful to EDR coordinators, Directors of 

Workplace Relations, unit executives, judges, and others directly involved in or who 

support the formal and informal EDR processes.

- Training and awareness at all levels is vastly greater than in 2018, including nationwide, 

circuit, and local workplace conduct training programs aimed at judges and Judiciary 

employees, as well as additional programs on promoting civility and respect, and other 

initiatives designed to prevent misconduct from occurring and foster an exemplary 

workplace.

Notwithstanding all of these significant enhancements, the Judiciary’s work is not done.

After reflecting on the major changes already made, this report recommends that the Judiciary 

adopt more tools and policies to build on the progress to date. Recommendations to better 

measure how well the Judiciary’s systems are functioning, to further strengthen policies and 

procedures, and to expand communication and training are being forwarded to committees of the 

Judicial Conference for consideration. A full list of recommendations may be found in Section 2.

Specifically, the Working Group recommends that an in-depth nationwide climate survey 

of Judiciary employees be conducted at regular intervals. It also recommends additional data 

reporting to measure the utilization of and effectiveness of resources available to employees.

The Working Group is further proposing that, in addition to existing recusal 

requirements, the Judiciary’s policies be amended to require that complaints about wrongful 

conduct always be reviewed by judges outside the court where a complaint originates, fostering 

greater employee trust and confidence in the complaint process. And the possibility of 
4

incorporating additional monetary remedies into the Judiciary’s employee complaint process, 

comparable to those available to other federal employees, should be assessed.

A continuing focus is to build confidence and trust in the changes that already have 

occurred. A groundbreaking 2016 report by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) concluded that employees in most workplaces significantly underreport 

sexual harassment and other misconduct. The EEOC identified various reasons, common to all 

workplaces, why employees may be reluctant to come forward, including distrust in their 

workplace policies and an unwillingness to become embroiled in formal proceedings. As the 

EEOC noted, underreporting weakens any organization’s ability to respond consistently and 

effectively, even if its system is otherwise sound.

The Working Group structured its reforms around the EEOC’s recommendations, and the 

Judiciary’s initial set of reforms was later endorsed by the Chair of the EEOC as “the type of 

effort that we need to see more of.” 

Consistent with the EEOC’s research, the Working Group has prioritized reducing 

barriers to employee reports of misconduct. Every circuit now has a Director of Workplace 

Relations—a high level and functionally independent professional—whom employees can 

approach confidentially for informal advice, support, and information about how to initiate 

formal proceedings. The Judiciary has revised its confidentiality policies to clarify that 

employees are always permitted to bring forward reports of misconduct. And, consistent with 

EEOC recommendations, the Judiciary has created a flexible and accessible process for those 

employees who wish to attempt resolving their concerns informally in the first instance.

In the Judiciary, building trust begins with a clear explanation of how we are addressing 

workplace misconduct. It is essential that employees have the opportunity to receive confidential 
5

advice and guidance without fear of retaliation or professional injury. They must also know it is 

possible to come forward and report their concerns and have them addressed without harm to 

their careers. To further strengthen accountability, the Judiciary has adopted robust 

whistleblower protections and has imposed a mandatory obligation on all judges and Judiciary 

employees to report any misconduct they learn of or witness.

Training programs are communicating these points to judges and employees in every 

court, court unit, and circuit. Employee focus groups and informal workplace dialogues also are

creating a safe environment to discuss workplace conduct concerns and protections. The 

Working Group is expanding its own emphasis on direct discussions with employees, which 

provide valuable feedback that informs the Judiciary’s continued efforts. Several circuits have 

also created law clerk advisory committees to ensure that law clerks have direct input into their 

workplaces’ policies.

As this report demonstrates, the recommendations made by the Working Group in 2018 

are proving effective, and they are well designed to meet the workplace needs of federal 

Judiciary employees within the unique governance structure of the Branch. The Judiciary’s 

strong and far-reaching response promotes a positive workplace environment and, when 

misconduct occurs, enhances the chance of early reporting, meaningful intervention, and longterm prevention of abusive conduct. Judiciary employees now have access to direct assistance, 

clear and immediate recourse, and effective remedies. 

The recommendations for further action contained in this report represent the next steps 

in the Judiciary’s ongoing effort to ensure an exemplary workplace for all its employees. In 

making these recommendations, the Working Group has sought to build on its progress to date, 

rather than make premature or sweeping changes that could undo several years of constructive 
6

change. It is the view of the Working Group that concrete and iterative improvements to the 

Judiciary’s policies allow for a more meaningful dialogue with employees and preserve 

employees’ familiarity with the Judiciary’s existing procedures.

The Judiciary has developed initiatives and revised its procedures to promote an 

exemplary workplace. As in any workplace, continual review and thoughtful revision are needed, 

but the Working Group believes that the Judiciary’s process for protecting employees is 

demonstrating its promise and should be given time to build upon the significant strides made to 

date.

SECTION 1: The Judiciary’s Response

Drawing on the expertise of the EEOC, the Working Group’s initial proposals addressed

five key areas that work in harmony to define a healthy workplace: 

• Committed and Engaged Leadership

• Cultural Assessment 

• Consistent and Demonstrated Accountability 

• Effective Policies and Procedures

• Training that Works

Of equal importance, the Working Group’s findings, and its recommendations for 

change, emerged from extensive dialogue with Judiciary employees. The Working Group 

conferred with many groups of Judiciary employees and reviewed anonymous email comments. 

The Working Group met multiple times with law clerks and law clerk groups. The Working 

Group also met with groups representing a cross-section of all Judiciary employees, including 

staff from federal defender offices, probation and pretrial services offices, clerks of court staff, 

chambers staff, and other employees. 
7

The Judiciary’s strategy and tools for supporting a respectful workplace align closely 

with the needs and concerns expressed by employees in these conversations. Based on the 

communications, the Working Group concluded that abusive behavior, rather than sexual 

harassment, was the most common form of wrongful conduct in the Judiciary. The Working 

Group also concluded that workplace misconduct was likely being underreported in the 

Judiciary.

“The Working Group believes that inappropriate conduct, although not pervasive in the 

Judiciary, is not limited to a few isolated instances. This information suggests that, of the 

inappropriate behavior that does occur, incivility, disrespect, or crude behavior is more common 

than sexual harassment,” the Working Group stated in June 2018. The report noted that formal 

complaint procedures under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and EDR plans “generally 

work well in addressing workplace misconduct in the instances when they are invoked.” But the 

Working Group added that formal complaints by Judiciary employees against judges and senior 

staff were rare. 

Although the sexual harassment of law clerks by judges was an initial emphasis and 

focus, the Working Group defined a broader scope, proactively seeking a positive work 

environment for all of the Judiciary’s 30,000-plus employees. “The Judiciary should set as its 

goal the creation of an exemplary environment in which every employee is not only free from 

harassment or inappropriate behavior, but works in an atmosphere of civility and respect,” the 

Working Group’s first report said in June 2018. 

That report contained more than 30 recommended changes, all of which were quickly 

adopted by the Judiciary. Since then, courts and circuits have worked aggressively to implement 

those changes, and have taken additional steps to carry out the Judiciary’s shared vision of an 
8

exemplary workplace. 

A timeline of Working Group and Judiciary activity is available in Appendix A, 

including links to the Working Group’s 2018 and 2019 reports. Appendix B provides a detailed 

summary of specific measures and initiatives undertaken since the Working Group’s last report.

But a true understanding of what the Judiciary has achieved, and what the Working Group 

believes is needed going forward, is helped by explaining the Group’s history in narrative form.

This report seeks not merely to catalog the Working Group’s original recommendations, but also 

to illustrate how those recommendations are working in practice—especially focusing on how 

employees’ experience has improved. 

Recognizing Barriers to Reporting 

One of the key issues facing the Judiciary, as with all employers, is reluctance to report 

wrongful conduct. 

The 2016 EEOC report on sexual harassment in the workplace served as a foundation for 

the Working Group’s efforts. The EEOC said workplace harassment exists in virtually all 

workplaces, and that in most instances a victim does not report perceived mistreatment to 

superiors. 

Every organization seeking to eliminate harassment and other workplace misconduct 

must address employees’ reluctance to report when they believe they have been mistreated. A 

key goal of the Judiciary’s program, as first laid out by the Working Group, is to make it safer 

for all employees to come forward when inappropriate behavior is identified. Key areas of the 

Judiciary’s workplace strategy—changes to policy, expansion in training, multiple channels to 

receive confidential guidance and support from workplace specialists at the circuit and national 
9

levels, and the opening of informal avenues to resolve workplace concerns—all work together to 

make reporting of misconduct more likely to occur. 

In detailed conversations with Judiciary employees, including current and former law 

clerks, the Working Group probed the complex and conflicting choices employees face when 

choosing whether or not to report workplace concerns. 

The Judiciary recognized the need to expand employees’ reporting options. In early 2018, 

an employee could file a formal complaint under the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act or under 

a court’s EDR plan. Or they could take their complaint to a chief judge. Some employees told the 

Working Group that they perceived all of these choices as highly risky. 

Expanding Avenues to Reporting and Assistance 

Employees frequently requested a clearly identifiable and independent person to whom 

employees could report misconduct and discuss other workplace concerns. Employees stressed 

that the person should be outside of the supervisory chain of command. 

To address these concerns, the Judiciary established separate and independent reporting 

channels outside the court or unit where an employee works. These include the national Office of 

Judicial Integrity, headed by the Judicial Integrity Officer, and a Director of Workplace 

Relations in each circuit. The Directors of Workplace Relations and the Judicial Integrity Officer

are workplace conduct specialists who bring wide-ranging experience to their roles. The 

Directors of Workplace Relations include former federal circuit court law clerks, Title IX 

officers, mediators, employment law attorneys, and EEOC administrative law judges. 

The impact of these workplace officers for employees is immediate and positive. Today, 

when Judiciary employees need help with a workplace concern, they are not isolated or limited. 
10

Their choices in whom they can confidentially contact and how they can address concerns are far 

more varied and effective than in 2018.

First, employees continue to be served by a court-level EDR coordinator. While there 

were EDR coordinators before 2018, changes in the Model EDR Plan greatly expanded the ways 

they can assist employees. They can counsel employees on informal resolution options and even 

assist in face-to-face conversations between employees and their coworkers or superiors. EDR 

coordinators now receive enhanced training to support their expanded role.

In addition to local EDR coordinators, employees now have two additional channels for 

confidential guidance that exist entirely outside their court’s chain of command. The Office of 

Judicial Integrity provides confidential help, information, referral, and guidance to any Judiciary

employee on options to address workplace harassment, abusive conduct, or other forms of 

wrongful conduct. Similarly, circuit Directors of Workplace Relations confidentially discuss 

issues with judges and employees (including law clerks, supervisors, managers, and court unit 

executives), provide information about policies and procedures, and help facilitate informal 

resolutions and support formal complaint procedures. Additionally, Directors of Workplace 

Relations coordinate and provide numerous training programs throughout their circuits, propose 

and assist in the implementation of various policy initiatives, and collaborate on best practices to 

foster consistency across the circuits and courts.

Directors of Workplace Relations serve all court units within a circuit—the court of 

appeals, district and bankruptcy courts, probation and pretrial offices, and federal public 

defender offices. Because the Directors of Workplace Relations are available to employees in all 

court units, they function as centralized and uniform resources for employees to learn about their 
11

rights and options without fear that their supervisors or local leadership will be informed of their 

confidential conversations.

This approach is consistent with the EEOC Study recommendation that “Employers 

should offer reporting procedures that are multi-faceted, offering a range of methods, multiple 

points-of-contact, and geographic and organizational diversity where possible, for an employee 

to report harassment.” 

This increased level of assistance has improved the experience of Judiciary employees, 

including those who work in chambers and other isolated settings. If an employee needs help or 

guidance, the assistance of trained professionals who understand workplace issues is available 

every step of the way. The request for help remains confidential and, if the employee chooses, 

completely independent of the court’s chain of command. By creating a national, regional, and 

local network to receive workplace conduct reports, assistance is fully accessible to all

employees, who can choose the communication path that feels safest to them. These officers also 

provide the Judiciary with an internal network of experts who can spot systemwide workplace 

trends and are well-positioned to recommend additional improvements to the Judiciary’s 

policies, processes, and structures for addressing workplace issues. This approach is far more 

effective and comprehensive in providing help than one centralized national office. 

Providing Informal Advice and Assisted Resolution 

Early conversations with Judiciary employees identified another factor that discouraged 

reporting of workplace misconduct. 

The Judiciary has long had processes for addressing misconduct, and they carry 

potentially significant consequences, including referral to Congress for possible impeachment in 

the case of judges. But employees reported that these two processes—formal complaints under 
12

the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act or through their court’s EDR Plan—often seemed 

excessive in relation to the more common, but less egregious issues of concern they faced. 

As the 2018 Working Group report said: “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. For example, an employee may be uncomfortable 

with a well-meaning supervisor’s familiarity or avuncular physical contact and seek advice on 

how to express discomfort. Or an employee may encounter crude or boorish behavior from a 

coworker and not want to file a formal complaint, but may want a supervisor to step in and 

curtail the conduct. . . . Neither the JC&D Act procedures nor the EDR Plans are designed to 

address those situations.” 

The EEOC’s 2016 report said that “Increasing informal, confidential options within the 

complaint–response system is important . . . to create more supportive environments for those 

who have experienced sexual harassment.” Judiciary employees concurred that they feel more 

confident pursuing grievances when informal advice and multiple communication channels are 

available to them.

In accordance with these recommendations and the supporting research, the Judiciary

undertook significant reforms to its complaint processes in 2019. Those reforms included 

changes to the Model EDR policy that emphasized informal resolutions as an important tool for 

addressing workplace conduct issues. 

“Informal Advice” is an option that allows an employee to air their concerns and receive 

confidential advice and guidance from a local EDR Coordinator, a circuit Director of Workplace 

Relations, or the national Judicial Integrity Officer. This confidential guidance may include 
13

providing information on the employee’s rights, discussing ways to respond to the conduct, and 

providing an outline of potential options for how to proceed with their concerns. Having an 

informal advice channel also can overcome any perceived barriers to reporting in a more formal 

process. 

The “Assisted Resolution” option available under court EDR plans is an interactive and 

flexible process that may include discussions with the source of the conduct, voluntary 

mediation, preliminary investigations including interviewing witnesses, and/or seeking a 

mutually agreeable resolution. Consistent with the EEOC Report, this option gives employees an 

informal method to resolve a workplace matter, typically at an early stage. At all stages, an 

employee retains the option of filing a formal complaint. 

Early evidence indicates that the creation of multiple and confidential informal avenues 

for reporting has been successful in removing barriers to reporting. The Directors of Workplace 

Relations report that they spend more of their time on confidential informal advice than anything 

else, and that these interactions involve a range of workplace issues, not just harassment. Those 

confidential conversations have provided opportunities for a variety of interventions that would 

not have been possible if employees were uncomfortable either coming forward or engaging in a 

more formal process. 

The interventions have included informal actions to stop inappropriate behavior, 

mediations and facilitated conversations, and investigations that resulted in settlements. These 

informal, confidential, and flexible options can counter-balance some of the power disparities 

inherent in the Judiciary. And again, pursuing these options does not preclude the filing of a 

formal complaint. 
14

Clarifying and Strengthening Employee Workplace Protections 

The Working Group’s conversations with Judiciary employees revealed that some 

employees were unsure about the scope and meaning of certain provisions of the Judiciary’s 

policies and Codes of Conduct as they related to workplace conduct. The Judiciary collectively 

spent much time and energy clarifying and strengthening its policies and codes of conduct, as 

well as enacting significant enhancements to the Model EDR Plan. 

For example, the Working Group learned that there was confusion and ambiguity about 

whether confidentiality obligations impeded the reporting of harassment. The Working Group 

stressed that the “confidentiality obligations [of Judiciary employees] must be clear so both 

judges and judicial employees understand these obligations never prevent any employee—

including a law clerk—from revealing abuse or misconduct by any person.” 

Judiciary employees and judges also said it was unclear whether they were supposed to 

report potential misconduct by workplace colleagues. The Codes of Conduct for employees and 

judges were thus amended to emphasize the responsibility to take appropriate action upon 

learning of potential wrongful conduct, and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules were 

expanded to include a mandatory “bystander” reporting obligation for judges.

Under the revised JC&D Rules, judges engage in misconduct if they fail “to bring 

‘reliable information reasonably likely to constitute judicial misconduct’ to the attention of the 

relevant chief district judge or chief circuit judge.” This change is significant, as the information 

ultimately must be shared with chief circuit judges who, in addition to an individual complainant, 

have the authority to initiate a complaint against a judge.

The revised Model EDR Plan also provides that those managing or presiding over an 

EDR process must recuse if they witnessed, or were otherwise involved in, the alleged conduct. 
15

It also requires recusal if the matter creates an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Where 

appropriate, it allows for a judge from a different court to be brought in to preside over a 

complaint. In January 2020, the Judiciary issued an internal EDR interpretive guide and 

handbook for all employees, managers, and judges, so that EDR claims can be processed in a 

uniform, conflict-free manner nationwide.

One of the more impactful policy enhancements to the Model EDR Plan is the addition of 

express protections against “abusive conduct,” defined in the Model EDR Plan as “a pattern of 

demonstrably egregious and hostile conduct not based on a Protected Category that unreasonably 

interferes with an employee’s work and creates an abusive working environment.” This 

protection affords Judiciary employees a specific standard and meaningful avenues for 

addressing workplace concerns that previously lacked recognition. It also extends beyond similar 

protections under federal employment laws, as it defines and prohibits workplace harassment 

even when it is not based on the recipient’s membership in a protected class. 

As courts and employing offices have updated their EDR Plans to include a defined 

prohibition against abusive conduct, the bulk of inquiries and concerns among Judiciary

employees have related to this type of non-discriminatory abusive conduct or other forms of 

uncivil behavior, according to the experience collected. Positively, employees are using the new 

informal avenues of Informal Advice and Assisted Resolution to raise, address, and resolve these 

concerns. This experience demonstrates that the improvements to the EDR process were both 

necessary and have made a difference. 

Leadership, Training, and Trust 

Key elements tying the Judiciary’s workplace conduct program together are leadership

and education. Chief judges, judges, and unit executives are actively engaged in training and 
16

other initiatives, and they are leading by example through their personal commitment to 

maintaining an exemplary workplace. Since 2018, there has been a dramatic increase in training 

related to workplace conduct. 

This has led to two beneficial developments. Knowledge about issues and resources 

related to workplace conduct has steadily grown as trainings have been conducted by the Federal 

Judicial Center, the Office of Judicial Integrity, and the circuit Directors of Workplace Relations. 

In addition, the Directors of Workplace Relations have become much better known inside courts 

and offices as they lead workplace conduct trainings. Direct interaction has made these 

workplace specialists reliable and trustworthy to court employees, and has opened up informal 

communication channels when help is needed. 

Throughout the Working Group’s early deliberations, an urgent need for training was 

expressed in all quarters. Survey responses and other feedback revealed that, prior to 2018, many 

employees were unaware of policies prohibiting misconduct, their rights under those policies, 

and to whom they could turn with workplace conduct concerns. In addition, some judges, 

managers, and supervisors were unsure of their obligations and responsibilities if they observed 

or otherwise became aware of misconduct.

Examples of specific national training requirements and initiatives include:

• The revised Model EDR Plan now requires annual EDR training to be provided for all 

employees, including law clerks, and judges. 

• All EDR coordinators in the Judiciary must now be trained and certified on the 

information and skills necessary to fulfill their function, and the Office of Judicial 

Integrity has developed a uniform national training and certification curriculum for EDR 

Coordinators. This training is in addition to the annual training provided for all 

employees.
17

• Information on workplace conduct protections, resolution options, and resources is 

provided as part of orientations for new law clerks, recently appointed judges, and new 

chief judges.

• The Federal Judicial Center regularly organizes educational programs for judges, court 

unit executives, managers and supervisors, and Judiciary staff.

• The Federal Judicial Center also has conducted trainings and programs on respect in the 

workplace, civility, implicit bias, and other workplace topics.

Extensive training also is being offered at the circuit level. As an example, one circuit has 

developed special initiatives focusing on law clerks—expanded law clerk orientation agendas 

that include sessions on discrimination and harassment policies and employment dispute 

procedures, and sample chambers checklists on workplace expectations. These resources also 

explain how law clerks can seek help.

Increased education about the workplace makes employees aware of their rights, makes 

judges more aware of their obligations and responsibilities, reinforces behavioral expectations, 

and sends a clear message that these issues matter and are taken seriously. When employees, 

including law clerks, are informed—early, clearly, and repeatedly—of their rights and options 

and of the expectations and obligations placed on judges and Judiciary employees, the 

Judiciary’s commitment to a fair and transparent workplace is reinforced.

While imparting knowledge about workplace conduct is essential, the trainings also are 

building trust in, and use of, the system that has been created. The Directors of Workplace 

Relations work across their circuits, providing training for all levels of Judiciary employees in

different court units. The Directors of Workplace Relations and Judiciary employees are forming

direct channels of communication with one another. Such connections are vital in letting 

employees know there is a reliable person to turn to if needed. 
18

The Judicial Integrity Officer, chief judges, and Directors of Workplace Relations are 

seeing the impact of increased communications and training through additional inquiries about 

possible misconduct. Many employees have stated that these trainings alerted them to the 

inappropriate nature of certain behaviors and to the resources available to address them. 

By creating a training network with local as well as national and circuit level resources, 

the enhanced commitment to an exemplary workplace is permeating courts and other Judiciary

offices. The Working Group believes that broad changes at the local level, supported by local 

and circuit training, are the best path to a sustainable and positive environment for federal 

Judiciary employees. 

Finding Solutions That Work 

Testifying before Congress in 2020, a co-author of the EEOC’s 2016 study on sexual 

harassment noted that “two essential components of a successful effort to shape workplace 

culture are leadership from the top and a focus on the unique needs of a particular workplace.” 

Finding solutions that work requires consideration of the unique culture and governance 

of a particular workplace. Any effort to promote an exemplary workplace must take into account 

the Judiciary’s dispersed, regionalized governance structure. Individual courts possess significant 

administrative autonomy, including the authority to address workplace conduct matters. 

Chief Justice Roberts has demonstrated decisive leadership from the top, and the 

Judiciary and Workplace Conduct Working Group have been well served by his commitment to 

an exemplary workplace. In the federal Judiciary, “leadership from the top” requires leadership 

from many “top” individuals, not just one national leader or agency. At a minimum, this includes 

the chief judge of each court and also the head of each court unit. The personal commitment of 
19

judges and court leaders sends a powerful signal that everyone must support a safe and civil 

workplace. 

The policies and procedural changes adopted since 2018 took careful account of the 

Judiciary’s decentralized governance and culture. By establishing Directors of Workplace 

Relations at each circuit, by training and empowering EDR coordinators in each court, and by 

requiring the courts to provide annual training for every judge and employee, among other 

things, the Judiciary’s approach is making itself known, available, and trusted in every court and 

Judiciary office. This comprehensive approach, operating locally, regionally by circuit, and 

nationally, is supporting necessary culture changes that can sustain themselves over time. Judges 

and other court leaders are actively engaged, and employees are learning that they can discuss 

inappropriate workplace behavior, and receive confidential guidance, without incurring 

professional risk. 

Change is happening, and it is happening at the courthouse — the place where employees 

work and where the authority to address workplace issues actually resides. 

In its early discussions, the Working Group concluded that an approach that empowers

employees to bring complaints in their local courthouses or circuits is more likely to be used and 

to be effective than a single national oversight body. For many years, the Judiciary has long had 

a formal complaint process. But the historic lesson is that without on-the-ground training and 

counseling, the Judiciary’s formal complaint process did not inspire trust among employees to 

use it. 

As employees described their views and recommendations to the Working Group and in 

surveys, it became apparent that proposals for a national commission to investigate workplace 

complaints could suffer from the same trust and safety issues that historically limited employee 
20

use of the Judiciary’s formal workplace complaint procedures. Further, the employees were not 

in favor of an outside body to oversee workplace issues.

Without employee trust and participation, any workplace conduct program is at high risk 

of failure. And in the Judiciary, that means any proposed program to report and prevent abuse 

must earn trust in the local workplace. That is where the investment has been made, and that is 

where the important work is being done. As the Working Group’s 2018 recommendations have 

been adopted, the necessary trust is taking root.

The Working Group believes that the Judiciary’s response to workplace conduct concerns 

is succeeding, locally, by circuit, and nationally. While the Judiciary has made significant strides 

and improvements, and has done so expeditiously, some changes don’t occur overnight. There is 

a continuing effort to monitor what we have done, and we expect some of the cultural changes 

will need time to take root. That said, we do not condone misconduct at any level. The Working 

Group recommends that the Judiciary’s strategy for an exemplary workplace continue on its 

current course.

SECTION 2: Recommendations for Additional Improvements 

Workplace conduct programs in any workplace must always evolve to address a 

constantly changing workforce. The Judiciary, like any workplace, must continue to take stock of 

what it has accomplished and find those areas where more can be done. Section 2 contains nine

recommendations to address further areas of improvement. Where needed, the Working Group 

asks that these recommendations be considered by appropriate committees of the Judicial 

Conference. 
21

A. Measure the Use and Effectiveness of Existing Procedures 

Now that the Judiciary has implemented the various changes in policies, procedures, and 

education described in this report, the time is appropriate to assess the workplace climate in the 

Judiciary and the effectiveness of the changes in addressing workplace conduct issues. The 

Working Group has two recommendations in this regard.

Recommendation 1: Conduct a nationwide climate survey, disseminated at regular intervals

to all Judiciary employees, to assess the workplace environment and to provide insight into the 

prevalence of workplace conduct issues and the impact and effectiveness of the improvements 

the Judiciary has made to its policies and processes.

Background: Several circuits and individual courts have conducted their own climate surveys or 

workplace environment assessments, and the resulting information has proven useful for their 

respective populations. A uniform climate survey across the Judiciary as a whole can provide 

additional valuable insight into not only the prevalence of certain types of workplace conduct 

issues in the Judiciary, but also the impact and effectiveness of the numerous improvements the 

Judiciary has made to its policies and processes since 2018.

The Working Group has partnered with the Federal Judicial Center to develop a draft 

Judiciary climate survey. The Working Group recommends that the Federal Judicial Center 

administer and disseminate the survey to all Judiciary employees, managers, unit executives, and 

judges for their voluntary participation.

The draft climate survey would: 

• provide a general picture of the federal Judiciary workplace environment, including 

employee assessments of how the Judiciary’s overarching commitment to civility, 

respectfulness, equity, diversity, and inclusion have been realized;
22

• help the Judiciary understand the nature and extent of any wrongful conduct employees 

may have experienced;

• explore whether wrongful conduct has been disclosed or reported and identify any 

potential barriers to reporting;

• assess the knowledge of and satisfaction with how reports of wrongful conduct are 

handled; 

• assess the effectiveness of confidential advice provided by the Office of Judicial Integrity 

and Directors of Workplace Relations; and

• gather information and feedback that will help improve the Judiciary’s policies, 

procedures, and education and training initiatives.

Recommendation 2: Augment annual EDR-related data collection to include data related to 

Informal Advice contacts, while ensuring that confidentiality is protected.

Background: Judicial Conference policy currently requires the annual collection of certain data 

regarding use of the EDR process throughout the Judiciary. Judiciary EDR Plans provide three 

distinct options for addressing instances of wrongful conduct: (1) Informal Advice, (2) Assisted 

Resolution, and (3) Formal Complaint. Only the latter two are currently the subject of nationwide 

data collection.

The Working Group recommends that, in addition to current EDR-related data collection, 

the Judiciary also collect anonymized data regarding the number of Informal Advice contacts 

received by the Office of Judicial Integrity and circuit Directors of Workplace Relations. Data 

should be collected at a high level (i.e., only the number of contacts), to avoid even the 

perception that the strong confidentiality protections attached to Informal Advice might be 

lessened by the collection of court- or allegation-specific data. This will provide a “usage rate” 

for how often the Judiciary’s new positions at the circuit and national level are being used by 

employees for confidential advice and guidance. 
23

B. Strengthen Policy and Procedure 

Recommendation 3: Enhance the Formal Complaint process by revising the Model EDR 

Plan to specify that an employee complaint must be overseen by a Presiding Judicial 

Officer from outside the court from which the complaint originated.

Background: The Model EDR Plan includes a number of procedural safeguards to ensure that 

the informal and formal EDR options for addressing workplace conduct concerns are consistent, 

unbiased, and effective. Among these safeguards are robust recusal requirements.

Moving the investigative and adjudicative functions within the Formal Complaint process

to a different court could further enhance the perceived impartiality of the process. The Working 

Group believes that employee confidence in the Formal Complaint process could be strengthened 

if the Model EDR Plan were revised to require the role of Presiding Judicial Officer to be outside 

of the court from which the complaint originated. 

Recommendation 4: Develop an express policy regarding romantic relationships that exist 

or develop between employees where there is a supervisory or evaluative relationship. The 

policy should apply to all Judiciary employees and judges.

Background: Current Judicial Conference policy specifically prohibits instances of nepotism 

and favoritism, and relevant advisory opinions by the Committee on Codes of Conduct provide 

further guidance for the application of existing policies to various, more nuanced situations. 

Some non-Judiciary workplaces have adopted an express policy for both pre- and postappointment situations in which romantic relationships exist or develop, particularly between 

individuals where there is a supervisory or evaluative relationship. 

The Working Group believes an express Judiciary-wide policy in this area is necessary 

and suggests that it should apply to all Judiciary employees, managers, unit executives, and 
24

judges. The Working Group recommends that the Office of Judicial Integrity work with others in 

the Administrative Office and relevant advisory councils to further examine the issue and 

develop a proposed policy for consideration by the relevant Judicial Conference committees.

Recommendation 5: Assess incorporation of additional monetary remedies as part of the 

EDR complaint process. 

Background: The Model EDR Plan applies to Judiciary employees the protections accorded to 

many federal employees under the federal employment statutes. Certain monetary remedies and 

attorney fees are already available within the EDR complaint process through its incorporation of 

the Back Pay Act. However, the Judiciary is one of the few workplaces that does not include the 

additional monetary remedies available to employees in other agencies or organizations, 

including other federal employees. With enhanced protections and improved policies now in 

place through a significantly revised Model EDR Plan, the Working Group recommends that the 

Judiciary assess incorporation of additional monetary remedies into the EDR framework.

C. Expand Communication 

Recommendation 6: Direct the Office of Judicial Integrity, with the assistance of the 

Directors of Workplace Relations, to issue an annual Judiciary workplace conduct report.

Background: As the Judiciary’s Strategic Plan states, “Public trust and confidence and 

workforce morale and productivity are enhanced when the Judiciary provides an exemplary 

workplace for everyone.” One necessity for public trust and confidence is regular reporting on 

the progress and evolving challenges of fostering an exemplary workplace. The Working Group 

believes that the Office of Judicial Integrity can help pursue this goal through the publication of 

an annual report.
25

Recommendation 7: Expand Outreach and Engagement. 

Background: As this report and the Working Group’s June 2018 report make clear, the Working 

Group’s efforts have benefited immensely from interactive dialogue with numerous Judiciary

employees, including law clerks, court executives, and employees in defender offices, probation 

and pretrial services, and a wide range of administrative positions. In August 2021, that outreach 

was expanded by way of a letter sent to approximately 200 law schools across the country, 

highlighting the Office of Judicial Integrity and circuit Directors of Workplace Relations as 

confidential avenues for law school administrators to seek guidance and/or report concerns of 

which they become aware.

The Working Group encourages circuits to continue, institute, or expand interactivelistening efforts with focus groups and possibly advisory bodies to ensure that they fully 

understand employee concerns. The Working Group, in turn, will increase its own emphasis on 

interactive listening, by inviting employee groups to meet directly with the Working Group, and 

also to partner with circuits to attend circuit-level discussions. 

D. Additional Recommendations 

Recommendation 8: Strengthen annual EDR training by revising the Model EDR Plan to 

emphasize that courts and employing offices have a responsibility to ensure that EDR training is 

offered and accessible to all employees and judges on an annual basis, and to take affirmative 

steps to ensure completion.

Background: Under existing policy, the Model EDR Plan currently requires courts and 

employing offices, including federal public defender offices, to conduct training annually for all 

judges and employees, including chambers staff, to ensure that they are aware of the rights and 

obligations under the EDR Plan and the options available for reporting wrongful conduct and 
26

seeking relief. However, there is no requirement that courts and employing offices ensure that all 

employees attend training that is offered or that they keep track of who has completed training 

each year. 

The Working Group believes the Model EDR Plan’s current training efforts could be 

further strengthened if courts and employing offices ensured that all their employees not only 

have access to but also complete EDR training on an annual basis. Tracking and ensuring 

consistent completion of annual training is especially important for employees in term positions, 

such as law clerks, who may serve in the Judiciary for only a year or two. 

Recommendation 9: Develop a system for regular review of the Judiciary’s workplace 

conduct policies to ensure comprehensive implementation across courts and circuits.

Background: The Working Group emphasized in its 2018 report the value of systemic 

institutional review and recommended further steps be taken to ensure the consistent application 

of workplace conduct policies across the Judiciary. A system for regularly assessing the 

comprehensive implementation of the Judiciary’s workplace conduct policies achieves this goal. 

The resources necessary for conducting such regular assessments were provided with the 

creation of the Office of Judicial Integrity and the Directors of Workplace Relations. These 

professionals already provide training, guidance, and programmatic support for courts and 

employing offices throughout the year, and are well-positioned to reinforce ongoing efforts by 

the Judiciary to ensure an exemplary workplace for employees. 
27

APPENDIX A

Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group Timeline 

December 31, 2017: In his Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr., calls for creation of a working group to undertake “a careful evaluation of whether 

[the Judiciary’s] standards of conduct and its procedures for investigating and correcting 

inappropriate behavior are adequate to ensure exemplary workplace conduct for every judge and 

every court employee.” 

Early January 2018: The Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group is established. 

It is chaired by James C. Duff, then director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

(AO), and among its members are chief judges, district and appeals court judges, a circuit 

executive, the current Director of the Federal Judicial Center, and the counselor to the Chief 

Justice.

January to May 2018: The Working Group holds a series of meetings with current and former 

law clerks, a cross-section of Judiciary employees, Judiciary advisory councils, industry experts, 

and the authors of a 2016 report from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Select 

Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. They review employee surveys and set 

up a comment mailbox on the Judiciary’s public website for employees to offer suggestions, 

anonymously if desired.

The Judiciary takes several early actions to improve workplace protections. Confidentiality 

provisions in the law clerk handbook are revised to clarify that they do not prohibit reports of 

misconduct by judges, supervisors, or any Judiciary employee. A session on sexual harassment 

and other workplace conduct issues is added to the training program for newly appointed judges.

June 1, 2018: The Workplace Conduct Working Group issues a report with more than 30

detailed recommendations for improvements in policies and procedures. 

August 2018: The U.S. circuit courts begin the process of recruiting and hiring circuit Directors 

of Workplace Relations to provide confidential guidance and assistance to employees within the 

circuit, assist in resolving workplace issues (including those involving both mediation and 

workplace investigations), and offer training on identifying and reporting workplace misconduct. 

The Tenth Circuit hires the first Director of Workplace Relations.

September 13, 2018: Based on the Working Group’s recommendations, the Judicial Conference 

approves several of the changes to the Model Employment Dispute Resolution plan (EDR) – to 

cover interns and externs and extend the time for initiating EDR complaints from 30 to 180 days. 

A list of proposed amendments is published for public comment.

October 2018: An EDR Working Group is appointed and begins work on additional revisions to 

the Model EDR Plan. The working group consists of judges, court executives, and Judiciary

employees.
28

October 30, 2018: Judicial Conference committees hold a public hearing on the proposed 

changes to the judges’ Code of Conduct, the employees’ Code of Conduct, and the Judicial 

Conduct and Disability Rules in Washington, DC.

December 2018: Based on recommendations from the Working Group, the Judiciary hires its 

first national Judicial Integrity Officer to provide confidential advice and guidance on conflict 

resolution, mediation, and formal complaint options. Local court EDR coordinators serve as a 

resource for employees within their respective courts, while circuit Directors of Workplace 

Relations and the national Office of Judicial Integrity serve as additional points of contact from 

whom employees can seek guidance and assistance outside their court’s chain of command.

January 2019: The Judicial Integrity Officer begins holding twice monthly meetings with circuit 

Directors of Workplace Relations to discuss best practices, trends, and training needs. Within the 

first months of 2019, the Office of Judicial Integrity develops a workplace conduct section for 

the Judiciary’s intranet to make information easy to find and to provide a portal for employees to 

submit anonymous reports. Throughout 2019 and early 2020, the Judicial Integrity Officer 

travels extensively around the country to educate judges, managers, and employees about the 

Judiciary’s standards for workplace conduct and the EDR options for resolution.

March 12, 2019: The Judicial Conference approves the Working Group’s recommendations for 

changes to the Codes of Conduct for judges and Judiciary employees, and to the Judicial 

Conduct and Disability Rules. These include: 1) expressly stating that judges and judicial 

employees should neither engage in nor tolerate workplace misconduct and that workplace 

harassment is within the definition of judicial misconduct; 2) emphasizing that judges and 

judicial employees have a responsibility to take appropriate action upon learning of potential 

workplace misconduct and including within the definition of judicial misconduct a judge’s 

failure to report or disclose misconduct; 3) further clarifying that confidentiality obligations do 

not preclude reporting or disclosing judicial misconduct; 4) clarifying that judicial misconduct 

includes retaliation against employees for reporting or disclosing misconduct; and 5) recognizing 

that the Judicial Conference and judicial councils have the authority to assess potential 

institutional issues related to a judicial misconduct complaint, such as an analysis of conditions 

may have enabled misconduct or prevented its discovery, even in cases where a subject judge 

resigns.

September 17, 2019: The Judicial Conference approves a new Model EDR plan that expands 

the options for addressing wrongful workplace conduct. The new plan includes definitions and 

examples of wrongful conduct; three flexible options for addressing workplace conduct issues; 

flowcharts that explain EDR rights and options; and training and certification requirements for 

court EDR coordinators. The changes were all recommended by the Working Group to improve 

the Judiciary’s procedures for identifying and correcting wrongful conduct and providing more 

informal and flexible ways to report and address workplace conduct issues.

September 2019: The Working Group issues a status report on the actions taken on its 

recommendations and notes that “nearly all” of them have been implemented through a 

concerted effort by the Judicial Conference, the courts, the AO, and the Federal Judicial Center.
29

January 2020: The Office of Judicial Integrity and the EDR Working Group issue a 150-page 

Employment Dispute Resolution Interpretive Guide and Handbook for employees, managers, 

and judges to foster uniform and effective processes to resolve workplace conduct issues through 

the EDR options for resolution.

July 2020: An online workplace conduct training course for EDR coordinators is distributed to 

the courts. All EDR coordinators must pass tests in five modules to become certified. Amidst the 

global pandemic, the Office of Judicial Integrity and Directors of Workplace Relations continue 

to provide workplace conduct training to courts and judicial employees remotely via Zoom and 

Teams.

August 2020 to July 2021: Additional training programs are developed; circuits continue 

outreach efforts to both internal and external stakeholders; specialized training and tailored 

resources are developed for law clerks; and websites are updated to provide clear information on 

workplace resources.

August 2021: All of the circuits have a Director of Workplace Relations in place to provide 

confidential guidance and assistance to employees within the circuit and to provide training. 

A letter is sent to every American Bar Association-accredited law school in the country, 

explaining how the Office of Judicial Integrity and Directors of Workplace Relations can assist 

law clerks and law school administrators, and emphasizing that these officials offer a 

confidential forum for law schools to seek guidance and report workplace conduct concerns 

when they become aware of them.

Nearly all courts adopt the revised EDR plan. The Working Group and the Director of 

Workplace Relations Advisory Group continue to meet regularly to monitor and assess 

workplace conduct matters throughout the Judiciary.
30

APPENDIX B 

Major Actions in 2020 and 2021 

The improvements implemented throughout 2020 and 2021 include the following: 

• The Judiciary has in place a strong network of professionals who are expert in matters of 

workplace conduct and are outside of the traditional court chain of command to support 

and provide services to both employees and employing offices. Key to this network are 

the Directors of Workplace Relations, and every circuit now has a Director of Workplace 

Relations (or analogous position). These positions focus on workplace conduct issues and 

serve all courts and employing offices within a circuit. 

In addition, the national Office of Judicial Integrity, headed by the Judicial Integrity 

Officer, was established by the Administrative Office to also serve as an independent 

avenue for employees and employing offices. The Office of Judicial Integrity collects 

information about the use of EDR processes nationally, monitors workplace issues to 

identify trends, and provides leadership on policy initiatives. The Office of Judicial 

Integrity is in the process of expanding to include additional staff to assist with national 

efforts. Together, this network of individuals provides confidential advice and guidance 

to employees, managers, and judges; supports and facilitates EDR processes; coordinates 

training programs; proposes and assists in the implementation of policy initiatives; and 

collaborates on best practices to foster consistency across the circuits and courts.

• Judiciary employees benefit from a wide range of outreach and engagement opportunities 

provided by Directors of Workplace Relations. The Office of Judicial Integrity and 

Directors of Workplace Relations provide training to clearly communicate employee 

rights and the workplace conduct process, and disseminate resources through websites, 

newsletters, posters, and other outreach initiatives. A recent virtual training series in 

November and December 2021 was viewed live by over 6,000 employees and judges, 

and another tailored for chambers staff was attended by nearly 100 staff, including law 

clerks and judicial assistants. Several circuits have formed workplace conduct 

committees, diversity and inclusion task forces, focus groups, and employee advisory 

groups, such as those specific to law clerks and probation/pretrial employees, to garner 

valuable feedback and inform future initiatives.

• The Judiciary has taken active steps to establish clear and trusted lines of communication 

with law schools to ensure they are aware of the Judiciary’s workplace protections and 

available processes for addressing concerns and highlighting the Office of Judicial 

Integrity and Directors of Workplace Relations as confidential avenues for law school 

administrators to seek guidance and/or report concerns of which they become aware. This 

has resulted in outreach from law schools seeking guidance or inviting the Office of 

Judicial Integrity or Directors of Workplace Relations to provide presentations or training 
31

to their staff or students regarding the Judiciary’s workplace conduct policies and 

processes.

• The Federal Judicial Center, in concert with the Office of Judicial Integrity and Directors 

of Workplace Relations, has increased the availability and dissemination of workplace 

conduct training to the entire Judiciary – judges, law clerks, chamber staff, and other staff 

– tailored to their roles and responsibilities. The Federal Judicial Center provides sessions 

that address various aspects of workplace conduct at orientations for new judges and 

through continuing education programs. Virtual and in-person programs, webinars, and 

podcasts for new and current Judiciary employees address topics such as preventing 

workplace harassment, civility in the workplace, dealing with difficult situations, and the 

codes of conduct.

• The strengthened and streamlined Model EDR Plan has been adopted by every circuit 

and virtually all courts and employing offices. The Model EDR Plan includes enhanced 

policy protections, including an express prohibition for abusive conduct, covers all paid 

and unpaid employees, provides specific informal avenues (Informal Advice and Assisted 

Resolution) for reporting and addressing wrongful conduct, and provides a more 

streamlined formal complaint process and allows for more time to file a formal claim. 

Employees are aware of their enhanced protections regarding abusive conduct and are 

using the EDR options to effectively address those concerns. The addition of informal 

advice and assisted resolution has broken down barriers to reporting as indicated by the 

increased use of these processes and has allowed issues to be resolved more quickly. This 

demonstrates that the improvements to the EDR process, addressing this newly defined 

category of wrongful conduct and providing flexible options for resolution, were both 

necessary and have proven impactful.

• A new Model Federal Public Defender Organization EDR Plan was developed and 

approved by the Judicial Conference, designed to address the issues unique to the federal 

public defender organization community, including: the distinct employment relationship 

between the federal public defenders and their employees, their role as legal 

representatives with ethical obligations to clients on whose behalf they appear in court, 

and the need to mitigate concerns regarding access to sensitive information. The 

foundational policy protections and general processes, timelines, and standards for 

reporting wrongful conduct, filing complaints, conducting investigations, and achieving 

resolution under this plan remain consistent with those set forth in the Judiciary’s Model 

EDR Plan previously adopted.

• New requirements in the Model EDR Plan have helped to ensure that every court and 

employing office has at least two trained and certified EDR coordinators. An online 

training course must be taken and passed by EDR coordinators in order to become 

certified, and over 400 EDR individuals have been certified to date.
32

• The EDR Interpretive Guide and Handbook (EDR Handbook) was prepared by the Office 

of Judicial Integrity, in collaboration with the Directors of Workplace Relations, and 

made available Judiciary-wide, but especially useful to EDR coordinators, Directors of 

Workplace Relations, unit executives, judges, and others directly involved in or who 

support the formal and informal EDR processes. The EDR Handbook provides detailed 

explanations for each of the EDR options for resolution, step-by-step directions for each 

process, information about the remedies available under the EDR Plan, proactive and 

responsive steps for safeguarding the rights and protections afforded under the EDR Plan, 

and more.

• Policies for the provision of interim and permanent relief related to allegations of 

wrongful conduct were clarified and streamlined. Courts and employing offices can 

provide immediate interim remedies such as temporary reassignment or relocation as 

allegations of wrongful conduct are being investigated. To streamline the process, the 

Judicial Conference delegated to the Committee on Judicial Resources the authority to 

more expediently grant permanent relief without diminution of an employee’s salary, 

grade, and employment status.

• The Codes of Conduct – for judges, employees, and federal public defender office 

employees – were modified to ensure that judges and employees understand that 

confidentiality obligations should never prevent any employee, including a law clerk, 

from revealing abuse or reporting misconduct by any person. In addition, the Codes of 

Conduct and Judicial Conduct and Disability Rules were modified to provide clear 

obligations for judges and employees to take appropriate action upon learning of potential 

misconduct. Extensive training, highlighting these changes, has been conducted for 

judges and employees throughout the Judiciary.