Opinion ID: 1800645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to comply with a federal court order)

Text: On July 3, 2003, Ms. Viator filed suit against Judge Miller in federal court, asserting that Judge Miller sexually harassed her after their affair ended and constructively discharged her from her employment with the 31st Judicial District Court. Heather C. Viator v. Wendell Miller, individually and in his official capacity as Judge of the 31 st Judicial District Court, No. CV03-1273 on the docket of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Ms. Viator further complained that Judge Miller continued to contact her or to attempt to contact her, personally, by telephone, and in writing, despite her requests that he leave her alone and stop harassing her. Judge Miller denied Ms. Viator's allegations and contended that telephone and e-mail contact with Ms. Viator resumed in February of 2003 and was mutually initiated. On August 28, 2003, United States District Judge Patricia Minaldi entered a consent order prohibiting Judge Miller from having direct or indirect contact or communication with Plaintiff Heather Viator or her daughter. Thereafter, on three separate occasions in early 2004, Judge Miller mailed $400 checks to Ms. Viator at her home address. Judge Miller intended these checks as child support for A.V. and asserted that he mailed them only after Michael Viator took a DNA test, the results of which excluded him as the biological father of A.V. [3] On June 1, 2004, Judge Minaldi held Judge Miller in contempt of court and fined him $500 for violating the order prohibiting him from contacting Ms. Viator. In her written reasons for judgment, Judge Minaldi stated: . . . Left with no other means by which to assert his authority, the evidence establishes and the Court concludes that Miller sent the checks as a means of asserting paternity in an extra-judicial fashion, designed to harass and upset Ms. Viator in violation of this Court's order. . . . [I]n light of the evidence that his motivation was harassment rather than the support of his child, the mailing of the checks is a willful violation of the Court and a calculated method of circumventing the Consent Order in a fashion designed to have the guise of moral righteousness. On June 13, 2005, the contempt order was affirmed in an unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2005, Ms. Viator's sexual harassment suit was settled by the State of Louisiana for the sum of $50,000. The Commission alleged that Judge Miller's conduct violated Canons 1 (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary) and 2A (a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission further alleged that Judge Miller engaged in persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of La. Const. art. V, § 25(C). In his answer to the formal charge, Judge Miller contended that the simple mailing of the child support checks to Ms. Viator did not violate the consent order, and he continue[s] to be of this opinion despite the subsequent ruling of Judge Minaldi. Furthermore, Judge Miller disputed Judge Minaldi's conclusions as to his motivation for mailing the checks.