In a rare and closely watched trial, a former public defender, Caryn Strickland, concluded her legal battle against the U.S. federal judiciary, alleging mishandling of her workplace misconduct complaint. The trial, presided over by U.S. District Judge William Young, took place remotely in federal court in Asheville, North Carolina, with its culmination on January 4.
Strickland’s accusations centered around “quid pro quo sexual harassment” by a supervisor, J.P. Davis, during her tenure in the Federal Public Defender’s Office in the Western District of North Carolina from 2017 to 2019. The case unfolded, revealing a controversial email from Davis in May 2018, offering career advancement in exchange for undisclosed favors, which Strickland described as “threatening and traumatizing.”
Despite an internal investigation supporting Strickland’s claims, Judge Young questioned her argument that Anthony Martinez, the then-top federal prosecutor, should have been disqualified from reviewing her complaint. While acknowledging Martinez’s hostility towards Strickland, the judge challenged the assertion that he played a pernicious role in the review process, questioning the denial of due process.
Strickland, representing herself alongside her husband, argued for disqualification, emphasizing Martinez’s bias. However, the judge raised doubts about Martinez’s formal authority under the court’s employment dispute resolution plan to decide her case.
The trial, which began on December 11 and witnessed Strickland seeking at least $692,881 in damages for lost earnings due to alleged harassment, concluded with Judge Young expressing his commitment to delivering a ruling promptly.
Strickland’s lawsuit, based on claims of constitutional equal protection and due process violations, sheds light on the challenges faced by judicial employees who lack the protections against workplace harassment provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Strickland, a vocal advocate for legislative changes to enhance the rights of judicial employees, testified before Congress in 2022.
In response to the allegations, Joshua Kolsky, a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending the judiciary, contended that the conduct in question was neither sexual nor romantic. Kolsky asserted that prompt action was taken by 4th Circuit officials to investigate Strickland’s complaint and improve the handling of misconduct allegations.
As the trial comes to a close, the legal community awaits Judge Young’s ruling in the case, officially titled Strickland v. United States, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (No. 20-66).
