In a legal spectacle that kicked off on Monday, the U.S. federal judiciary found itself under the spotlight as Caryn Strickland, a former public defender from the Western District of North Carolina, brought forth allegations of mishandling her sexual harassment complaint. The trial, overseen remotely by Judge William Young from Boston, delves into accusations that Strickland’s supervisor subjected her to unwarranted sexual advances.
Dispensing with any witness testimonies, Caryn Strickland swiftly rested her case against the judiciary after both sides presented their opening statements in the non-jury civil trial in Asheville, North Carolina.
Cooper Strickland, her co-counsel and husband, informed Judge William Young that the existing documented evidence would suffice to substantiate their claims. Strickland, who served in the Federal Public Defender’s Office from 2017 to 2019, filed a lawsuit in 2020, alleging mishandling of her sexual harassment claims by officials in the office and the local federal court system.
In a pivotal moment during the trial, Caryn Strickland recounted feeling “uncomfortable” after her supervisor proposed a “quid pro quo” to advance her career following a 2018 meeting over drinks. A May 18, 2018, email from the supervisor, outlining a “plan” to increase her pay, became a focal point of the case. Strickland interpreted the email as suggesting a trade of career help for sexual favors, leading her to distance herself from the supervisor.
Cooper Strickland asserted in his opening statement that, following her complaint, Strickland faced a “fundamentally unfair” internal judicial review of her harassment claims. Justice Department attorney Madeline McMahon countered, stating that the email was “plainly not a sexual advance” but an offer to assist Strickland after she expressed the need for a raise or a transfer due to working in a different city than her husband.
The trial is anticipated to continue through the coming week, with Strickland’s case facing a challenge earlier this year when her legal team withdrew without explanation. Strickland had previously testified before Congress, alongside other women, detailing experiences of harassment and discrimination within the federal judiciary.
Despite invoking her right against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment when asked about the start of her job, Judge Young directed Strickland to respond, emphasizing the limited relevance of the constitutional protection in this context.
As the legal drama unfolds, the case, officially known as Strickland v. United States, is being closely watched for its potential implications on workplace harassment within the federal judiciary.
