All federal courts have put in place an effective dispute resolution plan giving employees multiple pathways to report and address workplace concerns, and an increasing number of them are opting to use the new processes, according to the first Annual Report on the Judiciary Workplace released today.

The report details the extensive steps taken since 2018 to ensure Judiciary employees are protected from conduct that is discriminatory, harassing, retaliatory, or abusive and that they have access to effective measures to seek redress for their concerns when issues arise.

“The Judiciary is committed to ensuring that employees are treated with dignity and respect, and enjoy a workplace free from discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and abusive conduct,” wrote Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in the report’s opening message.

Among the highlights in the report are:

• As of the end of 2023, all federal courts had adopted and implemented an employment dispute resolution (EDR) plan based on the Judiciary’s Model EDR plan, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in 2019. Every employee now has a menu of options for redressing workplace misconduct – informal advice, assisted resolution and the filing of a formal complaint. A recent study by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) found that “the three processes for dealing with possible misconduct are working well.”
• There are now trained professionals at the national, circuit, and local court levels who can provide confidential advice to employees about their options when they have workplace concerns. In addition to the national Office of Judicial Integrity, each circuit now has a Director of Workplace Relations. DWRs are experienced working in the federal or state courts and a number of them have backgrounds in employment law.
• To increase transparency, the Judiciary now tracks and publishes the number of Judicial Conduct and Disability (JC&D) complaints filed by Judiciary employees. The numbers show that employee-initiated JC&D complaints against judges are rare. In fiscal year 2021, 11 of 1,304 complainants in JC&D matters were Judiciary employees. The following fiscal year, just one of 1,533 JC&D complaints was brought by a Judiciary employee. In fiscal year 2023, the number was three.
• JC&D data reflects the fact that the vast majority of JC&D complaints are filed by litigants and prisoners challenging a judge’s decision and are unrelated to the Judiciary workplace.
• More than 40 percent of EDR matters concluded between fiscal years 2021 and 2023 were resolved through mutual agreement or settlement, an indication that the Judiciary is making progress toward its goal of addressing concerns quickly and early, without the need for adversarial proceedings.
• The number of employees availing themselves of the new avenues increased. In fiscal year 2023, there were 94 active EDR matters across the Judiciary, a substantial increase over the 53 EDR matters in fiscal year 2021. Even though this number still represents a small fraction of Judiciary employees, the increase suggests that employees are becoming more aware of their options and increasingly willing to use them to address workplace concerns.

Two outside entities recently evaluated the Judiciary’s changes to its workplace processes and procedures – the FJC and NAPA research team and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Both found that significant aspects of the system are working well and validated the Judiciary’s overall approach.

The GAO found that the Judiciary’s practices largely align with those recommended by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The report said, “The protections that apply to judicial employees are similar to the statutory protections that apply to most federal employees. In some ways, certain protections exceed those that apply by statute to most federal employees.” 

Both reports also made recommendations for further refinements to workplace processes and procedures, which the Judiciary is studying.

Judge Conrad said, “We welcome constructive review and analysis of our processes and policies. And we take the recommendations from those outside the Judiciary seriously. Providing a safe and respectful workplace is extremely important to all of us in leadership roles, and we will continue to refine and improve our approach as time goes on.”

The annual report is the first of its kind published by the AO’s Office of Judicial Integrity. It was done in response to a recommendation from the Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group, an internal group made up of judges and Judiciary executives created at the direction of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2018.

Parties in civil lawsuits are not the only ones caught in legal limbo. Federal courts must prioritize their limited resources to resolve criminal cases as required under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. However, with escalating electronic discovery demands, even criminal cases are taking more time to resolve than they did just five years ago. The result is defendants spending more time behind bars before a jury can decide their cases.

“There is an idea that because something is electronic discovery that it has somehow made the process easier,” said Judge Kathleen Williams, of the Southern District of Florida, whose court faces a growing backlog. “It just means that a vast, vast amount of information is now available for review, and that is going to take a significant amount of time.”

The Judiciary employs magistrate judges, senior judges, and even visiting judges to try to reduce case delays. Visiting judges — usually federal judges on senior status — temporarily volunteer their services in jurisdictions with large caseloads to help fill the gaps. But judges say these are Band-Aid measures that are insufficient to resolve case backlogs.

“We rely heavily on our Article I magistrate judges. But there are limits to their authority and while they can assist district judges, they alone cannot solve the shortage of Article III judges that we face,” said Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, of the District of Delaware. “Oftentimes, using magistrate judges as a replacement for Article III judges creates more work for the court because the parties, especially in complex civil cases, file objections to their recommendations and request that district judges get involved anyway.”

Corrigan, of the Middle District of Florida, said, “We are grateful for our senior district judges. They have been critical to keeping our overloaded courts afloat. However, our senior judges are getting older, and they simply cannot continue to hear cases at the pace that they were able to previously and many of them are understandably retiring from the bench. We need more district judges to support the workload changes our court has seen over the last several decades.”

The last comprehensive judgeship bill for the U.S. courts of appeals and district courts, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, was enacted more than 30 years ago. 

In 2023, the Judicial Conference of the United States, recommended to Congress the creation of several new district and court of appeals judgeships to meet increased workload demands in certain courts. The recommendations included adding two judgeships to the courts of appeals, adding 66 judgeships to the district courts, converting seven temporary district court judgeships to permanent judgeships, and extending two temporary district court judgeships for an additional five years.

The JUDGES Act, a bill passed by the Senate and pending in the House, would meet many of the Judiciary’s needs for additional judgeships.

Federal judges fear that continued delays will erode public confidence in the Judiciary and the judicial process, steering potential litigants away from federal courts altogether.

“Without having a jury hear your case and a judge rule on legal issues in a timely manner, you stall the progression of legal precedents that are vital to economic, technological, and social advancement, and undermine public trust in the legal system,” Crane said. “Additional Article III judgeships are essential to the system’s well-being.”

In celebration of Native American Heritage Month, a new video describes Sykes’ relationship with Saubel, and their respective professional perspectives. Saubel started her internship in 2023 while going to college and raising a family.

“Working with Rose has been one of the first times in my life and in my career that I’ve been able to work with another Native American woman,” said Sykes, of the Central District of California. “She has been an amazing intern, and an amazing colleague, an amazing sister and friend.”

“I started to change my mindset on what is possible,” said Saubel, a member of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian tribe. She added that Sykes, as the first Native American woman to serve as a federal judge in California, “gives not only me, but my family and my daughter, a chance to see how far we can really go.”

Learn about Native American judges in the federal Judiciary and other Native American Heritage Month resources.