[From The Galveston County Daily News]Since U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent has been accused of — and apparently sanctioned for — sexual harassment, some people are wondering how he can preside over such cases himself.
If a former court employee’s accusations against Kent are true, they raise problems for other reasons.
One problem is that the behavior of which Kent is accused seems more serious than the accusations against Clarence and Isiah Thomas.
The accusations against Clarence and Isiah Thomas chiefly have to do with crude comments and repeated requests for dates and sex. Cathy McBroom, Kent’s former case manager, complained that the judge’s harassment included unwanted physical contact, said McBroom’s attorney, Rusty Hardin.
Kent and his attorney have not returned repeated calls by The Galveston County Daily News seeking comment.
It was one of several such allegations that have been made against the judge, who has presided in the Galveston federal court for the past 17 years, but McBroom is the only one who has filed a formal complaint. Other women contacted by The Daily News said they did not want to be identified.
The federal courts are a special venue for sexual harassment cases. That’s because harassment in the workplace is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law.
“If he’s been found to have committed sexual harassment himself, one can reasonably conclude that he does not consider that a serious issue,” Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women, said in an interview.
Kristy Martorell is among those who question Kent’s fairness.
In 2002, Kent summarily dismissed a sexual harassment suit Martorell brought against her employer, the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office.
Since Kent dismissed her case, Martorell says she’s had a hard time finding other work.
Gandy, of the National Organization of Women, says that’s common.
“This is not a thing a woman does lightly,” Gandy said of filing a sexual harassment complaint. “She risks being blackballed by other employers for going to the EEOC.”
Regardless of the gender of the person filing it, sexual harassment complaints to the federal agency are more likely than not to be closed without the person making the complaint getting restitution.
There were almost 12,000 sexual harassment complaints filed in 2006, according to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission statistics. Of them, 29 percent were either settled, withdrawn after awarding something to the person complaining, or a federal investigation determined the complaint was reasonable.
The rest were thrown out.
In court, the cases might not do much better. Gandy said she was involved in the passage of a 1991 law entitling those complaining of sexual harassment to a federal court to a trial before a jury. The concern at the time was that some unsympathetic federal judges automatically ruled against such cases, Gandy said.
But then some judges started dismissing cases before they ever got far enough to be tried before a jury, Gandy said.
“The judges changed tactics,” Gandy said. “They simply dismissed them for failing to state an adequate case.”
That’s what happened with Kent’s order in Martorell’s case.
In light of the most recent allegations against Kent, Martorell doesn’t see how he can fairly preside over sexual harassment cases because of what many may see as a perceived bias.
“I just don’t think he should be allowed to be a judge,” she said.
FOR MORE ON JUDGE KENT SEE THESE POSTS FROM OUR FRIENDS AT Above The Law:
Judge of the Day: Samuel Kent
Fifth Circuit Benchslaps the Naughty Judge Kent
Morning Docket: 10.03.07
0 comments:
Post a Comment