Amicus Curiae Brief — Caryn Devins Strickland, Petitioner v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources, et al.

No. 25-1303

IN THE

_________

CARYN DEVINS STRICKLAND,

Petitioner,

v.

NANCY L. MORITZ, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

JUDICIAL RESOURCES, ET AL.,

Respondents.

_________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

_________

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS

AMICI CURIAE AND BRIEF FOR GEORGIA

ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN LAWYERS AND

THE LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT AS

AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

_________

KAREEMAH LEWIS

Counsel of Record

Georgia Association for Women Lawyers, Inc.

P.O. Box 79308

Atlanta, GA 30357

(404) 588-5009

kareemahlewis@gmail.com

1

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, Georgia

Association for Women Lawyers (“GAWL”) and The

Legal Accountability Project (“LAP”) (collectively

“Amici”) respectfully request leave to submit a brief as

amicus curiae in support of the petition for writ of

certiorari filed by Caryn Devins Strickland in this

case.

Rule 37.2(a) requires that amici notify all

parties’ counsel of their intent to file an amicus brief

in support of a petition for certiorari at least ten days

before the due date, and further that the due date is

30 days after the case is placed on the docket or a

response is called for, whichever is later. The case was

docketed on May 21, 2026. On June 15, 2026, the

Court called for Respondent to respond to the Petition.

On June 13, 2026, the Court extended the time for the

filing of the response to August 14, 2026.

Amicus notified Petitioner’s counsel of its intent

to file an amicus brief as early as June 1, 2026, well

before the prescribed date to do so. However, due to

oversight in the preparation of brief of amici,

Respondent’s counsel was not notified of Amici’s

intent to file an amicus brief in support of the Petition

until July 14, 2026, the day before the deadline to file

the amicus brief.

On July 14, 2026, Amici received written

consent from Petitioner’s counsel for the filing of this

amicus brief. Amici further reached out to

Respondent’s counsel to notify Respondent of Amici’s

2

intent to file this amicus brief but received no response

and was unable to obtain written consent to file

outside of the prescribed deadline.

Amici have a unique voice to offer the Court on

this Petition because they are both dedicated to

serving the interests of those employed by the federal

judiciary and the legal profession as a whole. GAWL

and LAP both regularly interact with the very people

who will be most strongly impacted by the Court’s

ultimate decision whether to grant certiorari in this

case, and the amicus brief reflects that understanding.

Amici are both non-profit public interest

organizations that created this amicus through pro

bono and volunteer efforts, primarily by law students

and young attorneys. In light of the extension granted

to the Respondent which would permit them ample

time to review this amicus brief ahead of their

Response, should they choose to address it, and in

light of Petitioner’s consent to this brief being filed,

Amici respectfully ask the Court to grant them leave

to file this amicus brief.

Respectfully submitted,

KAREEMAH LEWIS

Counsel of Record

Georgia Association for Women Lawyers, Inc.

Immediate Past President

P.O. Box 79308

Atlanta, GA 30357

(404) 588-5009

kareemahlewis@gmail.com

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................. i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE

ARGUMENT ................................................................ 2

ARGUMENT ................................................................ 3

I.

II.

Carve-Outs from Title VII Have Permitted a

Pervasive and Persistent Problem with Sexual

Harassment and Discrimination in the Federal

Judiciary............................................................ 3

A.

Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

Are Pervasive Problems in the

Workforce, Including in the Federal

Judiciary. ................................................ 4

B.

Carve-Outs from Title VII Allow the

Issue of Sexual Harassment and

Discrimination to Fester in the Federal

Judiciary. ................................................ 8

A Decision Adverse to Petitioner Would Permit

the Federal Judiciary to Continue

Implementing Subpar Internal Investigation

and Dispute Resolution Measures. ................ 13

ii

III.

Allowing Sexual Harassment and

Discrimination to Persist Would Detrimentally

Impact All Women Tied to the Legal

Profession, Including Those in Georgia. ........ 17

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 22

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp.,

786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) ........................... 11

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White,

548 U.S. 53 (2006) .......................................... 10

Crawford v. Metro Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson

Cnty., Tenn.,

555 U.S. 271 (2009) ................................... 10, 20

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton,

524 U.S. 775 (1998) ......................................... 13

Hoyle v. Freightliner, LLC,

650 F.3d 321 .................................................... 13

Smith v. First Union Nat’l Bank,

202 F.3d 234 (2000) ........................................ 13

Strickland v. Moritz,

149 F.4th 378 (4th Cir. 2025) ......... 5, 11, 15, 16

Strickland v. United States,

744 F.Supp.3d 477 (W.D.N.C. 2024) .............. 16

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 90 ............................................................ 18

iv

OTHER AUTHORITIES

2023 Workplace Survey for the Federal Judiciary

Condensed Report to Accompany Working

Group Recommendations (Mar. 2025),

available at

https://www.fjc.gov/content/392606/condensedreport-2023-federal-judiciary-workplacesurvey. ............................................................... 6

Demographics, AM. BAR ASSOC.,

https://www.americanbar.org/news/profilelegal-profession/demographics/ (last visited

July 8, 2026) .................................................... 17

GAO-24-105638, Federal Judiciary: Additional

Actions Would Strengthen Efforts to Prevent

and Address Workplace Misconduct, U.S.

GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., (July 2024) ..........

............................................................. 13, 14, 15

Impeachments of Federal Judges, FED. JUD. CTR.,

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachmen

ts-federal-judges (last visited July 9, 2026) .......

....................................................................... 7, 8

Jacqueline Thomsen & Suzanne Monyak, US

Judiciary Reports Increase in Employee

Workplace Disputes (1), BLOOMBERG L.,

(updated Nov. 20, 2024, 1:54 PM EST),

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-lawweek/us-judiciary-reports-increase-inemployee-workplace-disputes......................... 19

v

Joan Bilskupic, CNN Investigation: Sexual

misconduct by judges kept under wraps, CNN

(Jan. 26, 2018, updated 12:35 PM),

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/courts

-judges-sexual-harassment/index.html ............ 9

Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Annual Report 2021,

U.S. CTS. https://www.uscourts.gov/datanews/reports/annual-reports/directors-annualreport/annual-report-2021 (last visited July 9,

2026) ............................................................ 8, 17

Judges, U.S. CT. APP. ELEVENTH CIR.,

https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/judges (last

visited July 9, 2026) ........................................ 18

Law School Enrollment by State, 2015 vs 2025

Comparison, LAWHUB,

https://www.lawhub.org/trends/enrollment-bystate (last visited July 9, 2026) ...................... 18

New ABA report spotlights rise of women in the law,

AM. BAR ASSOC. (Nov. 18, 2024),

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/ab

a-news-archives/2024/11/new-aba-reportspotlights-rise-women-in-law/ ....................... 18

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Strickland v. Moritz,

No. 25-1303, 2026 WL 1454727 (May 18, 2016)

......................................................................... 16

vi

Report Of The Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct

Working Group On The Judiciary’s 2023

National Workplace Survey, FED. JUD. CTR.

RSCH. DIVISION (Mar. 31, 2025), available at

https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciarynews/2025/03/31/judiciary-releases-workplaceconduct-report-and-employee-survey-results ....

................................................................. 5, 6, 14

Summary of Findings: Sexual Harassment: A Severe

and Pervasive Problem, NEW AM.,

https://www.newamerica.org/insights/sexualharassment-severe-and-pervasiveproblem/summary-of-findings/ (last visited

July 8, 2026) .................................................... 20

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual

Harassment in the Federal Workplaces:

Understanding and Addressing the Problem

(Dec. 2022)..................................................... 4, 5

Women in the Legal Profession, AM. BAR ASSOC.,

https://www.americanbar.org/news/profilelegal-profession/women/ (last visited July 8,

2026) ................................................................ 17

1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Amici curiae are two organizations that serve a

population of attorneys, legal professionals, and law

students who share a strong interest in eradicating

harassment and discrimination in the federal

judiciary.

Amici Georgia Association for Women Lawyers

(“GAWL”) is a non-profit organization that primarily

serves women attorneys and legal professionals in the

state of Georgia. GAWL joins this amicus brief

because persistent gender discrimination and sexual

harassment in the workplace and the exclusion of

women in the federal judiciary from protections

against it are a direct threat to the promises

guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process

and Equal Protection clauses. For nearly a century,

GAWL has worked to advance women in the legal

profession, promote equal access to justice, and

support the recruitment, retention, and advancement

of women lawyers throughout Georgia. Ensuring that

women are not subject to such harassment and

discrimination in the workplace and are not barred

from legal remedy is consistent with GAWL’s

1 Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 37.6, amici curiae affirm that no part

of this brief was authored by counsel for any party, person, or

organization besides amici, and that no person or entity, other

than amicus curiae, their members, or their counsel, has made a

monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this

brief. While counsel for Petitioner received timely notice of

Amici’s intent to file this brief pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 37.2,

Respondent’ counsel was not provided timely notice, and Amici

refer the Court to Amici’s Motion for Leave.

2

longstanding advocacy for equality

advancement of women’s rights.

and

the

Amici The Legal Accountability Project (“LAP”)

is a non-profit organization whose mission is to ensure

judicial law clerks, and judicial branch employees

generally, have positive work experiences, while

extending support and resources to those who do not.

LAP joins this amicus brief because the lack of legal

remedies available to federal judiciary employees,

particularly law clerks, prevents employees from

seeking real accountability when they are harassed or

discriminated against and creates inadequate

protections against resulting retaliation. The lack of

accountability for judges who abuse their power and

lack of transparency throughout the federal judiciary

strike at the heart of judicial integrity and threaten

not just judicial branch employees and the legal

industry, but society generally.

Amici submit this brief to support the basic

principle that employees of the federal judiciary—

many of whom are women attorneys and legal

professionals—have a right to be free from sexual

harassment and sex discrimination in their own

workplace. The legal profession demands it, and the

fair administration of justice depends upon it.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE

ARGUMENT

The federal judiciary is one of this country’s

largest employers in the legal profession, with over

30,000 employees. Yet it is exempt from basic

3

employment protections deemed essential for all other

employees in the United States. The Employee

Dispute Resolution (“EDR”) Plan should, in theory,

bridge the gap between Title VII exemptions and

claims brought by employees of the federal judiciary

for sex and gender harassment and discrimination.

But, as Petitioner’s case demonstrates alongside

numerous other unsuccessful attempts to utilize the

EDR Plan, there remains a chasm between the

protections of Title VII and the EDR Plan.

This case presents the Court with the

opportunity to reconcile the carve-outs from Title VII

from which members of the federal judiciary benefit

with the general concept that all employees should be

free from harassment and discrimination in their

place of work. As set forth more fully below, a ruling

adverse to the Petitioner would permit sexual

harassment and discrimination to remain relatively

unchecked in the federal judiciary, not only harming

all employees of the federal judiciary, but severely

impacting all those with ties to the legal profession

who may someday pursue such employment.

ARGUMENT

I.

Carve-Outs from Title VII Have Permitted a

Pervasive and Persistent Problem with

Sexual Harassment and Discrimination in

the Federal Judiciary.

While nearly all employees in the United States enjoy

the well-established legal protections granted through

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal

4

judiciary employees are denied those same rights.

Such employees are granted only one option: pursue

claims of discrimination and harassment through the

judiciary’s EDR Plan—a system designed and

administered by the judiciary itself.

Despite the subsequent passage of the Congressional

Accountability Act of 1995, which provided similar

Title VII protections enjoyed by private sector and

government employees to judiciary employees, they

have yet to be provided with equal protection under

the law. Notably, women are overwhelmingly and

detrimentally impacted by this intentionally-designed

system.

A. Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

Are Pervasive Problems in the Workforce,

Including in the Federal Judiciary.

A 2022 publication by the U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board reported that approximately 14% of

federal employees experienced one or more sexual

harassment behaviors during a two-year period,

including exposure to sexually oriented conversations,

uninvited invasion of personal space, and unwelcome

sexual teasing, jokes, comments, or questions.2 Of that

group, data shows a clear difference by gender—

women were more than twice as likely as men to

experience sexual harassment.3 Staggeringly, women

were four times as likely as men to report that they

2 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in

the Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the

Problem, at pgs. ii–iii (Dec. 2022).

3 Id.

5

experienced an unwelcome invasion of personal space,

and six times as likely to have experienced unwelcome

sexually suggestive looks or gestures. 4 This gender

disparity is a fact that cannot be ignored by this Court.

Available information indicates that Petitioner’s

lawsuit is the first of its kind to survive dismissal. This

is a testament not to the uniqueness of her experience,

but rather the inadequacy of current systems to offer

proper protections and procedural safeguards to

employees of the judiciary. As indicated repeatedly

throughout EDR processes and judicial proceedings,

Petitioner asserted “a good-faith claim of sexual

harassment against her immediate supervisor[.]” 5

Yet, she has repeatedly been denied an effective

remedy. Petitioner’s experience demonstrates how the

existing protections (or, rather, lack thereof) fail

employees who report harassment and will likely

discourage future reporting by others pursuing

careers in the federal judiciary. This Court must

rectify this gross injustice perpetuated by improper

application of law.

Sexual harassment and gender discrimination in

federal workplaces is neither rare nor isolated. A 2025

report published by the Federal Judiciary Workplace

Conduct Working Group found that over 8% of federal

judiciary employees, constituting nearly 1,200 people,

self-reported experiencing sexual harassment,

discrimination, or other forms of abusive conduct on

4 Id. at pg. 13.

5 Strickland v. Moritz, 149 F.4th 378, 385 (4th Cir. 2025),

petition for cert. filed, U.S., May 21, 2026 (No. 25-1303).

6

the job (the “Report of the Working Group”).6 A 2025

report published by the Federal Judicial Center

indicated that nearly 2,000 federal judiciary

employees reported experiencing at least one

harassing behavior (the “2023 Workplace Survey”).7

Further, over 1,200 indicated they observed or heard

about harassing behavior happening to others. 8 Less

than 50% of respondents indicated they were

currently willing to report misconduct in the

workplace.9 Only 65% of respondents said their

employer encourages reporting wrongful conduct. 10

And nearly half of respondents expressed low or

moderate

confidence

in

current

resolution

procedures.11

The staggering occurrence of underreporting

misconduct in the federal judiciary is reflective of

systemic failures that create a culture where

employees reasonably fear that speaking out will be

6 Report Of The Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working

Group On The Judiciary’s 2023 National Workplace Survey,

FED. JUD. CTR. RSCH. DIVISION, at pg. 7 (Mar. 31, 2025),

available at https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciarynews/2025/03/31/judiciary-releases-workplace-conduct-reportand-employee-survey-results. This report is hereinafter referred

to as the “Report of the Working Group.”

7 2023 Workplace Survey for the Federal Judiciary Condensed

Report to Accompany Working Group Recommendations, at pg.

58 (Mar. 2025), available at

https://www.fjc.gov/content/392606/condensed-report-2023federal-judiciary-workplace-survey. This report is hereinafter

referred to as the “2023 Workplace Survey.”

8 Id. at pg. 56.

9 Report of the Working Group, supra note 6, at pg. 12.

10 Id.

11 Id.

7

futile or harmful to their careers. As Petitioner’s

experience demonstrates, employees who report

harassment face investigatory processes marked by

breaches of confidentiality, inadequate training of

investigators, delayed responses, and structural

conflicts of interest. Fear of retaliation and adverse

career impacts cause employees to remain silent

rather than voice concerns about their experiences.

The lack of legal protection upheld by the current

system causes those subject to harassment and

discrimination to remain silent. Silence does not

strengthen an institution. Institutions, especially

those entrusted with administering justice, are

strengthened when employees feel protected and can

report misconduct without fear.

Retaliation and adverse career impacts are not

unfounded fears. Of the thousands of federal judges

who have served in the United States throughout

history, only 15 have ever been impeached.12 Only

eight have been removed from office.13 And only one

has been expressly impeached on charges of sexual

assault.14 These problems go far beyond the judges

themselves. Many, like Petitioner, experience

harassment from their own co-workers or non-judge

supervisors.

Current EDR processes create a closed system in

which victims are denied the right to an impartial

12 Impeachments of Federal Judges, FED. JUD. CTR.,

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges

(last visited July 9, 2026).

13 Id.

14 Id.

8

decision maker. The result is predictable—employees

harbor distrust in the processes available, do not

report misconduct out of fear of retaliation or

inadequate recourse, and either endure hostile

conditions or leave the judiciary entirely. Petitioner’s

case illustrates this cycle, and it is a reality

experienced by many other women in the judiciary.

Even qualified employees with a strong performance

record may be driven out when harassment is met

with inadequate response. When judiciary employees

are distracted by harassment, fear of retaliation, or

leave their positions, the judiciary’s capacity to

administer justice efficiently and effectively is

compromised.

B. Carve-Outs from Title VII Allow the Issue

of Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

to Fester in the Federal Judiciary.

The central issue is not the dedication of those who

serve within the federal judiciary. Rather, the root

issue is whether the current statutory framework

provides these employees with meaningful protections

and effective remedies.

The harm of pervasive sexual harassment and gender

discrimination extends far beyond individual victims.

When such conduct is allowed to persist in the

judiciary—an institution charged with upholding the

law and administering justice—the consequences

ripple outward to affect the 30,000 federal judiciary

9

employees nationwide.15 When harassment is allowed

to pervade an institution, those who witness it—even

if not directly targeted—experience their own

workplace as less safe, less fair, and less committed to

equal treatment. This is particularly detrimental to

the judiciary, as all employees, from law clerks and

court administrators to staff attorneys and judges, are

to maintain public confidence in judicial integrity. The

federal judiciary’s role as guardian and exemplar of

legal integrity makes the institutional harm acute and

far-reaching.

Judiciary employees who are victims of harassment

and discrimination may use only the processes

developed and applied by the judiciary itself to

address workplace misconduct. The judiciary has long

been an insulated body that largely polices its own

employees. In doing so, many are deprived of proper

investigation into their claims, and their harassers

and abusers may not receive reprimand for sexual

harassment and discrimination.16

This Court has repeatedly recognized that

enforcement of workplace protections depends on

employees being willing to report misconduct and

participate in internal processes. In Burlington

15 Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Annual Report 2021, U.S. CTS.

https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annualreports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2021 (last visited

July 9, 2026).

16 See Joan Bilskupic, CNN Investigation: Sexual misconduct by

judges kept under wraps, CNN (Jan. 26, 2018, updated 12:35

PM), https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/courts-judgessexual-harassment/index.html.

10

Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the Court

held that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision reaches

materially adverse actions that “well might have

dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or

supporting a charge of discrimination.”17 The Court

rejected the interpretation that a rule was limited to

formal employment actions because effective

enforcement depended on employees feeling free to

approach officials with grievances, and retaliation can

deter participation in ways extending beyond

termination, demotion, or compensation. 18

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville &

Davidson County applies that principle directly to

internal investigations. The Court held that an

employee who disclosed discriminatory conduct while

answering questions during an employer’s internal

investigation was protected by Title VII’s opposition

clause.19 Denying such protection, the Court reasoned,

would undermine the Faragher-Ellerth framework by

giving employees “a good reason to keep quiet” and

creating a “catch-22”—an employee who speaks may

risk retaliation, while an employee who remains silent

may later face criticism for failing to use available

preventive or corrective procedures.20

17 Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68

(2006) (quoting Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C.

Cir. 2006)).

18 Id. at 63–69.

19 Crawford v. Metro Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty.,

Tenn., 555 U.S. 271, 277–278 (2009).

20 Id. at 278–279.

11

The en banc Fourth Circuit echoed that concern in

Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp. The court

emphasized that antidiscrimination law seeks to

encourage employees to report harassment early so

employers can stop it before it develops into a hostile

environment.21

Employees,

however,

“will

understandably be wary of reporting abuse for fear of

retribution.”22 The court therefore recognized

protection for employees who reasonably report

threatening or humiliating harassment before waiting

for further misconduct to occur.23

These cases do not establish that the EDR Plan itself

fails to comport with Title VII. After all, Title VII

does not directly govern judicial employment. Their

reasoning nevertheless provides a powerful

benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of a system

that substitutes for the protections available to other

workers.24 Burlington Northern, Crawford, and

21 Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264, 282–284

(4th Cir. 2015).

22 Id. at 284.

23 Id. at 284–285.

24 The Fourth Circuit declined to evaluate Petitioner’s Title VII

argument on appeal from the District Court, stating it “has

repeatedly held that issues raised for the first time on appeal

generally will not be considered and that exceptions to this rule

exist only in very limited circumstances, such as where refusal

to consider the newly-raised issue would be plain error or would

result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Strickland, 32

F.4th at 353 (quoting Kadel v. N.C. State Health Plan for

Teachers & State Emps., 12 F.4th 422, 430 (4th Cir. 2021))

(cleaned up). The Fourth Circuit states that “declining to

consider an issue that was raised for the first time five years

into the litigation does not constitute a ‘miscarriage of justice.’”

Id. at 403 (cit. omitted). However, in contending such, the

12

Boyer-Liberto recognize that protection from

retaliation is not collateral to an effective complaint

process. It is a condition necessary to employee

participation.

The governing cases show what an effective internal

system requires. They recognize that no reporting

system can fulfill its preventive purpose if employees

are deterred from using it due to fear of retaliation.

Petitioner’s case should therefore not be viewed in

isolation. The procedural failures acknowledged in her

case—delay, breaches of confidentiality, concerns of

bias, fragmentation between parallel processes, and

uncertainty surrounding discipline and remedies—are

relevant not merely due to their effect on one

employee, but because later institutional evidence

reveals sweeping problems of nonuse, distrust,

perceived investigative inadequacy, and fear of

retaliation. This case, taken with the various reported

data, provides reason to question whether the gap

between formal protection and practical effectiveness

has been closed.

Fourth Circuit views this case in isolation and fails to consider

the far-reaching, negative implications constituting a

miscarriage of justice by allowing the continuation of this

exception to Title VII. This view is supported by both

qualitative and quantitative evidence provided in this brief.

Further, as the aforementioned cases illustrates, evaluating the

validity and adequacy of protections offered through Title VII is

not a new nor novel concept for this Court’s consideration.

13

II.

A Decision Adverse to Petitioner Would

Permit the Federal Judiciary to Continue

Implementing

Subpar

Internal

Investigation and Dispute Resolution

Measures.

The Title VII carve-out from which the federal

judiciary benefits puts its employees in the unusual

position of relying on internal processes created and

administered by the judiciary itself to address

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.25 The

adequacy and success of internal measures therefore

matters enormously—for these employees, these

measures are the primary institutional mechanism

available to vindicate substantive workplace

protections. These measures cannot be so inadequate

that they do virtually nothing to protect employees

from discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and

even being pushed out of the job entirely.

It is well-settled that internal complaint systems such

as the EDR Plan are not effective or sufficient

protections against harassment and discrimination by

the mere fact of their existence.26 They must be

25 See GAO-24-105638, Federal Judiciary: Additional Actions

Would Strengthen Efforts to Prevent and Address Workplace

Misconduct, U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., at pgs. 7–10

(July 2024) (summarizing the Model EDR Plan). This report is

hereinafter referred to as the “GAO Report.”

26 See, e.g., Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 808–

809 (1998) (holding city’s internal procedures were insufficient

where it failed to disseminate its policy to relevant employees,

monitor supervisor’s conduct, or make clear that employees

could bypass supervisors to report wrongful conduct); Smith v.

First Union Nat’l Bank, 202 F.3d 234, 244–245 (2000) (holding

14

evaluated for accessibility, clarity, implementation,

investigative diligence, and capacity to produce

meaningful corrective action. There is a reason for this

type of analysis—a person only has the rights they can

exercise. Where internal systems prevent the exercise

of a person’s basic right to be free from harassment

and discrimination in the workplace, the fact that a

grievance method exists is simply not enough.

Government review and the judiciary’s own employee

surveys have indicated significant deficiencies in the

federal judiciary’s ability to assess and improve the

effectiveness of its EDR policies.27 These deficiencies

bear out in the Report of the Working Group, which

demonstrates widespread nonuse of EDR procedures,

low confidence in the thoroughness and impartiality of

investigations, and employee concerns about fairness

and retaliation.28

The 2024 GAO Report reinforces the significance of

concerns about the adequacy of the federal judiciary’s

EDR Plan. The Model EDR Plan may prohibit

discrimination, harassment, abusive conduct, and

policy which appeared to require sexual advances order to

qualify as harassment, discouragement of reporting from

management-level employees, and lack of meaningful

investigation rendered policies deficient); Hoyle v. Freightliner,

LLC, 650 F.3d 321, 335–336 (2011) (holding employer’s failures

to follow anti-harassment policy could allow a reasonable jury to

find sexual harassment took place, and that the problem with

the policy may lie “not in theory but in practice.”) (quotations

and citations omitted).

27 GAO Report, supra note 25, at pgs. 43–45.

28 Report of the Working Group, supra note 6, at pgs. 12–13.

15

retaliation.29 It may encourage reporting of wrongful

conduct.30 And it may establish mandatory actions for

judges, supervisors, and unit executives who become

aware of such conduct.31 But there are significant

limitations on the judiciary’s ability to determine the

efficacy of those procedures.

Most fundamentally, the GAO Report found the

judiciary had not even evaluated the effectiveness of

those policies as of 2024, and no concrete plans appear

to exist to do so.32 It is impossible for any institution—

particularly one with as much regulatory autonomy as

the federal judiciary—to determine the effectiveness

of its procedures without such evaluation.

Petitioner’s experience is a prime example of why

proper implementation of internal protection

measures matters. The lower court has recognized the

failure of the EDR Plan Petitioner pursued, namely,

that

the

investigator

breached

Petitioner’s

expectations of confidentiality and failed to complete

a thorough investigation in a timely manner.33

The Fourth Circuit noted that the procedure

Petitioner pursued, which allowed for disciplinary

29 GAO Report, supra note 25, at pg. 11.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Id. at pgs. 42–44.

33 See Strickland, 149 F.4th at 386 (“Judiciary employees who

were responsible for the EDR process also made various

missteps. [The investigator] disrespected [Petitioner’s]

expectations of confidentiality and failed to complete a thorough

EDR investigation in a timely manner.”).

16

action to be taken against her supervisor, may have

been inadequate, but that she had alternative options

to seek recourse through procedures that did not allow

for discipline.34 The Fourth Circuit even recognized

that a reasonable person may drop their complaint

when faced with such perceived bias, the threat of

embarrassing or damaging claims being disclosed to

colleagues, or delays in administration of discipline.35

Petitioner was not only driven to drop her complaint—

she was effectively driven from her job.36 Yet the

Fourth Circuit decided that the procedures were

adequate. Why? Because Petitioner could have

pursued remedies under the EDR Plan that would

have allowed for placement in comparable positions,

prospective or priority promotional consideration, or

leave from her work?37 That is not adequate.

A decision of this Court permitting the judiciary to rely

exclusively on internal procedures with no meaningful

scrutiny for the validity and natural outcome of those

procedures would allow the existence of a formal

process to rule over the effectiveness of its protections.

It is not enough that these procedures exist. An

internal system tasked with protecting against

discrimination and harassment must be more than

available. It must be clear, accessible, prompt, diligent,

trusted, and structured so employees may invoke it

without fear that doing so will jeopardize their careers.

34 Id. at 391.

35 Id. at 395–396.

36 Petition for Writ of Certiorari at pg. 19, Strickland v. Moritz,

No. 25-1303, 2026 WL 1454727 (May 18, 2016).

37 Strickland, 149 F.4th at 391; see Strickland v. United States,

744 F.Supp.3d 477, 494 n.14 (W.D.N.C. 2024).

17

III. Allowing

Sexual

Harassment

and

Discrimination

to

Persist

Would

Detrimentally Impact All Women Tied to the

Legal Profession, Including Those in

Georgia.

Sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the

federal judiciary impacts each and every person who

has ties to the legal profession. The federal judiciary

is an institution charged with upholding the law and

administering justice and a massive employer in the

legal profession with 30,000 employees nationwide.38

The implications extend far beyond the parties to this

case and directly affect the pipeline of lawyers, law

students, and legal professionals who seek careers

within the federal judiciary. The failure to adequately

address harassment sends a powerful signal to every

person considering or pursuing a career in the federal

judiciary and the broader legal profession that bears

witness to it.

In Georgia specifically, this dynamic affects the tens

of thousands of lawyers, 50% of whom are women. 39

38 Judge Mauskopf, supra note 15.

39 Demographics, AM. BAR ASSOC.,

https://www.americanbar.org/news/profile-legalprofession/demographics/ (last visited July 8, 2026) (noting the

state of Georgia has over 34,000 resident lawyers); Women in

the Legal Profession, AM. BAR ASSOC.,

https://www.americanbar.org/news/profile-legalprofession/women/ (last visited July 8, 2026) (noting that while

no state has a women-majority bar, Georgia has a 50-50 split).

18

Georgia is home to three federal district and

bankruptcy courts—the Northern, Middle, and

Southern Districts.40 There are eighteen federal

district court judges in Georgia. Georgia is also home

to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, with its

twelve judges.41 Throughout the extensive federal

judicial presence in the state of Georgia are judges,

staff attorneys, federal defenders, law clerks, law

enforcement officers, paralegals, secretaries, paid and

unpaid interns, and court administrators, to name a

few.

Many of these employees are hired from law schools

around the country—law schools that now boast more

women students than men.42 And, in turn, many of

these employees are hired from law schools in Georgia.

In fact, Georgia hosts thousands of law students

across five different law schools.43

When these law students and legal professionals

consider their career paths and observe the federal

judiciary’s persistent struggles with harassment and

40 See generally 28 U.S.C. § 90.

41 See Judges, U.S. CT. APP. ELEVENTH CIR.,

https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/judges (last visited July 9, 2026).

42 New ABA report spotlights rise of women in the law, AM. BAR

ASSOC. (Nov. 18, 2024),

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-newsarchives/2024/11/new-aba-report-spotlights-rise-women-in-law/

(noting that in 2024, 56.2% of law school students were women).

43 See Law School Enrollment by State, 2015 vs 2025

Comparison, LAWHUB,

https://www.lawhub.org/trends/enrollment-by-state (last visited

July 9, 2026) (noting Georgia had approximately 1,100 first year

law students alone in 2025).

19

discrimination, the absence of Title VII protections

and internal remedies force them to make a choice—

accepting employment without meaningful legal

protections against harassment and discrimination, or

pursuing opportunities elsewhere. In the prestigedriven field of law where clerkships and federal

judicial involvement can change a woman’s career,

that choice is even harder. If federal positions come

with the implicit condition that women must tolerate

harassment without meaningful protection or

recourse, the federal judiciary functions as a

discriminatory filter that pushes women out of the

profession’s most influential and coveted roles—and,

devastatingly, it creates a perverse incentive for

harassers and abusers in the federal judiciary to force

women out, depriving them of any internal remedies

that they would have received, no matter how small.

This is not a hypothetical problem. Over the past

several years, the number of current and former

employees within the federal judiciary who have

reported experiencing or witnessing misconduct in the

workplace has increased.44 Yet the fear of career

repercussions and inadequate remedies prevents

many from coming forward. This principle has been

noted by this Court: “[f]ear of retaliation is the leading

reason why people stay silent instead of voicing their

44 Jacqueline Thomsen & Suzanne Monyak, US Judiciary

Reports Increase in Employee Workplace Disputes (1),

BLOOMBERG L., (updated Nov. 20, 2024, 1:54 PM EST),

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/us-judiciaryreports-increase-in-employee-workplace-disputes (noting

workplace disputes in the federal judiciary “nearly doubled

between 2021 and 2023”).

20

concerns about . . . discrimination.”45 When the cost of

leaving a job is too high because of financial needs,

high investments into one’s career, or the “risk of

being labelled a pariah, or ostracized,” that fear is

often too great to speak out over.46

Many lawyers and non-lawyers, and particularly

women, are not willing to pay the price of leaving

employment in the federal judiciary, as it is a section

of the legal profession that is held in the highest

regard.

This Court should not turn a blind eye to the

persistent harassment and discrimination faced by its

colleagues. The procedural failures of the federal

judiciary’s investigation of Petitioner’s claims—delay,

lack of confidentiality, bias, fragmentation of

processes, and uncertainty of discipline and

remedies—impact more than Petitioner. Allowed to

stand, they chill future reports of harassment and

discrimination.

This is not an isolated incident—it is an epidemic.

We are well beyond the age of women enduring

harassment and discrimination for the sake of moving

up in the world. Internal measures, such as the EDR

Plan applied to Petitioner, and any like it, that merely

45 Crawford, 555 U.S. at 279.

46 Summary of Findings: Sexual Harassment: A Severe and

Pervasive Problem, NEW AM.,

https://www.newamerica.org/insights/sexual-harassmentsevere-and-pervasive-problem/summary-of-findings/ (last visited

July 8, 2026).

21

provide for promotions, transfer, and leave, are not

adequate. They do nothing to protect women in the

federal

judiciary

from

harassment

and

discrimination—in reality, they give abusers and

harassers a get out of jail free card.

When qualified women attorneys observe harassment

complaints being met with investigatory delays,

breaches of confidentiality, marriage metaphors that

trivialize harm, and outcomes that leave harassers

and abusers in positions of authority, all while

complainants are constructively discharged or forced

out of their employment, the message is clear—this

institution will not protect you.

This message cannot be permitted from an institution

like the federal judiciary, which is to be a guardian of

justice and an exemplar of integrity. The judiciary is

better than that.

As members of the legal profession, we expect more.

Justice is not confined to the courtroom. Within its

own workplace, the federal judiciary should meet the

same standards of accountability, fairness, and equal

treatment that are expected of every other employer.

Our profession demands nothing less.

22

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment below

should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

KAREEMAH LEWIS

Counsel of Record

Georgia Association for Women Lawyers, Inc.

Immediate Past President

P.O. Box 79308

Atlanta, GA 30357

(404) 588-5009

kareemahlewis@gmail.com