No Perp Walk for Wisconsin Justice

Justice Won’t Face Criminal Charges

A difference of opinion.

That’s the conclusion of an investigation into a charge by  Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley that fellow Justice  David Prosser put a chokehold on her when she told him to leave her office after a heated discussion.

Therefore, Justice Prosser will not face criminal charges.

“I believe a complete review of the report suggests there is a difference of opinion,” said Patricia Barrett, the Republican district attorney who served as  special prosecutor in the case.

Touched her neck

Justice Walsh Bradley, a Democrat, accused Justice Prosser, a former Republican legislator, of choking her in June  during a heated discussion on a legal challenge to the Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s contentious collective bargaining law, which strips most public workers of nearly all their union rights.  The incident occurred the night before the court released an opinion upholding the law.

The Milwaukee Sentinal reported that Justice Prosser acknowledged to detectives that he touched Justice Walsh Bradley’s neck – even feeling its warmth.

According to the  New York Times,  Justice Walsh Bradley issued a statement saying she was never focused on prosecuting her colleague and only wanted to address a “workplace safety issue.”

“I well understand the difficulty of gaining any criminal conviction,” she said. “The prosecution’s burden of proof is very heavy, as it should be. I also know that criminal charges alone would not have addressed our safety in the workplace and the special prosecutor’s decision not to file charges does not resolve the safety issue, either.”

Earlier, Justice Walsh Bradley told  The Milwaukee Sentinel: “The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”  Bradley said she  asked Prosser to leave after he made allegedly disparaging remarks about Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Justice Walsh Bradley is generally seen as part of the court’s three-justice liberal minority. Justice Prosser, a former Republican legislator, is considered part of the four-justice conservative majority.

Bradley said it was not the first time Prosser had flashes of extreme anger;  “It’s been going on for years off and on.”

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which oversees the state’s ethics code for judges, is separately investigating the case.

Wisconsin law protecting judges

Interestingly, Wisconsin has a special criminal statute that relates to a battery or threat against a judge. It states:

940.203 Battery or threat to judge …
(2) Whoever intentionally causes bodily harm or threatens to
cause bodily harm to the person or family member of any judge
under all of the following circumstances is guilty of a Class H felony:
(a) At the time of the act or threat, the actor knows or should
have known that the victim is a judge or a member of his or her
family.
(b) The judge is acting in an official capacity at the time of the
act or threat or the act or threat is in response to any action taken
in an official capacity.
(c) There is no consent by the person harmed or threatened.

“Bodily harm” means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

The penalty for a  Class H felonyis a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 6 years, or both.

Then the “Law is a Ass”

A federal judge in New York earlier this week threw out a pregnancy discrimination case against Bloomberg, L.P.,  holding that it is not the court’s job to “tell businesses what attributes they must value in their employees as they make pay and promotion decisions.”

Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, essentially says pregnant women who take maternity leave are making a choice which may leave them in a  disadvantageous position at the workplace. She says it’s not against the law  because … hey, it was their choice wasn’t it?

The EEOC alleged that 49 of the 78 claimants in the lawsuit were demoted once they announced their pregnancy and/or returned from maternity leave in terms of a diminished title and the number of employees directly reporting to them. Not only were their responsibilities diminished but their responsibilities were handed off to junior male employees.  Also, the EEOC alleged, 77 of 78 of the claimants had their total compensation decreased after becoming pregnant or returning from maternity leave.

Bloomberg is an international financial services and media company based in New York City that provides news, information, and analysis. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg owns the majority of the company, which he founded in 1981

Judge Preska writes:

“ … women who take maternity leave, work fewer hours, and demand more scheduling flexibility likely are at a disadvantage in a demanding culture like Bloomberg’s … The law does not require companies to ignore or stop valuing ultimate dedication, however unhealthy that may be for family life.”

She goes on to write:

“The law does not mandate “work-life balance.” It does not require companies to ignore employees’ work-family tradeoffs — and they are tradeoffs — when deciding about employee pay and promotions. It does not require that companies treat pregnant women and mothers better or more leniently than others. All of these things may be desirable, they may make business sense, and they may be “forward thinking.” But they are not required by law.”

Judge Preska granted Bloomberg’s request for a summary judgment to dismiss the EEOC’s complaint, finding that a  reasonable jury could not conclude that Bloomberg engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against pregnant women who took maternity leave. Judge Preska said the “anecdotal” evidence provided by the EEOC was insufficient in light of  evidence produced by Bloomberg.  Judge Preska’s decision means the case cannot proceed to a jury.

Judge Preska acknowledged that compensation “growth” for workers who took maternity leave was less than for those who took no leave but she said it is legal to discriminate “between those employees who take off long periods of time in order to raise children and those who either do not have children or are able to raise them without an appreciable career interruption.”

The EEOC also presented examples of alleged bias. One class member, for example, “reported to the CEO in 2003 that the head of the News division made some negative comments about women taking paid maternity leave but then not returning to the company, the CEO said, “Well, is every fucking woman in the company having a baby or going to have a baby?”

According to Judge Preska: “Isolated remarks by a handful of executives — or one specific executive, the head of News, which EEOC focuses on heavily here — do not show that Bloomberg’s standard operating procedure was to discriminate against pregnant women and mothers.”

Finally, here’s what Judge Preska has to say about the fact that only women bear children:

“To be sure, women need to take leave to bear a child. And, perhaps unfortunately, women tend to choose to attend to family obligations over work obligations thereafter more often than men in our society. Work-related consequences follow. Likewise, men tend to choose work obligations over family obligations, and family consequences follow. Whether one thinks those consequences are intrinsically fair, whether one agrees with the roles traditionally assumed by the different genders in raising children in the United States, or whether one agrees with the monetary value society places on working versus childrearing is not at issue here. Neither is whether Bloomberg is the most “family-friendly” company. The fact remains that the law requires only equal treatment in the workplace. Employment consequences for making choices that elevate non-work activities (for whatever reason) over work activities are not illegal.”

Judge Preska was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on March 31, 1992.

It is not clear whether or not Judge Preska has any children.

Employment Discrimination: What’s with Indiana?

The number of  employment discrimination complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission  is at an all time high, and its expected to rise.

But there are indications that discrimination is more prevalent in certain states, which apparently have laws and a regulatory schemes that favor business. For example, Texas is an employment-at-will state, which means that employees can be terminated for any reason as long as it doesn’t violate the law (i.e. discrimination) or an important public policy.

Conversely, some high population states appear to have a lower incidence of employment discrimination, possibly indicating a more favorable climate for employer-employee relations.

Businessweek recently did an analysis based on the number of EEOC “merit resolutions” in 2010. These are cases resolved without litigation by the EEOC with private employers and state and local government employers (not federal government). The EEOC filed 250 lawsuits in 2010, resolved 285 lawsuits, and resolved 104,999 private sector charges.  Note: The EEOC “prosecutes” only a fraction of the complaints that are filed with the EEOC.

Businessweek’s analysis shows that Texas was the state with the highest number of merit resolutions in 2010. However, this is not particularly surprising given that Texas has the second highest population of any state, after California, which ranked 2nd.

But what’s with Indiana? It’s the 15th largest state but ranks 5th state in terms of EEOC merit resolutions. Indiana touts itself as America’s heartland, a family friendly place?  Apparently it is even friendlier to business.  If you’re looking for a job, you might want to take this into account. And if you have a job in states like Indiana, Alabama or Mississippi, well … good luck!

On the other hand, New York is the 3rd largest state but ranks 15th in merit resolutions. Go New York!

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide hit an unprecedented level of 99,922 during the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, 2010. All major categories of charge filings in the private sector (which include charges filed against state and local governments) increased. These include charges alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Equal Pay Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

For the first time ever, retaliation under all statutes (36,258) surpassed race (35,890) as the most frequently filed charge, while allegations based on religion (3,790), disability (25,165) and age (23,264) increased.

Here’s the Businessweek ranking of states with EEOC merit resolutions:

1. Texas, 2nd largest state, population 25,145,561; merit resolutions,  1,780.

2. California, largest state, pop. 37,253,956; merit resolutions, 1,600.

3. Florida, 4th largest state,pop.  18,801,310; merit resolutions, 1,409.

4. Georgia, 9th largest state, pop. 9,687,653; merit resolutions, 1,288.

5. Indiana, 15th largest state, pop. 6,483,802; merit resolutions, 1,063.

6. Illinois, 5th largest state,pop.  12,830,632; merit resolutions, 1,001.

7. Pennsylvania, 6th largest state, pop. 12,702,379; merit resolutions, 860,

8. North Carolina, 10th largest state, pop. 9,535,483; merit resolutions, 823.

9. Tennessee, 17th largest state, pop.  6,346,105; merit resolutions, 800.

10. Ohio, 7th largest state, pop. 11,536,504; merit resolutions, 680.

11. Alabama, 23rd largest state, pop.4,779,736; merit resolutions, 650.

12. New York, 3rd largest state, pop. 19,378,102′ merit resolutions, 609.

13. Michigan, 8th largest state,  pop. 9,883,640; merit resolutions, 559.

14. Colorado, 22nd largest state, pop. 5,029,196; merit resolutions, 509.

15. Virginia, 12th largest state, pop. 8,001,024; merit resolutions, 499.

16. Arizona, 16th largest state, pop.,  6,392,017; merit resolutions, 496.

17. Missouri, 18th largest state, pop., 5,988,927; merit resolutions, 463.

18. Mississippi, 31st largest state, pop., 2,967,297; merit resolutions, 392.

19.  Arkansas, 32nd largest state, pop. 2,915,918; merit resolutions, 376.

20. Washington, 13th largest state, pop. 6,724,540;  merit resolutions, 353.