4th Circuit Upholds Win for Judiciary in Former Public Defender’s Sex Harassment Case: A Defining Moment for Judicial Accountability
On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal district court’s ruling in favor of the federal judiciary, dismissing a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by former assistant federal public defender Caryn Devins Strickland. The decision, issued by a panel of judges from outside the Fourth Circuit due to recusal of all circuit judges, marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over workplace protections for federal judiciary employees. Strickland’s case, which alleged mishandling of her sexual harassment complaint and violations of her constitutional rights, has spotlighted systemic issues within the judiciary’s internal Employment Dispute Resolution (EDR) process. This article explores the ruling’s details, its implications for judicial employees, the broader context of workplace harassment in the judiciary, and future trends in legal accountability for federal workers in the United States.
The Fourth Circuit’s Ruling: A Setback for Strickland
In Strickland v. United States (No. 24-2056), the Fourth Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge William G. Young’s August 2024 ruling following a non-jury trial in Asheville, North Carolina. Strickland, who worked in the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina from 2017 to 2019, alleged that she faced “quid pro quo” sexual harassment from her supervisor, J.P. Davis, and retaliation from the office’s top defender, Anthony Martinez. Her lawsuit claimed that the judiciary’s EDR process violated her Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection rights by failing to adequately address her harassment complaint, leading to her constructive discharge in March 2019.
The Fourth Circuit panel, led by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman of the Sixth Circuit, acknowledged “missteps” and “imperfect” handling of Strickland’s complaint but concluded that her belief that the EDR process was futile—and thus her decision to resign—was not reasonable. The court found that the EDR process, while flawed, provided sufficient remedies to address harassment, and Strickland failed to demonstrate that the process violated her constitutional rights. Specifically, the panel rejected her argument that Martinez’s involvement as a decision-maker rendered the process fundamentally unfair, noting his limited role in the final resolution.
The ruling also upheld Judge Young’s finding that the investigation into Strickland’s claims, though protracted and imperfect, was not a “sham.” Young noted hostility from Martinez but found no evidence of gender bias, and the Fourth Circuit agreed, emphasizing that Strickland could not prove a substantive due process violation. The decision effectively closes Strickland’s case, barring a potential appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and reinforces the judiciary’s immunity from certain workplace claims under sovereign immunity doctrines.
Background: Strickland’s Allegations and the EDR Process
Strickland’s legal battle began with a 2020 lawsuit filed in Asheville federal court, alleging a toxic workplace culture marked by sexual harassment, bullying, and retaliation. She claimed that Davis offered career advancement in exchange for undisclosed favors, sent inappropriate emails, and engaged in unwanted mentoring activities. After reporting the harassment to Martinez, Strickland alleged he responded with indifference, comparing Davis’s authority to a marriage and placing her under closer supervision by Davis. She pursued relief through the Fourth Circuit’s EDR process, which included counseling, mediation, and a formal complaint, but resigned before a final hearing, citing futility due to Martinez’s influence.
The EDR process, unique to the federal judiciary, is designed to address workplace misconduct for its 30,000 employees, who are exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unlike private-sector or other federal employees, judiciary workers cannot sue under Title VII, relying instead on internal mechanisms like the EDR. Strickland argued that this process was unconstitutional, violating her due process rights by failing to provide impartial recourse and her equal protection rights by tolerating a discriminatory workplace. A 2022 Fourth Circuit ruling (No. 21-1346) revived her claims, finding that the Fifth Amendment protects judiciary employees from sexual harassment and that Martinez’s involvement raised plausible due process concerns. However, the 2024 trial and 2025 appeal ultimately rejected these arguments.
Implications for Judicial Employees
For Plaintiffs
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling is a significant setback for judiciary employees seeking to challenge workplace harassment through constitutional claims. By affirming that the EDR process, despite its flaws, satisfies due process, the court limits the ability to sue the judiciary directly. Employees like Strickland must now rely heavily on internal remedies, which critics argue lack transparency and impartiality. The Legal Accountability Project, in a 2024 statement, called the EDR a “kangaroo court” that discourages complaints due to conflicts of interest and inadequate training for coordinators.
The decision may deter future lawsuits, as employees face a high bar to prove constitutional violations. However, Strickland’s case has raised awareness, prompting testimony before Congress in 2022 and fueling advocacy for the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA), which seeks to extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees. The ruling’s emphasis on objective evidence also means employees must meticulously document harassment and navigate the EDR process fully before resigning, as premature exits may weaken claims of constructive discharge.
For the Judiciary
The ruling shields the judiciary from liability in this case but exposes vulnerabilities in its EDR process. Judge Young’s 285-page opinion criticized the Fourth Circuit’s “ho-hum attitude” toward Strickland’s claims, urging reforms like involving judges earlier in harassment investigations. The judiciary may face pressure to standardize EDR procedures, improve training for coordinators, and enhance transparency, as recommended by reports from the Federal Judicial Center and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Failure to reform could invite further congressional scrutiny or public backlash, especially as high-profile cases like those involving former judges Alex Kozinski and Joshua Kindred highlight systemic issues.
Broader Context: Workplace Protections in the Judiciary
The Strickland case is part of a broader reckoning over workplace misconduct in the federal judiciary. Unlike private-sector employees, judiciary workers lack Title VII protections, relying on the EDR process, which critics argue is opaque and biased toward management. Recent reports highlight its shortcomings: inconsistent accessibility, lack of standardized procedures across circuits, and inadequate training for EDR coordinators. High-profile cases, such as the Ninth Circuit’s investigation into Judge Kindred’s misconduct, contrast with the Fourth Circuit’s slower response, underscoring regional disparities.
The case also reflects a growing push for legislative reform. Strickland’s 2022 testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee, alongside other former judiciary employees, galvanized support for the JAA, which would grant judiciary employees the same anti-discrimination protections as other federal workers. However, the judiciary’s status as a coequal branch has led court leaders to resist congressional intervention, arguing it threatens judicial independence.
Future Trends: Reform or Resistance?
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling may slow momentum for judicial employees seeking legal recourse, but it amplifies calls for systemic change. The JAA, backed by figures like Representative Jerrold Nadler, remains a focal point, with advocates arguing that extending Title VII protections is essential for the judiciary’s 30,000 employees, including law clerks and public defenders. If passed, the JAA could open the door to federal lawsuits, increasing accountability but potentially overwhelming courts with litigation.
Alternatively, the judiciary may pursue internal reforms to preempt legislation. Recent changes, spurred by the Kozinski scandal in 2019, include stronger ethics codes and complaint procedures, but critics argue these fall short without external oversight. The Supreme Court could also clarify the scope of constitutional protections for judiciary employees, though it has not yet taken up such a case.
For employees, the ruling underscores the importance of strategic navigation:
- Document Everything: Detailed records of harassment and EDR interactions are critical to support claims.
- Exhaust Internal Remedies: Completing the EDR process, despite its flaws, strengthens legal standing.
- Seek Experienced Counsel: Firms like Sanford Heisler Sharp, with expertise in judicial harassment cases, can guide employees through complex claims.
Legal and Practical Considerations
From a legal perspective, the ruling reinforces sovereign immunity as a barrier to suing the judiciary, limiting remedies to those provided by the EDR. Employees must frame claims as constitutional violations, a high threshold requiring proof of deliberate indifference or systemic bias. Practically, the decision may chill complaints, as employees fear retaliation or futility, particularly in circuits with less robust EDR processes.
For the judiciary, the ruling avoids immediate liability but highlights the need for proactive measures:
- EDR Overhaul: Standardizing procedures and training to ensure impartiality.
- Transparency: Publicly reporting EDR outcomes to build trust.
- Judicial Involvement: Involving judges early in serious complaints, as suggested by Judge Young.
Conclusion: A Call for Accountability
The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Strickland v. United States upholds the judiciary’s win but lays bare the limitations of its internal mechanisms for addressing workplace harassment. While the court found no constitutional violation, the case has amplified scrutiny of the EDR process and fueled advocacy for legislative reform. As the judiciary grapples with its role as an employer, the tension between independence and accountability remains unresolved. For federal employees like Strickland, the fight for workplace protections continues, with the outcome shaping not only their rights but also the public’s trust in the judiciary as a pillar of justice in the United States.