On December 11, the focus of a trial revolved around the U.S. federal judiciary’s response to a sexual harassment complaint lodged by a former North Carolina public defender. Caryn Strickland, who accused her supervisor of unwelcome sexual advances, presented her case during the non-jury civil trial in Asheville, North Carolina. Strickland rested her case promptly after the judge heard opening statements from both parties.
Cooper Strickland, who serves as both co-counsel and spouse to Caryn Strickland, informed U.S. District Judge William Young, the Boston-based judge overseeing the case due to conflicts in North Carolina, that the existing documents presented were sufficient to substantiate their claims. Caryn Strickland had been employed from 2017 to 2019 in the Federal Public Defender’s Office in the Western District of North Carolina, a branch of the federal judiciary that offers legal representation to indigent defendants.
In a legal complaint initiated in 2020, she alleged that authorities within the office and the local federal court system mishandled her claims of sexual harassment, thereby violating her constitutional rights to equal protection and due process in the United States.
During her testimony, summoned by a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing the court system, Caryn Strickland revealed that her discomfort began in 2018 after her supervisor, at the time, suggested a “quid pro quo” arrangement to advance her career following a social encounter over drinks.
In an email dated May 18, 2018, the supervisor communicated that he had a “plan” to assist her in increasing her pay, appending, “just remember I deal in pay-for-stay :)”.
Within her legal complaint, Strickland asserted that she interpreted the supervisor’s email as suggesting that he would offer career assistance in exchange for sexual favors. Consequently, she chose to limit her interactions with him and started “distancing myself after he sent the quid pro quo email.”
During his opening statement, Cooper Strickland contended that, subsequent to her complaint, she underwent a “fundamentally unfair” internal judicial process for reviewing her harassment allegations.
However, Madeline McMahon, an attorney from the Justice Department, argued that the email was “clearly not a sexual advance” but rather an offer to assist Strickland. This offer came after Strickland indicated her need to either relocate offices or receive a salary increase, compensating for her work in a different city, Charlotte, than her husband.
“In line with the forthcoming evidence, Ms. Strickland experienced sexual harassment solely in her perception,” McMahon asserted to Judge Young in her opening statement.
It’s important to note that judicial employees do not benefit from the workplace harassment protections outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Last year, Strickland provided testimony before Congress alongside other women who shared their encounters with harassment and discrimination within the federal judiciary.
However, her case encountered a setback this year when her four attorneys withdrew in April without providing reasons.
When initially questioned by a Justice Department lawyer, Strickland’s initial response was to invoke her right against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even though the question pertained to the commencement of her employment. Judge Young, presiding remotely from Boston, insisted that she respond, stating, “I am a staunch defender of the 5th Amendment, but I just don’t see it here.”
The trial is anticipated to continue until next Tuesday.
The legal matter is identified as Strickland v. United States, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina under case number 20-66.
Legal representation for Caryn Strickland and Cooper Strickland.
Legal representation for the government: Joshua Kolsky, Madeline McMahon, and Danielle Young of the U.S. Department of Justice.
