Exclusive: Watchdog Group Files Complaint Against Judge For Demanding Gender Quotas Among Litigators
A conservative judicial watchdog filed a formal complaint of misconduct against a federal judge in Florida for saying sex should be part of the determinative criteria for legal representation in multi-district litigation related to an injectable form of birth control.
The Article III Project (A3P) submitted the complaint Thursday against Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for comments made during a First Case Management Conference “dealing with Depo-Provera, an injectable form of birth control, which is facing litigation.”
According to A3P, Judge Rodgers “discriminatorily suggested that sex should be a relevant factor in selecting leadership counsel for the multidistrict litigation,” stating, “females need to be adequately represented in your leadership.”
“This remark reflects an explicit preference for females in the allocation of professional roles and responsibilities,” the complaint reads. “By implying that sex — rather than qualifications, experience, or merit — should influence selection for MDL leadership, Judge Rodgers engaged in conduct that constitutes impermissible bias and judicial misconduct.”
“By suggesting that female attorneys should be prioritized for leadership roles based on the nature of the case, Judge Rodgers openly endorsed sex-based decision-making, which constitutes improper judicial favoritism and violates the principle of impartiality,” said Mike Davis, the founder and president of A3P. “It should go without saying that Judge Rogers’ statement that ‘that doesn’t mean I’m looking for every single leadership to be a female,’ does not somehow justify the express preference for women.”
Judge Rodgers, who is presiding over thousands of individual cases, was talking about the lead attorneys comprising the leadership committee for pre-trial purposes, who essentially represent all the cases, needing women to present the cases.
“Accordingly, I respectfully request that this complaint be thoroughly investigated and that appropriate corrective action be taken to ensure that all attorneys, regardless of sex, are afforded equal treatment in these proceedings,” Davis added.
Davis’ group has recently filed similar complaints against other judges. In December, A3P compelled Senior Judge Michael Ponsor of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to apologize for an op-ed published in the New York Times. Ponsor had condemned U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for flying flags in a manner characterized by leftists as emblematic of partisan extremism. Last spring, The New York Times released a series of stories designed to smear Justice Alito’s patriotism over a pair of flags flown at his residencies in New Jersey and Virginia. Alito’s wife hung an American flag upside down following an argument with a neighbor over a profane anti-Trump sign, and in New Jersey, the pair flew an “Appeal to Heaven” banner with roots dating to the war for independence.
“Flying those flags was tantamount to sticking a ‘Stop the steal’ bumper sticker on your car,” Ponsor wrote in the Times. “You just don’t do it.”
The Times fabricated the flag controversies just before the high court began to deliver consequential rulings on guns, censorship, and charges for the defendants in cases related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
Ponsor issued an apology after U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz concluded the op-ed amounted to misconduct and damaged public confidence in the judicial system.
“Among other transgressions, Ponsor, a 1994 Clinton appointee who sits in Springfield, Mass., was found to violate rules against actions that ‘detract from the dignity’ of a judge’s office and harm ‘public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,’” according to the Wall Street Journal.
Jesus Christ is King
