Gordon, In re, S052965
| Decision Date | 20 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. S052965,S052965 |
| Citation | 13 Cal.4th 472,917 P.2d 627,53 Cal.Rptr.2d 788 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 917 P.2d 627, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4463, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7243 In re Norman W. GORDON, a Judge of the Superior Court, on Censure. |
Susan D. Martynec and Kenneth C. Byrne, Deputy Attorneys General, Los Angeles, and Roland W. Selman, San Francisco, for Commission on Judicial Performance.
Baker, Silberberg & Keener, Robert C. Baker and Melissa S. Fink, Santa Monica, for Respondent.
The Commission on Judicial Performance has recommended that we publicly censure Norman W. Gordon, a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, for engaging in "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute." (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (c)(2).) Judge Gordon has not challenged the commission's findings or recommendation.
Following the appointment of special masters, hearings were held, evidence taken, and upon completion of the hearing the special masters prepared a formal report setting forth their findings of fact and conclusions of law. After consideration of written statements of objections to the masters' report, the matter was argued before the commission which, with minor changes, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the special masters.
The commission found that between April of 1990 and October 27, 1992, Judge Gordon on several occasions made sexually suggestive remarks to and asked sexually explicit questions of female staff members; referred to a staff member using crude and demeaning names and descriptions and an ethnic slur; referred to a fellow jurist's physical attributes in a demeaning manner; and mailed a sexually suggestive postcard to a staff member addressed to her at the courthouse. None of the conduct occurred while court was in session or while the judge was on the bench conducting the business of the court.
The commission concluded that these actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. (See Fitch v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 9 Cal.4th 552, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 581, 887 P.2d 937.) While the actions were taken in an ostensibly joking manner and there was no evidence of intent to cause embarrassment or injury, or to coerce, to vent anger, or to inflict shame, the result was an overall courtroom environment where discussion of sex and improper ethnic and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haworth v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County
...courtroom environment where discussion of sex and improper ethnic and racial comments were customary.” ( In re Gordon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 472, 474, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 788, 917 P.2d 627.) We conclude the arbitrator was not required to disclose this public censure, and therefore reverse the decisio......
-
Haworth v. Superior Court
...slurs, and derogatory comments to or about his female employees and colleagues based on their physical attributes.1 (See In re Gordon, supra, 13 Cal.4th 472, 473-474.) She thereupon moved respondent court to vacate the arbitration award because Judge Gordon did not disclose his censure prio......
-
In re Disciplinary Action Against McGuire, 20040073.
...case, other courts have imposed sanctions ranging from public censure to removal from office. See, e.g., In re Gordon, 13 Cal.4th 472, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 788, 917 P.2d 627, 628 (1996) (holding public censure was appropriate sanction for judge who made sexually suggestive remarks to and asked se......