California Appeals Court Justice Jeffrey Johnson could soon set a first for California and it isn’t positive. He is currently under review by the Commission on Judicial Performance for a nine-year pattern of sexual harassment. If the charges are confirmed, he could be expelled from the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles.
He is a Judge
I must keep returning to a point of emphasis. Jeffrey Johnson is a judge in presumable the most aware state in the nation on matters of sexual harassment and sexual abuse. It is why I repeatedly state that sexual harassment training should not be focused on just “some” workers in “some” jobs. Across the spectrum, and especially those involved in the legal system, must be particularly trained to understand what built-in biases they, themselves, bring to their profession.
In Judge Johnson’s case, he has been suspected of committing numerous acts of sexual harassment both in his private chambers at the courthouse and at various social occasions. The inappropriate behavior of groping, propositioning and commenting has been fairly well established by the many women he harassed. In fact, the fact-finding report has questioned more than 100 witnesses.
According to the investigation:
“Justice Johnson’s pattern of conduct toward these women reflects ethical lapses that undermine the public’s trust in the judicial process…Johnson had committed 12 acts of ‘prejudicial misconduct’ against 11 women between 2009 and 2018 and had also been drunk in public while presiding over a wedding and a reception for young attorneys.”
Naturally (and not unexpectedly), Judge Johnson’s lawyer said: “he disagrees with a number of the panel’s conclusions but said the judges had also found ‘credibility problems of a number of the accusing witnesses’ that deserved further analysis.’”
The denials are always part of a predictable pattern of blaming the many accusers. We have seen this pattern in cases from Harvey Weinstein to Kevin Spacey. However, in one case involving a lawyer:
“Johnson first told her that he wanted to have an affair with her in 2010. She turned him down. Then a few months later, after she had gone through a difficult hearing, Johnson approached her and told her he wanted to kiss and squeeze her breasts to make her feel better. He then hugged her and touched one of her breasts, she said, an account that Johnson denied but the judicial panel found credible.”
The investigation did find her credible. She was afraid to report the abuse because she feared him.
Patterns
Judge Johnson has been found to have an established pattern of harassment and also, public drunkenness. He claimed the so-called drunkenness was due to the fact that he was an insulin-dependent diabetic. Nevertheless, in documenting his outrageous and sexually abuse behaviors the panel of investigators found that alcohol was a factor. In just one example:
“Got drunk at a law firm dinner in 2009 or 2010 and then slid his hand up the leg of a young female attorney and told her he could help her with her career.”
Judge Johnson was a predator. In his world of the law he was powerful and, in his mind, above judgment. He saw women as an opportunity, as prey. He could be outrageous and no one could do very much to dispute him. His need to sexually harass may have been in part sexual, but it was more about power. In his position as an appellate judge who could question his word against theirs. It became a game to him.
He might have rationalized that no one could touch him or that he was just “having fun.” Though he knew the law, he thought it was meant for other people, and that he knew the boundaries. He didn’t. In fact, he was clueless. He has disgraced his profession.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
