In a short order, three circuit judges said not only did the federal government raise "the better argument," but Strickland's argument premised on the withdrawal of her legal team was not "overlooked or misapprehended" previously. Accordingly, the judges denied Strickland's petition for a panel rehearing and related motions.
The order was entered at the direction of U.S. Circuit Judges W. Duane Benton of the Eighth Circuit, Ronald Lee Gilman of the Sixth Circuit and Susan P. Graber of the Ninth Circuit.
In August, the same panel, sitting by designation, refused to revive Strickland's sexual harassment lawsuit after finding unreasonable her argument that the judiciary's internal complaint process was unfair and led her to quit. This is Strickland's second trip to the Fourth Circuit; in April 2022, a designated panel reinstated a few of her claims.
In September of this year, Strickland petitioned the full court to rehear her case, arguing the August panel was wrong not to reverse a district court's decision to allow her attorneys to withdraw without finding they had good cause to do so. Left undisturbed, she argued, the panel's ruling would allow attorneys to decamp from a client's case on the "flimsiest of pretenses."
Strickland, a former assistant public defender in the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina, first sued the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Fourth Circuit and several individuals in 2020.
She alleged judiciary officials mismanaged her report about a supervisor's unwanted sexual advances, leading her to quit in 2019. She called into question the judiciary's employment dispute resolution plan, or how it polices itself for employment discrimination.
The case went to a bench trial in December 2023 after three years of litigation. Last year, a federal judge found she received the process she was due. After the Fourth Circuit agreed in August of this year, Strickland soon appealed, petitioning not only for a panel rehearing, but also a chance to unseal certain documents like the government's unredacted motion to strike Strickland's privilege assertion.
In a Tuesday statement to Law360, Strickland's spouse and counsel, Cooper Strickland, said he has concerns about the court's denial of the unsealing motion due to the First Amendment issues it implicates, including the ability of the public to evaluate the basis for the court's ruling on the counsel withdrawal.
"My concerns are heightened by the government's decision to not formally oppose the unsealing motion," Strickland said.
Strickland is represented by herself and Cooper Strickland.
The judiciary is represented by Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, Courtney L. Dixon and Kevin B. Soter of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division.
The case is Caryn Strickland v. Nancy Moritz et al., case number 24-2056, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
--Editing by Robert Rudinger.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
