Let go from judicial clerkship Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi, Human Resources informed they will put termination by mutual consent. That’s bad right? They said that is what they always put when a clerk finishes their term. Is that untrue? Help!

As for the other comment about enforcement of the waiver of your right to file a misconduct complaint - why wouldn’t it be enforceable? It’s a contract supported by valid consideration They get no complaint, and you get money, a reference, and the ability to continue to work in the judiciary. Lots of employers use severance as a way to preclude future lawsuits.

One difference here may be that the judge who offered the waiver seems to have some sense that their behavior wouldn’t stand up to much scrutiny (maybe from previous complaints?). The OP’s judge may not feel that way. The question is how objectively does the OP’s work and the judge’s behavior look, especially to people reviewing misconduct complaints?

You cant really think that a judge offering someone tax payer money not to file a complaint against them personally for misconduct is like a company offering company money to settle any outstanding claims against the company , right? Right? (And even those types of severance waivers are often not enforceable)

You think a police officer can beat you up and then say “go to the evidence room and pick up something you like as long as you don’t file a complaint against me” and that’s a valid contract? Herp derp mutual consideration

[Anonymous User]

Hi thanks for the replies. To the anonymous user who said I could PM them, can you please PM me (I don’t know how to do it. Was it hard getting HR to agree to put a resignation instead of fired? Should I ask the judge if he would be willing to agree to that? I’m also concerned that most job applications ask were you fired/reason for termination and don’t want to have to put down I was fired.

I will PM you but also reply publicly in the event any future clerk finds themselves in this position. In my situation my former Judge (probably knowing their conduct was abusive) gave me two options: (1) not waive my right to file a formal complaint against them but have "terminated" on my paperwork or (2) waive my right to file a formal complaint, get a severance, get a neutral recommendation, and be allowed to "resign" and have the ability to work in the judiciary again (which I went on to do). You can guess which option I took.

You should ask your judge if it the HR paperwork could say you voluntary resigned instead of that you were terminated. It is the judge's decision I believe, not HR's.

There’s no way that waiver is enforceable, right? If you actually filed a misconduct complaint I can’t see the Judicial Conference saying “sorry you signed a waiver.”

Even offering him severance to waive his right to file a complaint, on its own, is probably unethical (and probably fraud since it would involve lying about reasons for departure to fed govt), not even counting whatever underlying thing he was trying to hide

No, but seriously, has no one here ever heard severance agreements? They're legal and not uncommon. The NLRB recently issued an order about what an employer can/can't prevent an employer from speaking about as part of their severance. Quick quote:

The NLRB’s decision last week prohibits employers from requiring laid off workers to keep confidential both the terms of their severance agreement and the terms and conditions of their job (which includes wages, hours, health and safety issues, etc.).

But your employer may still require that you not reveal trade secrets or other confidential information that protects their business interests, Herman noted.

And employers may still ask you to waive your right to make any future claims or file a lawsuit against them.

Also, how on earth would agreeing not to file a complaint involve "lying about reasons for departure to fed govt"??? People resign in lieu of getting fired all the time. They're not lying when they tell a future prospective employer that they resigned - they were given a choice between resigning and getting fired, they chose to resign, and that's what they can legitimately tell everyone going forward. Come on now.

[Anonymous User]

Also, how on earth would agreeing not to file a complaint involve "lying about reasons for departure to fed govt"??? People resign in lieu of getting fired all the time. They're not lying when they tell a future prospective employer that they resigned - they were given a choice between resigning and getting fired, they chose to resign, and that's what they can legitimately tell everyone going forward. Come on now.

You dont get severance if you voluntarily resign. So no, he was not possibly given the option to "voluntarily resign or be fired." That is not what he is describing. He is describing a judge offering him severance if he agrees to waive a complaint against the judge.

There is no situation where a judge determines who qualifies for severance when leaving federal employment. Federal law determines who gets severance, and it is based on factual circumstances surrounding a departure. If a judge says "agree to waive any claims against me and you will get severance; but if you dont waive your claims, you wont get severance" what he is really saying is "I will lie about the factual circumstances surrounding your departures so that you get severance, even though you dont really qualify for it" (or, alternatively, "I will lie about the factual circumstances surrounding your departures so that you dont get severance, even though you do qualify for it)". There is no other option here.

(Also, you know, exchanging government money-- severance-- in exchange for something that offers only personal value-- not filing a complaint against the judge personally-- theres a word for that. Think really hard about what it might be, and why its different than a company paying someone company money to waive claims against the company...) Any other questions?

[Anonymous User]

You dont get severance if you voluntarily resign. So no, he was not possibly given the option to "voluntarily resign or be fired." That is not what he is describing. He is describing a judge offering him severance if he agrees to waive a complaint against the judge.

There is no situation where a judge determines who qualifies for severance when leaving federal employment. Federal law determines who gets severance, and it is based on factual circumstances surrounding a departure. If a judge says "agree to waive any claims against me and you will get severance; but if you dont waive your claims, you wont get severance" what he is really saying is "I will lie about the factual circumstances surrounding your departures so that you get severance, even though you dont really qualify for it" (or, alternatively, "I will lie about the factual circumstances surrounding your departures so that you dont get severance, even though you do qualify for it)". There is no other option here.

(Also, you know, exchanging government money-- severance-- in exchange for something that offers only personal value-- not filing a complaint against the judge personally-- theres a word for that. Think really hard about what it might be, and why its different than a company paying someone company money to waive claims against the company...) Any other questions?

Ohhhhhh, so there *is* an actual federal right to severance. Sorry, it would have cleared up a lot of confusion if you had referenced that directly rather than me having to Google it, because there is no right to severance in the private context and I understood the severance as being some kind of discretionary chambers budget thing. Now I understand why you’re calling this bribery (also, no fucking need to be so coy, you can just fucking call it bribery).

I don’t completely agree that a judge offering severance in return for a waiver of complaint is always completely different from private companies doing so. A judge is a member of the judiciary, which is itself an institution and might reach the conclusion that under certain fact, avoiding a complaint is in the judiciary’s interest, not just the individual judge’s interest. But I agree that the statutory right to severance complicates that a lot (and that that was probably not what was going on with the person who posted about this in the first place).