WOMEN’S RIGHTS
LAW REPORTER
A Rutgers Law School PublicationWinter 1991 Volume 12, Number 4
LEARNING FROM THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURTTASK FORCE ON WOMEN IN THE COURTS:
EVALUATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER STATES
Norma Juliet Wikler and Lynn Hecht Schafran
313
Learning from the New JerseySupreme Court Task Force onWomen in the Courts: Evaluation,Recommendations andImplications for Other States
NORMA JULIET WIKLER, PH.D. and LYNN HECHT SCHAFRAN ESQ.*
The National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) has been deeply involved in the national gender bias task force movement.When the 1984 Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Womenin the Courts (9 W
OMEN
’
S
R
TS.
L. R
EP
. 129 (1986)) attracted national attention, NAWJ created theNational Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts to encourage formation of new task forces and providetechnical assistance to them.Today there are more than thirty states with supreme court task forces work-ing to document the nature and extent of gender bias in their own court systems and to implement reforms.Thirteen of these task forces have issued their reports.Whether these reports are making a difference in the administration of justice is of paramount con-cern.The following evaluation of the impact of the report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force onWomen in the Courts is the first and, to date, the only such evaluation.It assesses the status of all the task force's recommendations five years after the report’s release. In addition, this report evaluates the task force’s impact on substantive judicial decision-making and the treatment of women in court environments
*N
ORMA
J
ULIET
W
IKLER
received her B.S. from theUniversity of Michigan and her M.A. and Ph.D. from theUniversity of California, Berkeley. She is currently anAssociate Professor of Sociology at the University of California,Santa Cruz and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for theStudy of Social Change at the University of California,Berkeley. Professor Wikler was the first Director of the National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts. She serves as advisor to the New Jersey and New York Task Forces on Women in theCourts, the Minnesota Task Force for Gender Fairness in theCourts and the California Judicial Council AdvisoryCommittee on Gender Bias in the Courts. She is also a member of the National Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts andSenior Advisor to the Foundation for Women Judges.Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts, a projectof the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund in cooperationwith the National Association of Women Judges. She is amember of the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force onWomen in the Courts and the National Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts. She is an official advisor to the task forceson gender bias in the courts in Arizona, Florida, Maryland,Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Utah andWashington and assists the other task forces throughout thecountry in various phases of their work. She is also SpecialCounsel to the New York City Commission on the Status of Women, immediate past Chair of the Committee on Sex andLaw of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York anda member of the American Bar Association Commission onWomen in the Profession.Dr. Wikler can be reached at Kresge College, University of California, Santa Cruz, (408) 429-2781 or at 1433-A WalnutThe National Judicial Education Program is located at 99Street, Berkeley, CA 94709, (415) 848-1712.Hudson Street, Suite 1201, New York, N.Y. 10013, (212) 925L
YNN
H
ECHT
S
CHAFRAN
received her B.A. from Smith
6635.
College, her M.A. from Columbia University, and her J.D.Prof. Wikler and Ms. Schafran are co-authors of
Operating a
from the Columbia University School of Law. Ms. Schafran is
Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts: A Manual for Action.
an attorney specializing in gender discrimination law and published by the Women Judges’ Fund for Justice, 1225 15thDirector of the National Judicial Education Program toStreet N.W., Washington D.C. 20005, (202) 462-4243.
314
WOMEN’S RIGHTS LAW REPORTER
[Vol. 12:313 (1991)]
and in bar associations.In response to the recommendations for the future of the New Jersey task forcemade in this evaluation, New Jersey Chief Justice Robert N. Wilentz established the Committee on Womenin the Courts as a standing committee of the New Jersey Supreme Court, to carry forward the work of thetask force.For a list of these reports and how to obtain them contact Lynn Hecht Schafran, Esq., Director,National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts, 99 HudsonStreet, 12th floor, New York, N.Y. 10013, (212) 925-6635.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
315
SUMMARY OF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
316
I.PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
319
II.INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
320
III.ORIGIN, HISTORY AND ACTIVITIES OF THE NEW JERSEY SUPREMECOURT TASK FORCE ON WOMEN IN THE COURTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
321
IV.EVALUATING THE NEW JERSEY TASK FORCE: FRAMEWORK ANDPROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
324
Establishing the Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
324
Methodological Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
324
Sources of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
324
V. EVALUATION FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
326
Did the Task Force Fulfill Its Mandate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
327
Investigation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
327
Educational Programs . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
327
New Jersey Judges’ Responses to Judicial Education About Gender Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
328
Current Status of the Task Force’s Recommendations and Assessment of Change inDesignated Areas of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
330
Interaction in the Courtroom and Professional Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .331
Bar Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
333Court Administration and Women Court Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
338
Substantive Law:Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
340Domestic Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
341Juvenile Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
347Matrimonial Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .348Sentencing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
351
VI.ANALYSIS OF THE EVALUATION FINDINGS AND TASK FORCEPROCESSES
351
In What Ways, If Any, Did the Task Force’s Work Reduce Gender Bias in the Courts inDesignated Areas of Concern? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
351
Courtroom Interaction and Professional Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
351
Court Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
352
Substantive Areas of the Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
352
What Were the Unanticipated Consequences of the Task Force’s Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
353
Altering the Normative Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
353
Stimulating Change in Bar Associations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
353
Facilitating Inquiries About Bias Against Minority Groups in the Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
354
Creating State and National Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
354
Inspiring Task Forces on Gender Bias in the Courts and Judicial and Legal EducationAbout Gender Bias in Other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
354
What Factors Facilitated the Work of the Task Force? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
355
Support of the Chief Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
355