Sometimes it doesn’t pay to do your job the way you’re supposed to. A lot of employers just don’t like a goody two shoes.
(Side note: Is “goody two shoes” an ancient term that you youngsters out there don’t understand? If so, go look it up.)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last week provided a weird example of this concept in a case called Anderson v. Valdez, that begins with this sentence:
“Bruce Anderson’s job required an oath to report judicial misconduct.”
So he did. Unfortunately, the alleged misconduct was by the Chief Justice of a court of appeals in Texas, and Anderson was later turned down for another job. It’s not entirely clear, but that might have been because the Chief Justice was annoyed about the reporting that was part of Anderson’s job.
The Fifth Circuit panel ruled — go read it if you don’t believe me — that Anderson had no case for retaliation because his report was part of his job so he could be disciplined for it, even though he was supposed to do it.
If he had not properly done his job, he would have been fine.
It gets weirder. In a strange echoing of events on the national level, we’re also told that another judge at that appeals court decided not to report the chief justice because “it would look too political.”
Apparently, the political thing to do is nothing. Otherwise you seem political.
It’s a wonder anyone gets prosecuted for anything.
Credit Journalistic Writing: The ‘Goody Two Shoes’ over at CourtHouseNews.com
This. https://t.co/mMdK0ThOYQ@ClassActionLaw @statebaroftexas @SupremeCourt_TX @JudgeDillard @JusticeWillett @KannonShanmugam @roysimon @VolokhC @JoshMBlackman @josh_hammer @nytimes @blaw @law360 @VAStateBar @TheFlaBar @DC_Bar @scotxblog @ishapiro @Public_Justice @FedSoc pic.twitter.com/kqLKMqYiGb
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) July 5, 2020