The WaPo’s Marc Fisher has the latest update on the saga of D.C. administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson and his $65 million lawsuit against local dry cleaners Custom Cleaners for misplacing his favorite pair of pants. We first told you about this story back in early April, and it has since gained worldwide attention from people who like to read about stories detailing acts of unbelievable arrogance and stupidity. Like us.
Fisher brings word that though at first it seemed as though Judge Pearson, whose 10-year appointment to the bench was up for renewal on May 1, would likely be losing his job over the lawsuit when his bio was removed from the city’s Web site, he’s actually still on the payroll for now. An unidentified senior city official told the columnist Pearson was currently “doing administrative work” and drawing a paycheck from the city. And he’s likely to continue doing so.
There is good reason to believe that Pearson might win a new term. Before the pants suit became a worldwide story, the city’s chief administrative law judge, Tyrone Butler, recommended approval of Pearson’s application based on his job performance, said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson and three other sources with direct knowledge of the recommendation. Butler did not respond to a request for comment.
“Everyone agrees that to file a lawsuit asking for $65 million for a pair of pants is absolutely outrageous,” the D.C. official said. “But we are trying to keep that out of the discussion about reappointment. I don’t think it’s appropriate not to reappoint someone just because they file a lawsuit. You can’t retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional, First Amendment right to file a lawsuit to vindicate their rights.”
First Amendment? Uhm … we know that the continued employment/existence/gasification of Marion Barry may leave folks with the impression that acting like a damn fool is no impediment to holding high office in our fair city, but, with due respect to Mr. Unnamed D.C. Official: Sorry, nnnnnnoooooooooo. In fact, as Fisher found out, the commission that decides whether judges such as Pearson get reappointed is TOTALLY allowed to consider outside factors (like, say, an unmanageable sense of entitlement) when approving a position. That’s because judges are generally supposed to be people the community can trust to apply good judgement.
If everyone knows a sitting judge to be a loose cannon, or worse a worldwide laughing stock, how can citizens have confidence in the legal process? Furthermore, judges are allowed to consider ethical considerations on the part of attorneys when determining whether a lawsuit is frivolous, so how could this sort of action even be suggested as being out of bounds for the commission who will determine Pearson’s fate, given the nature of his position as a judge?
