Full transparency on ongoing proceedings

The allegation

The CJP alleges Judge Draper's extended remarks during the February 15, 2023 post-trial hearing — discussing race, miscegenation, the Civil Rights Act, and Black football players — reflected racial bias or the appearance of bias. Counsel for the defendant in that hearing was Black, and the underlying case did not involve any racial issue.

Your comments at the February 15 hearing, when considered individually and when considered as a whole, reflected bias, prejudice, or harassment on the basis of race, national origin, and/or ethnicity, or created an appearance thereof.

Judge Draper's response

Judge Draper acknowledges the transcript is accurate but says it is taken "wholly out of context." He alleges his comments were not directed at counsel and reflected pride in the country's progress on race since he began practicing law. He further alleges that opposing counsel altered the wording of in-chambers comments in a sworn statement.

Respondent's comments to Janice Brown, Esq. did not reflect any bias or prejudice, nor were they intended to be or reasonably subject to an interpretation of harassment based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. The substance of the comments is not disparaging to nor targeted at Ms. Brown… Ms. Brown provided a sworn statement in which she changed just a few words regarding comments Respondent made in chambers to reframe that conversation as disgusting harassment rather than the expression of pride Respondent intended and in fact expressed in the progress made by our country since Respondent first started practicing law.

Context

The California Court of Appeal opinion in Odom v. LACCD (the underlying civil case) explicitly declined to determine whether Judge Draper acted with bias: "We do not know whether, as defendants contend, Judge Draper's 'persistent racial and gender bias' motivated his rulings at trial… We need not decide whether bias was the reason for his arbitrary and capricious evidentiary rulings; the rulings were an abuse of discretion irrespective of his motivations."

The allegation

The CJP alleges Judge Draper engaged in a pattern of conduct during the February 15, 2023 hearing and the underlying Odom trial that reflected sexual harassment or gender-based bias, including referring to adult women using diminutive language and an in-chambers comment about male attorneys at his prior law firm telling secretaries, "You better be able to f*** better than you can type."

During the February 15, 2023 hearing in Odom, and during the Odom trial, you engaged in a pattern of conduct that reflected sexual harassment or bias, prejudice, or harassment on the basis of gender and/or sex, or created an appearance thereof.

Judge Draper's response

Judge Draper categorically denies engaging in any conduct that was intended to be, or could reasonably be interpreted as, sexual harassment or gender-based bias.

Respondent has always conducted himself fairly, impartially, and has performed the duties of his office diligently, and is widely recognized for having done so. Respondent did not at any time engage in conduct that was intended to be or reasonably could be interpreted as sexual harassment or bias based on gender or sex.

Context

• Declaration of Maryann P. Gallagher (plaintiff's lead counsel in the underlying Odom case, filed in opposition to defendants' motion to disqualify Judge Draper) describes the in-chambers conversation at paragraph 54: after issuing his ruling, the judge invited counsel into chambers to discuss the case "on a human level," urged LACCD to invest in stronger HR systems that would actually "listen to the professors and students," and referenced the crude phrase as an example of language that "other law firms" used "in the old days" — in contrast to his own firm, O'Melveny & Myers — to illustrate the kind of workplace culture LACCD's Vice President Irvin allegedly perpetuated against Dr. Odom ("tap that ass… if she slept with him she could have any job she wanted"), and to argue that "now that there are better policies and procedures and systems in place things have gotten much better."
• Court of Appeal in Odom v. LACCD explicitly declined to find bias of any kind: "We do not know whether… Judge Draper's 'persistent racial and gender bias' motivated his rulings at trial… We need not decide whether bias was the reason."

Primary source excerpt

The allegation

The CJP alleges that during a lunch break at the February 15, 2023 hearing, Judge Draper approached LACCD General Counsel Maribel Medina from behind and, without permission, touched, stroked, or held her hair for a few seconds.

You entered the courtroom through the public doors, approached Ms. Medina from behind and, without permission or warning, you touched, stroked, or held her hair… Your interaction with Ms. Medina reflected sexual harassment or bias, prejudice, or harassment on the basis of gender and/or sex, or created an appearance thereof.

Judge Draper's response

Judge Draper denies that this happened. He states that every other witness — three interviewed by Commission staff and three who provided sworn statements — has told the Commission or testified under oath that the alleged contact did not occur and could not have occurred.

At no time did Respondent "touch, stroke, or h[o]ld" Ms. Medina's hair "for a few seconds" or at all. Every witness to this alleged event other than Ms. Brown and Ms. Med[in]a, which include three interviewed by the Commission staff and three who provided statements under oath which were available to the Commission staff, has told the Commission or stated under oath that this did not occur and in fact could not have occurred.

The allegation

The CJP alleges that comments Judge Draper made during the February 15, 2023 hearing and during the Odom trial — including emotional remarks, references to taxpayer money, and personal references to family members — reflected emotional investment in the case and a loss of impartiality.

Your comments throughout the Odom case, when considered individually and when considered as a whole, reflected embroilment, bias, and/or prejudice, or created an appearance thereof.

Judge Draper's response

Judge Draper acknowledges that quotes drawn from the trial record are accurate but contends they are presented out of context. He denies any bias or embroilment and alleges that throughout the Odom proceedings he acted impartially and with appropriate judicial demeanor.

Respondent admits that quotes taken directly from the record are accurate, despite being presented out of context. Respondent denies violating Canons 2, 2A, 3, 3B(4) and 3B(5) of the Code of Judicial Ethics and wholly denies any bias or embroilment. Moreover, Respondent alleges that he acted impartially, fairly, with patience, dignity, and courtesy.

Context

The Court of Appeal in Odom v. LACCD reversed the underlying judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial-court rulings were an abuse of discretion. On the question of bias, however, the appellate court explicitly declined to make a finding: "We need not decide whether bias was the reason for his arbitrary and capricious evidentiary rulings; the rulings were an abuse of discretion irrespective of his motivations."

The allegation

The CJP alleges that on at least two occasions in early 2023, Judge Draper told then-Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner some version of "You look cute when you are mad." When confronted at a March 23, 2023 meeting, he reportedly responded, "But you are cute when you're angry."

In approximately January and February 2023, on at least two occasions, you told then-Presiding Judge Jessner, "You look cute when you are mad," or "You're so cute when you're angry," or words to that effect.

Judge Draper's response

Judge Draper alleges he had a long, friendly working relationship with Judge Jessner — having served as a mentor — and that the comment was made in jest, consistent with what he believed was their camaraderie.

At the time of the conversation in question, Respondent had known Judge Jessner for several years, had served as a mentor and ally within the judiciary for her, and the two had what Respondent believed was a friendly relationship. Accordingly, Respondent's comment that Judge Jessner looked cute when she was mad was made in jest and was consistent with the camaraderie Respondent believed he shared with Judge Jessner, in the context of what Respondent believed was their long friendship and working relationship.

The allegation

The CJP alleges that on May 30, 2023, when court administrator Lindsey McFarlane told Judge Draper she had cancelled his request for a larger courtroom monitor while he was on leave, he replied, "You're cute, but not as cute without that TV screen."

You said, "You're cute, but not as cute without that TV screen," or words to that effect.

Judge Draper's response

Judge Draper alleges the comment was not intended as harassment or invitation, noting that Ms. McFarlane did not even recall the remark when interviewed by Commission staff.

Respondent's comment that Lindsay McFarlane was "cute" was not intended to be any form of harassment or invitation and was obviously not interpreted in that fashion by Ms. McFarlane, because she did not even remember it when interviewed by Commission staff.