THE COURTS
Title 207—JUDICIAL CONDUCT
PART II. CONDUCT STANDARDS
[ 207 PA. CODE CH. 51 ]
Order Amending Rules 2.3 and 3.6 and the Comment to Rule 3.1 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges; No. 421 Magisterial Rules Doc.
[48 Pa.B. 2757]
[Saturday, May 12, 2018]
Order Per Curiam
And Now, this 25th day of April, 2018, upon the recommendation of the Minor Court Rules Committee; the proposal having been submitted without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3):
It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rules 2.3 and 3.6 and the Comment to Rule 3.1 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges are amended in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective July 1, 2018.
Annex A
TITLE 207. JUDICIAL CONDUCT
PART II. CONDUCT STANDARDS
CHAPTER 51. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT OF MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES
PENNSYLVANIA RULES FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES Canon 2. A magisterial district judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.
Rule 2.3. Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment.
* * * * * (B) A magisterial district judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the magisterial district judge's direction and control to do so.
(C) A magisterial district judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, based upon attributes including but not limited to race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.
* * * * *
Comment: * * * * * (3) Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.
* * * * * Canon 3. A magisterial district judge shall conduct the magisterial district judge's personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.
Rule 3.1. Extrajudicial Activities in General.
* * * * *
Comment: * * * * * (3) Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a magisterial district judge, even outside the magisterial district judge's official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call into question the magisterial district judge's integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean individuals based upon their race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For the same reason, a magisterial district judge's extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination. See Rule 3.6.
* * * * * Rule 3.6. Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations.
(A) A magisterial district judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation.
* * * * *
Comment: * * * * * (2) An organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be eligible for admission. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is a complex question to which magisterial district judges should be attentive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization's current membership rolls, but rather, depends upon how the organization selects members, as well as other relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not constitutionally be prohibited.
* * * * *
FINAL REPORT1
Recommendation 2-2017, Minor Court Rules Committee
Amendment of Rules 2.3 and 3.6, and of the Comment to Rule 3.1 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges
Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression I. Introduction
The Minor Court Rules Committee (''Committee'') recommended amendments to Rules 2.3 and 3.6, and to the Comment to Rule 3.1 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges (''MDJ Conduct Rules''). The amendments prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.
II. Background and Discussion
In 2014, the Supreme Court approved new MDJ Conduct Rules. See Order of September 18, 2014, No. 376, Magisterial Rules Docket. MDJ Conduct Rules 2.3 and 3.6, and the Comment to MDJ Conduct Rule 3.1 address bias and discrimination based on enumerated categories, such as race or disability.
In July 2016, the Supreme Court approved amendments to the Unified Judicial System's Policy on Non-discrimination and Equal Opportunity to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. On March 28, 2017, the Court made a correlative amendment to Rule 2.3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct adding gender identity or expression as additional categories of persons protected from discrimination. See Order of March 28, 2017, No. 483 Judicial Administration Docket. In light of these changes, the Court requested that the Committee review the MDJ Conduct Rules and submit a recommendation as to the advisability of adding gender identity or expression as additional protected categories under MDJ Conduct Rule 2.3. Upon review of other MDJ Conduct Rules, the Committee identified Rule 3.6 and the Comment to Rule 3.1 as rules that provide protection from discrimination for enumerated categories of persons.
III. Rule Changes
The Committee recommended the amendment of MDJ Conduct Rules 2.3(B) and 3.6(A) to add gender identity or expression as bases upon which persons cannot be subject to bias and discrimination. The Committee also recommended this change to Comment (3) of MDJ Conduct Rule 3.1.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 18-723. Filed for public inspection May 11, 2018, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 The Committee's Final Report should not be confused with the Comments to the Rules. Also, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the explanatory Final Reports.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
