Does judge's reference to 'little Chinese woman' show bias? Appellate concurrence sees 'pure stereotyping'
According to two concurring judges in an appellate opinion, a California judge who said he was almost amused when a “little Chinese woman” stared him down did not rule against her based on ethnic bias, but his comment was “pure stereotyping.” (Image from Shutterstock)
A California judge who said he was almost amused when a “little Chinese woman” stared him down did not rule against her based on ethnic bias, but his comment was “pure stereotyping,” according to two concurring judges in an appellate opinion.
The California Courts of Appeal’s Second Appellate District certified the Nov. 27 opinion for publication Dec. 17 after receiving requests that it do so from the California Civility Task Force and the Orange County Asian American Bar Association, Law360 reports. Published opinions can be cited as precedent.
The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Natalie Lloyd Merrick, and her mother over funds from the sale of a condo in China. Merrick was awarded more than $242,000 from the sale, leading to a dispute over the amount of prejudgment interest.
Judge Randolph M. Hammock of Los Angeles County, California, ruled against Merrick on the interest issue in June 2022 and awarded mandatory attorney fees of about $2,000 to the mother.
During the final hearing, Hammock made these comments: “I already rejected those arguments. OK. I know your client was not happy with my ruling [at a previous hearing]. I mean, she was there, you know, mad dogging me, which didn’t bother me at all. It was almost amusing to see this little Chinese woman stare me down because she didn’t like the ruling. But again, it’s just business. I didn’t take it personally.”
The appeals court opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Grimes said there is no reason to believe that Hammock harbored any bias against Merrick. She added, however, that “unnecessary references to a litigant’s ethnicity and gender are certainly to be avoided.”
In a concurring opinion, Judge Maria E. Stratton agreed that Hammock’s “gratuitous comments” did not influence his ruling. His findings were supported by evidence, and his decision was based on a realistic evaluation of facts. But his comments “cannot pass without censure,” she said in the concurrence joined by Judge Victor Viramontes.
Stratton asserted that Hammock’s “patronizing description” of Merrick violated judicial canons requiring judges to be dignified and courteous, to act in a manner that promotes confidence in the judiciary, and to refrain from conduct that would reasonably be perceived as biased.
“Beyond being generally demeaning,” Stratton wrote, “the trial judge’s fatuous comment traded on racist and sexist tropes.” Hammock found it almost amusing that Merrick, “a little Chinese woman,” stared him down, she wrote.
“Implicit in the court’s identification of these characteristics as what made Merrick’s conduct funny was the concept that her behavior was incongruous; that is, someone like Merrick was neither expected nor supposed to act in a certain manner. This is pure stereotyping. How should a ‘little Chinese woman’ have acted? Like the stereotype of an Asian woman—demure, meek, eager to please, deferential to men?”
Stratton acknowledged that Hammock’s comment may have been “unwitting” and said such remarks implicate implicit bias, which can influence behaviors without awareness.
Stratton added that “being mindful of the stereotypes we all carry” is part of a judge’s job.
“Reining in impulses, our inner autopilot, to make random comments that personally denigrate a litigant is also part of our job,” she wrote.
Hammock told the ABA Journal that he couldn’t comment because there is no final judgment yet.
Hammock apologized for his conduct to his presiding judge after the appellate opinion was issued.
“Suffice it to state, I am extremely embarrassed and regretful of those comments,” he said in a letter self-reporting his conduct to the judge.
Hammock’s letter said he accepts that his comments violated judicial canons.
“I have certainly thought long and hard as to my actions in this regard, and moreover, I have considered what I need to do myself in order to take the appropriate ‘corrective actions’ needed to ensure that such violations do not occur again by me,” Hammock wrote.
The first step, Hammock wrote, was to self-report. He has also read publications on implicit bias mentioned in the concurrence and plans to take the next judicial course offered on the subject.
“You can rest assured that I will strive to do my best to learn a serious lesson from this incident and to act accordingly,” Hammock wrote. “I must and will do better.”
