Anna St. John: Unfit and Unqualified for A Lifetime Judicial Appointment
On February 4, the Senate Judiciary committee is expected to consider the nomination of Anna St. John for a lifetime role as a federal judge. If confirmed, St. John will take on a powerful role – one which entrusts her with the duty to fairly uphold the rule of law.
But is it possible for St. John to preside over a courtroom without bias? Or was she nominated by the Trump administration precisely because she spent nearly two decades shielding powerful corporations from accountability when they hurt people?
In 2021, St. John testified against legislation (also known as EFASASHA, “Ending Forced Arbitration for Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment”) that would end forced arbitration for cases involving sexual harassment and sexual assault. During this time, the #MeToo movement’s continued momentum created an opening for women around the world to bravely share their harrowing experiences with sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Before the passage of EFASASHA, women who experienced sexual violence and sexual harassment in the workplace were silenced through forced arbitration clauses. These clauses, found in take-it-or-leave-it terms and conditions (like an employment contract), strip people of their fundamental rights when misconduct occurs.
For decades, corporations and employers weaponized forced arbitration to cover up repeat wrongdoing and toxic work environments. Women who suffered unimaginable harms, including sexual assault and harassment, found themselves unable to hold their predators accountable in court. Instead, they had to resolve their cases through forced arbitration — a secretive process with outcomes decided overwhelmingly by white men, often paid for by the very employers and corporations accused of the harmful conduct.
Study after study revealed that the forced arbitration process is so rigged against individuals, it amounts to virtual immunity for wrongdoing. Congress listened and learned. Soon, overwhelming bipartisan support resulted in the passage of legal protections from being forced into arbitration. For now, these protections just extend to cases involving sexual harassment and sexual assault.
While women around the country bravely shared the urgency of eradicating forced arbitration, St. John used her power and influence to gaslight these women and the public. She downplayed their stories and minimized their pain. Instead of listening to women who were forced to suffer in silence, St. John tried to convince Congress that these women’s understanding of their own experiences were incorrect. That allowing these women to voluntarily choose whether they wanted to enter into an arbitration instead of exercising their right to proceed in court would actually hurt them.
The role St. John played at this hearing should surprise nobody. She is known for regularly supporting efforts to cut off access to justice when consumers are misled.
We hope members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, many of whom co-sponsored EFASASHA, will seriously consider this history when she appears before them. Will she be able to preside over women fairly and without bias? Or will she side with wrongdoers and corporations as she has for the past few decades?
