Deborah Cook Nomination Fact Sheet
March 1, 2003
Justice Cook's numerous dissents as a state Supreme Court justice reflect a disturbing pattern of siding with business or corporate interests over those of individual workers and/or consumers. Further, Justice Cook's insensitivity in other civil rights areas, such as religious liberty, raises serious questions about her commitment to equal justice for all. These concerns warrant a more thorough investigation of Justice Cook's record before passing judgment on her qualifications for the federal bench.
Judge Cook's record raises numerous serious concerns, including:
- Justice Cook's more than 300 dissents show a reluctance to support enforcement of a number of legal and constitutional rights, particularly those affecting workers and consumers. In a large number of employment rights cases that have come before the Ohio Supreme Court, Justice Cook was the sole dissenter, siding with business or corporate interests a majority of the time. For example, in Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., Justice Cook dissented from a majority ruling striking down an Ohio statute that made it nearly impossible for an employee to recover damages from his/her employer caused by an intentional tort committed by the employer. In Genaro v. Central Transport, Inc., she authored a dissent calling for a narrowing of Ohio employment law, relying on case law interpreting a federal employment discrimination statute, despite the difference in language between state and federal law.
- Justice Cook's unwillingness to uphold religious freedom rights suggests a lack of dedication to basic constitutional rights. Justice Cook was the sole dissenter in Humphrey v. Lane, a case brought by Wendell Humphrey, a uniformed corrections officer whose religious beliefs prohibited him from cutting his hair except on certain occasions. Although it was undisputed that Humphrey's hairstyle had not interfered with his job performance, his employer threatened to fire Humphrey unless he cut his hair. While the trial court and the Ohio Supreme Court held that Humphrey's religious freedom had been violated by his employer, Cook-again as the lone dissenter-would have allowed Humphrey's employer to fire him unless he cut his hair. In her dissent, which advocated a position that would have undercut the officer's religious liberty, Justice Cook argued for an effective nullification of the provisions of the Ohio Constitution, which contain more protection than federal law.
For many Americans, the federal judiciary is the first line of defense against violations of dearly held constitutional principles. Because of the impact that lifetime appointments of judges hostile to civil rights may have on the rights of millions of Americans, LCCREF will continue to monitor the integrity of the processes for nominating and confirming judicial appointments.
