The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to recuse U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes from a case after a plaintiff in a civil rights case alleged Hughes made “biased and bigoted statements” during a pre-trial conference. Several days before, Hughes had issued an opinion explaining his remarks.
On Sept. 19, the 5th Circuit issued a one-page order denying the petition for writ of mandamus in In Re Jitendra Shah, which called for Hughes’ recusal. The 5th Circuit’s decision comes after the defendants in Shah filed a motion arguing the issue is moot, attaching a Sept. 16 opinion from Hughes denying the recusal motion, in which Hughes explained that his comments were neither biased nor bigoted.
The background to the dispute, according to the Aug. 29 petition for writ of mandamus filed with the 5th Circuit in In Re Jitendra Shah, is as follows. [See " Plaintiff Asks for Recusal of Judge Lynn Hughes for 'Biased and Bigoted Statements'" Texas Lawyer, Sept 3, 2013, page 1.]
Jitendra Shah is a native of India and a citizen of the United States. He sued his employer under the Civil Right Act of 1964, alleging that the employer discriminated against him because of his race and national origin. He also alleged retaliation for protesting the discrimination. The case was assigned to Hughes.
During a Nov. 26, 2012, pre-trial conference, which allegedly was held ex parte because Shah’s lawyer was ill, Shah alleges in the mandamus petition that Hughes commented about a university’s diversity director position: “And what does the diversity director do? Go around painting students different colors so that they would think they were mixed?”
Hughes also allegedly stated that Indians are “Caucasian.”
Further, according to the mandamus petition, Hughes allegedly said, “That’s why Hitler used the swastika” — “it was a symbol of good luck” and “going back in Sanskrit to the Aryan people which he claimed a bunch of Germans were. They act a lot like Germans.”
Hughes also stated, “Eleanor Roosevelt said staffs of one color always work better,” the mandamus petition continues.
The mandamus petition alleged that Hughes’ statements in the Nov. 26, 2012, conference reflect actual bias and/or prejudice against Shah or, at a minimum, would cause a reasonable person to harbor doubts about his impartiality.
“Judge Hughes’ biased and bigoted remarks against people of color, such as Jitendra Shah, have no place in a federal courtroom, least of all coming from a federal judge who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution,” said Scott Newar, a Houston solo who represents Shah, after filing the writ.
