One of the benefits of this column is that for the last five years, once a month, I get to review, analyze and (sometimes) critique a recent employment law decision. Reviewing court decisions and case summaries affords me the opportunity to wrestle with logic and reason and apply it to real-life scenarios. While I usually get to write about plaintiffs and defendants, and lawyers and facts, it is not often that I get to write about the judges who make those decisions. To date, that was by design. Our judiciary deserves the respect to decide matters independently and without outside influence, including influence from those who happen to have a monthly column on employment law.
This month was different. I happened to come across a law review article written by U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett of the Northern District of Iowa titled: "Essay: From the 'No Spittin', No Cussin' and No Summary Judgment' Days of Employment Discrimination Litigation to the 'Defendant's Summary Judgment Affirmed Without Comment' Days: One Judge's Four-Decade Perspective," published in Volume 57, Issue 4 of the New York Law School Law Review (2012-13). Right out of the gate, from the title alone, I knew this was going to be an interesting piece. For those who do not know him, Bennett has been a U.S. district judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa since 1994. Lest there be any doubt, the article's preamble makes it clear that the Northern District of Iowa has led the 94 districts throughout the nation in trials per judge per year more often than any other district over the past decade. It is indeed a busy court.
