2011 WL 6058029
U.S.J.C.2011Background
- Belle Meade Country Club is a 110-year-old private Nashville club with Resident Members (control voting and leadership) and a separate, smaller class of Lady Members (female, with restricted rights) and no current female Resident Members.
- Judge Paine has been a Belle Meade Resident Member since 1978 and has sponsored African American candidates for Resident Membership.
- Club membership shows systemic gender and racial exclusion in practice (no female Resident Members; African Americans largely excluded from Resident Membership; Lady Members have limited rights).
- Paine wrote a 1990 letter urging diversification and noting the club’s exclusionary policies; the letter suggested fiduciary duty to address the issue.
- The complaint, filed in 2008, alleged Canon 2A and 2C violations; the Sixth Circuit Council previously adopted a Special Committee finding that Paine’s membership did not constitute misconduct; the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee disagreed and found misconduct under Canons 2A and 2C.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Belle Meade's membership practice violate Canon 2C? | Paine (Plaintiff) contends the club discriminates on race and sex. | Belle Meade (Defendant) argues no invidious discrimination is proven. | Yes; organization discriminates, violating Canon 2C. |
| Is there sufficient weight of the evidence to support misconduct finding? | Complainant asserts the weight of evidence supports misconduct. | Defendant argues the Sixth Circuit Council’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous. | Yes; the weight supports misconduct. |
| Does Paine’s past effort to integrate the club negate misconduct under Canon 2C? | Efforts to diversify show good faith and counteract discrimination. | Remediation efforts cannot excuse membership in a discriminating organization. | No; remediation does not negate misconduct under Canon 2C. |
| Was the Special Committee's investigation adequate to resolve the matter? | Investigation was insufficient (gaps cited). | Record evidence is sufficient to resolve the matter. | Record supports resolution despite some investigative gaps. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 1955) (appearance of justice; bias concerns in adjudication)
- Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (Supreme Court 1954) (appearance of impartiality; due process concerns)
- Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (Supreme Court 1971) (appearance of evenhanded justice; due process concerns)
- In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 640 F.3d 354 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 2010) (standard of review; appellate deferential to council findings)