The Record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Critical Legal Rights for Women: Other Issues That Have an Impact Women's Rights: Access to Justice and Due Process Rights

Judge Sotomayor's Legal Record: Other Issues That Have an Impact on Women's Rights

July 2009

Access to Justice and Due Process Rights

In Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,[1] the plaintiff had sued her employer for sex and race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, as well as state law claims. After the complaint had been filed, plaintiff was admitted to a psychiatric facility. She was evaluated for competency as part of her court proceeding, following which the district court appointed a guardian ad litem. The court neither provided plaintiff with a copy of the report nor held a hearing prior to appointing the guardian ad litem. The guardian proceeded to negotiate a settlement, which the district court approved. A later-appointed general guardian appealed. The majority opinion affirmed the district court's decision. Judge Sotomayor wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent, asserting that "In my view, the district court failed to give Neilson even the most basic notice before appointing a guardian ad litem who then assumed full control over her case. Because I believe this failure amounted to a denial of due process of law, I respectfully dissent."[2]

And in Robinson v. Shalala,[3] Judge Sotomayor ensured that the pro se plaintiff was not deprived of her constitutional Due Process rights. In Robinson, then-district court Judge Sotomayor considered the appeal of a denial to reopen an application for SSI benefits. The plaintiff had initially represented herself, and had sought reconsideration of an initial denial of benefits. Judge Sotomayor found that HHS' Reconsideration Notice failed to clearly state that failure to seek further administrative review of the reconsideration would render the reconsideration decision final and unappealable. She cited precedent holding that notice forms comparable to the 1986 Reconsideration Notice had been found to violate a claimant's Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process, and that the Due Process concerns were even more acute since plaintiff had not been represented by counsel.[4] Consequently, Judge Sotomayor remanded for consideration of whether the plaintiff was eligible for benefits.

[1] 199 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 1999).

[2] Id. at 658.

[3] 1994 U.S.n> Dist. LEXIS 3988 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

[4] Id. at *11.