A dog at work for me, yet none for thee

Washoe County District CourtDogs at workPeaches

Aug 25

Picon Press was alerted to a story which first appeared on Teflon Nevada Facebook way back in 2020. The story alleged that Judge Bridget Robb, between 2017 and 2018, brought her pet dog “Peaches” into work and forced her staff to walk the dog and clean up its messes. The story included an anonymous letter sent to the Washoe County Commissioners explaining the whole story and events surrounding it.

According to the anonymous letter, the whistleblower was afraid to state a name because the judges wield power within their courtroom, and they feared retaliation. The District Court is a rather odd place in that regard, each judge is elected and there is little the County can do to ensure elected officials follow county policy. The author also indicated they could not file a judicial complaint anonymously and alleged the Human Resources staff at the courts work at the direction of the Court Administrator, who works at the direction of the Chief Judge. Sounds like an autonomous zone to us.

This is the not the first time Picon has uncovered the courts autonomy. In a previous story about Bob Lucey and the disparate treatment he received during a civil proceeding, we were informed that the court does not necessarily follow the policies set forth by the Board of County Commissioners. In that correspondence, Ms. Lerud, the Court Administrator, said the following in response to a policy statement issued by the Board indicating it applied to all county employees, “The Second Judicial District Court (“District Court”) is a distinct and separate entity from Washoe County and is not subject to the public records policies and procedures as adopted by the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners. Nonetheless, the District Court has an independent interest in making its operations as transparent as possible for the public while still abiding by the ethical standards that are unique to the judiciary and its employees.” This statement leaves us at a loss, these are all county employees being paid by the Washoe County Comptroller.

This autonomy of the courts comes into focus with Peaches, the dog Judge Bridget Robb brought to work. Pursuant to Nevada Law, Picon Press submitted several public records requests regarding Peaches and Judge Bridget Robb. In response, the County provided emails and little else. Buried in the emails was a confirmatory email about Peaches and the timeframe of the events that led to Peaches removal from the Court. On April 20, 2018, an employee named “Kelly V.” sent an email to a fellow county employee, “... I saw D13’s JA Janet outside and someone complained about Peaches being at work so Judge Robb had to take her home.”

We also received a response from the Court, which admits that “On unknown dates, Judge Robb did bring her dog, Peaches, to District Court facilities. The District Court is not in possession of any documentation responsive to this request.”

Millions of Americans own dogs and love them. Many of us would probably love to bring our dogs to work with us. Although the national courts have established many ways for people to have their animals accompany them from airports to office buildings, apparently Judge Bridget Robb had no such exception. The bigger issue Picon Press would like to understand is whether or not Judge Bridget Robb has a condition or infirmity that would require her to have her dog at work?

As a sitting family court Judge, she undoubtedly has difficult decisions to make, however the husbands, wives and children who appear before her are living her decisions and much more. Of course, most family court matters are not amicable settlements. One party is often left to pay the other and children are used as cudgels against the other parent, it is an emotional and often volatile court. Maybe Judge Bridget Robb could comment on how often parties in her court get to bring their animal in for support? What about her court clerk, her law clerk and her deputy, are they all allowed to bring their animals to work? We think not.

Was this a case of rules for thee and not for me, or is the Judge suffering from a condition that she believed required the support of her dog? Either way, we hope the Judge responds and provides an explanation to Picon Press.