A Detroit-based attorney, Lily Diallo, has publicly accused West Michigan Judge Karen Madema of racial discrimination after an incident involving her request to attend a court hearing virtually due to her ongoing cancer treatment. The situation has escalated, leading to potential legal action against the judge and raising concerns about fair treatment in the judicial system.
Background of the Incident
Lily Diallo, a seasoned attorney with nearly three decades of experience, recently battled breast cancer and was undergoing ongoing medication treatment. Due to her condition, she requested to appear via Zoom for a sentencing hearing at the Ottawa County Circuit Court on January 6th, 2023, rather than making the three-hour drive to the courtroom. This request was made through the court clerk after Diallo had noticed that virtual appearances were mentioned as an option on the court’s website.
Court’s Response to Diallo’s Request
Despite her health condition, Diallo’s request to appear virtually was denied by the court clerk, who informed her that the judge required her to be physically present in the courtroom. With no other option, Diallo complied with the directive, fearing that not doing so could adversely affect her client’s case. However, upon arriving at the courtroom, Diallo observed that another lawyer, a white male who also had a pre-existing condition, was permitted to appear virtually for a similar sentencing proceeding.
Allegations of Racial Discrimination
Diallo confronted the judge, expressing her concerns over the apparent discrepancy in treatment between herself and the white attorney who was allowed to appear via Zoom. She pointed out that while she was compelled to be present in court despite her illness, the white lawyer was not. Diallo stated that she felt the judge’s decision was racially motivated, saying, “You might as well have called me the n-word,” underscoring the severity of her accusations.
Court’s Denial of Racism Claims
In response to Diallo’s accusations, the 20th Circuit Court, through Court Administrator Susan Franklin, issued a statement strongly denying that racism played any role in the judge’s decision-making process. The court maintained that staff was only informed that Diallo was undergoing treatment without receiving any further details about her condition. The court’s stance was that the decision was made based on the information provided and not on any discriminatory grounds.
Impact on Diallo’s Client
The ramifications of the judge’s decision were significant for Diallo’s client, a first-time offender eligible for a plea deal that would allow his record to be wiped clean. Despite recommendations from the judge’s own probation department to grant the plea, the judge denied it. Diallo contends that her forced in-person appearance and the subsequent denial of the plea deal were unfair, especially given her health circumstances and the comparable leniency shown to the white attorney allowed to appear virtually.
Diallo’s Next Steps
In the aftermath of this incident, Diallo contracted COVID-19, further exacerbating her health struggles. She has now retained her own legal counsel and is in the process of filing a formal grievance against Judge Madama with the Judicial Tenure Commission. The grievance alleges violations of the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and a failure to uphold fairness and impartiality in the judicial process.
Diallo insists that her actions are not about making excuses but about ensuring that all individuals, regardless of race, receive equitable treatment in the court system. She emphasized the need for parity, particularly in situations where health and disability considerations are at play.
Conclusion
The allegations brought forward by Lily Diallo have sparked a broader discussion about racial bias and fairness within the legal system. As her grievance progresses, it may bring more scrutiny to the practices of the judiciary and highlight the importance of transparency and equality in the administration of justice. Whether the Judicial Tenure Commission will take action remains to be seen, but the case has already drawn significant attention and raised critical questions about the intersection of race, health, and justice in America’s courts.
