top of page

Justice Gabriel and
the "appalling" treatment
of his accuser

Screenshot 2024-03-13 102230.png
Sculpture with Face Mask

It is difficult to share the complicated facts regarding the allegations made against Justice Gabriel. But, the surrounding circumstances raise legitimate questions.
​
In the Masias-Brown Memo, the Justice was alleged to have used his influence to suppress harassment allegations made against him. Today, even the record of contemporaneous news reporting of the story is hard to locate.
 
In this section, we provide the pieces that are still available. You decide if the way this allegation was handled supports or undermines the Memo's claim that the allegation was suppressed to protect the Justice.

We start with the allegation made in the Memo's third bullet point:

Screenshot 2024-03-13 103900.png

The allegation is that Masias, one of the authors of the Memo and former director of human resources for the Judicial Department, suppressed a misconduct allegation against Judge Gabriel to keep his Supreme Court application clean.

Allegedly, Masias did this by silencing the accuser and paying her for a non-disclosure agreement

The story broke identifying Justice Gabriel as the judge accused in the Memo on February 26, 2021.

But that news report from the Denver Post seems to have been removed - and is now very hard to find.

Screenshot 2024-03-13 102230.png

But, here is a link to the story -- as long as it lasts.

In 2023, the Judicial Department's lawyers (Investigations Law Group) declared that the allegations against Justice Gabriel were "unfounded." The Denver Post removed the original story about the alleged suppression and replaced it with a statement.

But was the allegation that Masias suppressed the misconduct claim to protect Justice Gabriel invalidated by the lawyer's report?

Industrial Smoke

ILG Report

Important to Realize

While the ILG investigators were selected by an independent panel,
nonetheless, they were retained, paid, and controlled by the Judiciary.

ILG did not interview the law clerk who accused Justice Gabriel.

Neither did ILG interview Mindy Masias, the person who alleged that she suppressed the complaint.

peaking blindfolded-2025473_1920.png

ILG approached both of them, but neither talked to ILG.

The judicial department had paid each of them for agreements to remain silent.

Silence.jpg

Masias, as director of Human Resources, received the harassment accusation on September 12th.  

HR immediately interviewed the accuser and a co-clerk.

ILG Report, Page 21.

Masias waited until September 15th to interview the judge.

As a result, the interview was after the judge submitted his application for the Supreme Court on September 13th.

ILG Report, Page 22.

The interview of the accuser was recorded. 

The interview of the judge was not.

ILG only had the judge's account of what was said.

ILG Report, Page 21.

Immediately after her accusation interview on September 12th, the accuser was sent home on "administrative leave"

desperate-2293377_1920.jpg

ILG Report, Page 21.

Timeline of Judge's Application for Supreme Court vacancy

Application Process

Accuser sent away on admin leave

On return, Accuser demoted, appalling treatment, signed to NDA

Accuser's Experience Timeline

No one could explain to ILG investigators why the accuser was placed on administrative leave.

peaking blindfolded-2025473_1920.png

ILG Report, Page 21.

The accuser was not brought back to work at the court from administrative leave until "a day or two" after the accused judge had completed the Supreme Court application process and been interviewed for the position.

woman-5503787_1920.jpg

ILG Report, Page 22.

After being allowed to return from administrative leave,
the accuser was "penalized by putting her off in a corner."

trapped-6008738_1920.jpg

ILG Report, Page 23.

The Judicial Branch's lawyer said she was "appalled" by the treatment of Justice Gabriel's accuser and called it "traumatizing."

ILG Report, Page 23.

The accuser would later assert she was the victim of retaliation.
The Judicial Branch would settle this claim with the accuser.

ILG Report, Page 22-23.

The accuser would be paid for the rest of her term but not be required to work.

As part of the deal, the Judicial Department required she sign a non-disclosure agreement.

ILG Report, Pages 23-24.

When interviewed by ILG, Justice Gabriel reportedly claimed that Masias had told him a few days into the accuser's administrative leave that she withdrew her accusations.

ILG Report, Page 21.

Bound by non-disclosure agreements, neither the accuser nor Masias is available to confirm (or deny) Justice Gabriel's version of events.

censorship-8204622_1920.png

The 2021 report by the Denver Post, has now been removed from parts of the internet. The body responsible for selecting nominees to fill Supreme Court vacancies never learned of the accusation

safe-575395_1920.png

Justice Gabriel was not successful in his first Supreme Court application, but he was appointed to a later vacancy.

Was the Memo's original claim of covering this up to protect the judge "unfounded"?

bottom of page