Justice May Be Blind, But Some Arizona Supreme Court Justices Apparently Aren't. By Paula Huff THE ARIZONA SUPREME Court justices do not appreciate giant breasts bouncing around inside their sacred building in Phoenix. I write from personal experience. I'd just received my bachelor's degree from the UA and was in the market for a job as a writer. I'd decided to live and work in Phoenix, since the pay scale up there is higher than it is in Tucson. I was hired by Accustaff Inc., a temp agency, so I could earn a living while looking for a career. Accustaff sent me to the Education Services division of the Arizona Supreme Court to work as an executive secretary. Before being allowed to work in the Supreme Court Building, I had to undergo an extensive background check, fingerprinting and an additional interview by supervisors in my department. Robert "Mac" McCormick and Russell Mathieson, of Probation Education Services, performed the interview. During the interview, Mathieson informed me that I wouldn't be permitted to answer phones for a month or so, until I'd become familiar with the first names of all the justices. He said this is because the justices don't normally identify themselves on the phone by anything other than their first names, and if the person who answers the phone doesn't immediately recognize the name and voice as that of a justice, there's hell to pay. McCormick added that occasionally the justices make strange requests and complaints, and that it's usually the result of all the stress associated with being a Supreme Court justice. McCormick, realizing he may have just committed the crime of saying something unfavorable about a justice, cleaned it up by adding that stress-related brouhahas usually blow over within a few days, so I should just go along with any that may come my way. I didn't give it a second thought--until the following Wednesday, January 28, when the department director, Karen Waldrop Thorson, called me into her office on a "fashion violation." Although my dress was conservative and typical of what other women in the department wore, Thorson stared at my breasts, eyes darting back and forth from the left tit to the right and back again as she informed me that my dress was "too snug on top." Since the dress fit well and was not snug anywhere, I reached between my breasts, pulled my dress out about nine inches off my body and asked, "This is too tight?" Thorson squirmed uncomfortably in her seat, with her eyes continuously darting back and forth, never once looking me in the eye during the entire reprimand. She informed me that Marie Holck, my supervisor, had been ordered to reprimand me, but Holck didn't think it was right and had ducked out early that day; so now the buck had been passed on to Thorson. In order to avoid any future fashion violations, I asked Thorson if my dress was too short, in addition to being "too snug." She replied, "I didn't even look." This struck me as odd, since most fashion violations committed by women involve a too-short hem line and the hem line is often the first thing scrutinized by the fashion police. When I asked Thorson who complained about me in the first place, she was vague and her muttered reply was something to the effect that the justices are just strange sometimes. Everything would be all better, she said, if I would just wear a blazer to work every day, even in the summer. Other employees in the department are not required to wear blazers; I was being singled out because of my physique. Thorson had informed me that I would be allowed to dress like everyone else for the rest of the week, then she ordered me to return to Tucson over the weekend and bring every blazer I owned back to Phoenix with me, to conceal the offending globes from the eyes of the justices. I did return to Tucson that weekend, but I didn't go back to Phoenix on Monday. I was too stressed from the shock and humiliation of being reprimanded for the way I'm built to return to the Supreme Court. In fact, I couldn't even bring myself to return to Phoenix at all. I was just too mortified. So, a Supreme Court justice coerced a department director into committing a crime against a temporary employee. Sexual harassment, gender discrimination and discrimination against those with disabilities are crimes, even if the victim is only an office temp. Someone needs to inform the justices of that. Or perhaps they're above the law? Although Thorson gave a vague reprimand, her point was made: Size 36F breasts are simply too large to be in the same building with the Supreme Court justices. Apparently, at least one justice must think of breasts as nothing more than decorations; therefore, huge breasts count as inappropriate, gaudy decorations that do not belong in such a posh environment. This boob must feel he has every right to demand that the offending decorations be removed. The only problem is that removing my "decorations" would cost more than $12,000. And while they may have been quick to complain about it, not one of the justices has offered to pick up the tab.

Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth