A federal judge on Tuesday declined to step down from a long-running employment discrimination case against Denver’s Jackson National Life Insurance Company, rejecting arguments from a former employee who alleged judicial bias.
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied a motion filed by La’Tonya Ford, a former Jackson National employee and intervenor plaintiff, who had sought his recusal along with that of Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O’Hara. Ford, who is representing herself, claimed that both judges demonstrated partiality against her in the case, which was initiated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2016.
In her 49-page motion, Ford alleged that Judge O’Hara was improperly assigned to the case and had conflicts of interest stemming from his prior employment. She also cited what she described as preferential treatment toward defense motions and unfavorable rulings against her, including the court’s rejection of her summary judgment motions.
Judge Brimmer, however, firmly dismissed the claims. In a detailed order, he emphasized that recusal under federal law requires an objective showing that a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. “Ms. Ford has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable person aware of all the circumstances would harbor doubts about my impartiality,” the judge wrote.
He clarified that Judge O’Hara’s assignment followed district-wide procedures after Magistrate Judge Kato Crews was elevated to a district judgeship, and not as a result of any individual discretion. The court found no merit to Ford’s claim that Judge O’Hara’s previous employment with the Cook County Public Defender’s Office created a conflict.
Ford further argued that the court’s swifter handling of defense motions, particularly requests to restrict access to records, revealed bias. Judge Brimmer responded that judicial management of motions is a matter of discretion, noting that the defense filings were routine and brief, while Ford’s filings were significantly longer and more complex.
Addressing Ford’s contention that adverse rulings on summary judgment demonstrated prejudice, Judge Brimmer cited Supreme Court precedent, underscoring that judicial decisions alone rarely warrant recusal. He noted that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously reviewed and partially reversed his earlier summary judgment decision, and that Ford’s current arguments could be addressed through standard appellate channels, not recusal.
Ford also took issue with the court’s characterization of incidents underlying her claims, particularly a reference to a "lewd joke" at a company party. The judge rejected this as a basis for disqualification, calling it a factual discussion rather than an expression of bias.
The portion of Ford’s motion aimed at Magistrate Judge O’Hara will be considered separately by Judge O’Hara.
The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., centers on allegations of workplace discrimination at the insurer’s offices. The EEOC initially brought suit against Jackson National, joined by Ford, who claims she faced harassment and retaliation.
Jackson National Life Insurance Company has long been a dominant player in the American retirement planning industry, quietly shaping the financial futures of millions of retirees.
Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Lansing, Michigan, Jackson National has built its reputation on a portfolio of annuity products designed to provide long-term income security. The insurer is widely recognized as one of the largest sellers of variable annuities in the United States, a market it serves through a vast network of independent financial advisors, broker-dealers, and financial institutions.
While Jackson offers traditional life insurance policies, its core business centers on annuities — fixed, variable, and more recently, registered index-linked annuities (RILAs), which blend growth potential with downside protection.
Attorneys for the parties were not immediately available for comment following the ruling.
