Former Broome County Family Court Judge Denied New Trial in Federal Harassment Case

By Michael Phillips | NYBayNews / Father & Co. Staff

A federal judge has denied a bid by former Broome County Family Court Judge Richard H. Miller II to overturn a jury verdict or reduce damages in a gender-discrimination lawsuit, closing the door on what appears to be the final chapter of a long-running misconduct case that already ended his judicial career.

In a December 30, 2025 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York upheld a July jury verdict finding Miller personally liable for creating a hostile work environment based on gender. The court rejected arguments that the evidence was insufficient or that the jury improperly weighed credibility.

The Allegations and Verdict

The lawsuit was filed in 2018 by former court secretary Rachelle Gallagher, who alleged that from 2015 through mid-2017 Miller subjected her to repeated sexual harassment while she worked in his chambers. According to trial testimony, the conduct included forcing staff to view pornography, making explicit sexual demands, using graphic sexual language in the workplace, and threatening retaliation if the behavior was reported.

After a week-long federal trial in Syracuse in July 2025, a jury found Miller liable for gender-based discrimination against Gallagher and awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages, to be paid personally by Miller. The jury rejected claims brought by a second plaintiff and found no liability on the part of the New York State Unified Court System.

Court Rejects Post-Trial Arguments

Miller moved in October 2025 for a new trial or reduced damages, arguing that the conduct stemmed from personal relationships rather than abuse of judicial authority, that his behavior affected men and women equally, and that it was not “severe or pervasive” enough to constitute a hostile work environment.

The federal court flatly rejected those claims. In its ruling, the court said Miller was improperly attempting to re-litigate credibility and evidence already decided by the jury. The judge concluded the jury reasonably found the conduct severe and pervasive, and “rooted in his desire to have sexual relations with women in the Broome County Courthouse.” The court also held that Miller acted “under color of law” as a judge, not merely as a private individual.

In addition to the damages award, Miller was ordered to pay $147,697.20 in Gallagher’s attorney’s fees.

A Pattern That Ended a Judicial Career

The civil case builds on a record that had already led to Miller’s removal from the bench. In October 2020, the New York State Court of Appeals unanimously removed Miller from office after the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct found a broad pattern of misconduct.

Those findings included sexist and demeaning comments toward court staff, retaliatory behavior against employees who complained, misuse of judicial authority, and financial disclosure violations involving tens of thousands of dollars in unreported income. The Commission also cited Miller’s prior 2002 censure as an aggravating factor, concluding he failed to learn from earlier discipline.

Why This Case Matters

From a center-right perspective, the case underscores two principles that are often discussed but unevenly enforced: accountability in public office and limits on judicial power. Judges wield extraordinary authority over families, liberty, and livelihoods. When that authority is abused, especially behind closed courthouse doors, it corrodes public trust in the entire system.

At the same time, the court’s ruling highlights an important guardrail: once a case is tried and decided by a jury, post-trial motions are not an opportunity to retry the facts or relitigate credibility simply because the outcome was unfavorable.

Finality, Not Politics

The Miller case received limited national attention, likely because it lacked partisan dimensions and involved graphic workplace allegations rather than ideological disputes. But for court employees, litigants, and parents navigating family court, it serves as a reminder that judicial misconduct can have consequences—sometimes years later, and at significant personal cost.

As of early 2026, no new trial has been granted, and the civil case appears effectively resolved. For Gallagher, the ruling affirms the jury’s findings. For the judiciary, it closes another chapter in a cautionary tale about power, accountability, and the long shadow cast by ethical failure.