The pants judge has lost his job.
After months of speculation, D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson was notified Tuesday afternoon that he would not be reappointed to a second term on the bench of the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings, a position he held for two years before his failed $54 million lawsuit over a lost pair of pants thrust him into the white-hot spotlight.
Pearson, 57, took the news of his dismissal “like a gentleman,” said his boss, D.C. Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone T. Butler. Pearson turned in his office keys and identification cards late Tuesday.
“It was not emotional. I’m not glad and I’m not sad,” Butler said. “It was a legal and personnel transaction.”
Pearson could not be reached Tuesday.
Pearson’s fortunes have fallen significantly in the last six months. Last spring, Pearson had been recommended to serve a 10-year term, but Butler withdrew his decision after Pearson e-mailed a letter to his colleagues accusing Butler of being “evil” and using intimidation tactics.
Pearson’s judgeship was put on hold until a city judicial commission reviewed Pearson’s record. He remained with OAH as an attorney adviser.
Around the same time, Pearson was gearing up for trial against the Korean-owned dry cleaners, turning down the Chung family’s offer of $12,000 for the pants.
News of Pearson’s multimillion-dollar demands spread worldwide. Pearson became a punch line for late-night comics and a symbol of frivolous lawsuits. Calls poured in from all over world from people who wondered how a judge could bring such an outlandish lawsuit. Under pressure, Pearson dropped his demands from $68 million to $54 million.
During the trial, Pearson broke down on the stand when he tried to describe how he learned that he’d never see his pants again. The judge ruled in favor of the dry cleaners. Pearson has appealed.
After losing his pants and losing his lawsuit, Pearson was in danger of losing his post.
Earlier this month, Pearson made a passionate plea for his job, arguing that he had a constitutional right to sue the dry cleaners. He also argued that he was protected as a whistle-blower because he sought to expose corruption inside the Office of Administrative Hearings.
On Monday, after considering Pearson’s actions in and out of the courtroom, the judicial commission voted against reappointing Pearson to the $100,000 a year job.
