[Senate Hearing 110-647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-647
TOO MUCH, TOO LONG? DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE SAFETY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
__________
APRIL 17, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-939 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming,
TOM HARKIN, Iowa JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
PATTY MURRAY, Washington JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Katherine Brunett McGuire, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
PATTY MURRAY, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
TOM HARKIN, Iowa RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex
(ex officio) officio)
William C. Kamela, Staff Director
Glee Smith, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007
Page
Murray, Hon. Patty, Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment and
Workplace Safety, opening statement............................ 1
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado,
statement...................................................... 5
Rodgers, Kathy, President, Legal Momentum, New York, New York.... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Fortman, Laura A., Commissioner, State of Maine, Department of
Labor, Augusta, Maine.......................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Cade, Yvette, Survivor of Domestic Violence in the Workplace,
Temple Hills, Maryland......................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Willman, Sue K., Attorney, Spencer Fane Britt and Browne, LLP, on
behalf of Society for Human Resource Management, Kansas City,
Missouri....................................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, a U.S. Senator from the State of
New York, statement............................................ 54
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Letter from Legal Momentum (follow-up)....................... 16
Letter from Laura Fortman (follow-up)........................ 37
Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa,
prepared statement......................................... 61
Frederickson, Caroline, Director, Washington Legislative
Office; Lenora Lapidus, Director, Women's Rights Project;
and Vania Leveille, Legislative Counsel, Washington
Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
prepared statement......................................... 61
Letters of support........................................... 66
(iii)
TOO MUCH, TOO LONG? DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
Room 628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Murray, Isakson, Allard, Clinton, and
Brown.
Opening Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. This subcommittee will come to order. We
are here this morning to focus on domestic violence in the
workplace and before I begin, I just want to say that yesterday
is a tragedy that is difficult to fathom for the many young
lives at Virginia Tech that were touched by this. A lot of
families will never be the same and as they mourn, we mourn
with them. They are in our thoughts and in our prayers and
their loss hangs over everything that we're doing in the Senate
today and it will for some time.
I would ask all of us to join in a moment of silence to
remember the families, the victims, their friends and everyone
who has been involved in this.
[Moment of silence observed.]
Senator Murray. Thank you. Clearly, we don't know all the
facts and may not for some time but I think this tragedy
reminds all of us that violence affects far too many in this
country today. We need to do everything we can here in Congress
to save lives and to prevent violence from reaching into our
schools, our homes and our workplaces and that is why we're
holding this hearing today.
Two weeks ago, in my home State, a 26-year-old woman who
worked at the University of Washington was killed at her
workplace by an ex-boyfriend. She had filed a restraining order
and warned her friends and co-workers to be on the lookout for
him. The following day at the CNN Building in Atlanta, a hotel
employee was killed by an ex-boyfriend. Many other cases of
abuse, stalking, harassment and homicide don't make the nightly
news but they do end lives, they hurt businesses and they alarm
communities.
Each day, we get terrible reminders that domestic violence
does not stay at home. It follows people into their workplace,
posing safety, financial and legal problems for the victims,
employers and other workers. If we ignore it, the horrible toll
of domestic violence in the workplace will continue unchecked.
But if we confront it, we can make progress and I believe this
is the time to have an informed discussion and in fact, next
week will mark the National Crime Victims Rights Week and
Lifetime Television will help us to focus attention on ending
the violence.
My goal today is to gather the facts about the size and
scope of the problem and to discuss solutions, including a bill
that I am introducing today called the Survivors Empowerment
and Economic Security Act, which I first introduced with my
very good friend, the late Senator Paul Wellstone along with
his wife and these are people who we owe a great deal to for
bringing the Nation's attention to the issue of domestic
violence and how we can all work together to deal with it.
Together, we crafted this bill with input from domestic
violence survivors, advocates, workplace experts and our Senate
colleagues and I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming
today, for sharing their expertise and experiences with us.
We will hear testimony this morning from Kathy Rodgers, who
is President of Legal Momentum; Laura Fortman, who is
Commissioner of the State of Maine Department of Labor--Maine
is doing some remarkable things to address DV in the workplace;
Yvette Cade, who is a survivor of domestic violence in her
workplace--her horrific experience drew national attention in
October 2005; Sue Willman is an attorney with Spencer Fane
Britt and Brown in Missouri and has over 30 years of
experience, both as an employment lawyer and human resources
professional. She represents management exclusively.
I've been working on domestic violence for a very long time
and we have made progress. We've updated our Federal laws and
invested in prevention, intervention and persecution. We've
made domestic violence something that no one talked about to
something that is everybody's business but I am frustrated that
we have not made as much progress addressing the economic
factors that allow abuse to continue.
As I discuss domestic violence today, I am referring to
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assaults and
stalking. Its victims can be men or women. When domestic
violence follows victims into the workplace, it reveals a key
connection between safety and economic independence. For many
victims of domestic violence, a steady paycheck is the only
thing that keeps them from relying on their abuser. We know, in
fact, economic security and independence is the most accurate
indicator of whether a victim will be able to stay away from an
abuser.
But too often, victims are entirely dependent on their
abuser for food and shelter for themselves and their families.
And too often, abusers try to undermine a victim's ability to
work, harass their victims in the workplace or worse. If we
want to end domestic violence in the workplace or anywhere
else, we need to address the economic barriers that trap
victims in abusive relationships.
Let me share a few statistics that show the challenge that
we face. Domestic violence impacts the productivity of
employees and the success of businesses. Each year, domestic
violence results in an estimated 8 million missed days of work
nationwide and each year, domestic violence causes up to 50
percent of victims to lose their jobs, making them more
dependent on their abuser. Many times employers just don't know
how to handle a situation where an abuser is coming to the
workplace or causing an employee to miss their work.
Unfortunately, more than 70 percent of U.S. workplaces have
no formal program or policy that addresses workplace violence,
let alone domestic violence. Only 4 percent of our employers
provide training on domestic violence.
Some companies make the wrong choice and fire the worker.
But making the employee go away does not make the problem go
away. In fact, it can make it much harder for that person to
get help if they do not have the financial security that a job
provides. So we need to help our employers understand the right
things to do.
If I look at these challenges, I see a series of locked
doors. A victim wants to leave an abuser but she can't support
herself so the economic door is locked. A survivor wants to go
to court to get a protection order but she can't get time off
work. Another door is locked. A survivor needs medical
insurance or a job but she is discriminated against. More
locked doors. My bill will unlock the doors that trap victims
in abusive relationships and it will lift the economic barriers
that allow abuse to continue.
Let me share four ways the Survivors Empowerment and
Economic Security will help. First, it allows victims to take
time off from work without penalty from their employers to
appear in court, seek legal assistance and get help with safety
planning. Second, it ensures that if a victim must leave a job
because of abuse, that person is then eligible for unemployment
compensation. Third, it prohibits employers or insurance
providers from basing hiring or coverage decisions on a
victim's history of abuse. Too many victims today cannot get a
job or the insurance they need because insurance companies
reject abuse victims. Finally, the bill addresses the punitive
elements of the welfare system that penalize victims who are
fleeing dangerous situations, also called the Family Violence
Option.
Those are the main parts of the bill and I want
stakeholders to know that if they have concerns or ideas for
improving the bill, my door is open and I want to hear from
you. We owe it to the millions of victims of domestic violence,
sexual violence and stalking to address this problem head on.
People should not be forced to choose between financial
security and physical security. Together we can help to stop
this cycle of violence and the toll it takes on families, on
communities and our society but we have to change the law and
that's what I hope we can do together, starting with this
hearing this morning.
Senator Isakson.
Opening Statement of Senator Isakson
Senator Isakson. Well, thank you, Chairman Murray and first
of all, I want to associate myself with your remarks regarding
the tragedy yesterday in Virginia. We just learned this morning
that a young Georgian, Ryan Clark, 22 years old, a
distinguished student at Virginia Tech who was to graduate in
May and then pursue his Ph.D., was one of the first students
that was killed yesterday. He was a residential advisor who was
in that dormitory, trying to help those students and it's a
tragedy. This tragedy is going to touch many States and many
communities and lives all across this country. I share your
concern in the sense that you expressed and I appreciate very
much your acknowledgement at this time.
I also appreciate your leadership in bringing this issue
forward to the committee and I particularly want to thank Ms.
Cade and Ms. Willman for their testimony today. I thank all of
our witnesses and Ms. Cade and Ms. Willman both understand
domestic violence personally and have been victims themselves
and I want to congratulate them on their fortitude, their
resilience and their courage to come before this committee and
testify today.
Domestic violence is illegal and it's wrong. There is also
no doubt that domestic violence can and often does affect the
workplace. As Chairman Murray just mentioned, in my hometown of
Atlanta, Georgia, just earlier this month, Ms. Clara Riddles
was fatally wounded while working at the Omni Hotel in the CNN
Center. According to police, her former boyfriend entered the
lobby, grabbed her by the hair and then shot her three times.
All of us seek to prevent it. Effective interventions
require consistent and coordinated efforts by police and
prosecutors, counselors and the courts. The Violence Against
Women Act made great strides in this area, originally passed by
the Congress in 1995 and reauthorized in 2005, the act
authorizes the Department of Justice to coordinate with State
governments as well as international governments on matters
concerning violence against women.
In 2003, President Bush launched the Family Justice Center
Initiative. The Initiative attempts to address the problem of
victims having to seek help in an often fragmented system by
providing comprehensive services for victims at one single
location, including medical care, counseling, legal enforcement
assistance, social services, employment assistance and housing
assistance.
As an employer for 22 years of almost 1,000 women, 800
independent contractors and 200 employees, I am not unfamiliar
with the effect that domestic violence can have on those
individuals or the workplace. And I am happy to cooperate in
encouraging exactly what Chairman Murray stated in her remarks
and that is to help employers to do the right thing.
As an employer, I always tried to do the right thing and
quite frankly, I find almost in all cases, employers always try
to do the right thing because their assets are their employees.
I look forward to working with the Chairman on this
legislation when it is introduced. I haven't had the chance to
read it yet. My only cautions that I would raise is first of
all, the caution with regard to any provisions on unlimited
jury awards or creating an environment where the legal action
against the companies takes place because of allegations.
Second, I worry about the unintended consequences of people who
have been abused not being employed because of the fear that
because they were abused, they might be a problem in the
workplace.
We don't want to pass a law that has the unintended
consequence of causing that to happen by having employers judge
people out of fear of either legal action of some consequence
and therefore, they don't employ someone they might otherwise
have employed.
Together, government officials, employers and employees can
work to address these very important issues. Employers can
establish sound workplace policies that take all disclosures of
abuse, whether in or out of the workplace, seriously. Employers
can train management supervisors and all employees in how to
respond when a co-worker is a victim or a perpetrator of
domestic violence. Supervisors can work with domestic violence
victims to develop personal safety plans for them while they
are at their workplace.
I know many employers of all sizes and all sectors in the
American economy. I do not know of one, however, who would be
unsupportive or hostile to any employee who was suffering from
domestic abuse.
I want to thank Chairman Murray for the introduction of
this legislation and the calling of this hearing today and I
look forward to working with her as the legislation develops.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson.
Senator Allard, do you have an opening statement?
Statement of Senator Allard
Senator Allard. Just a brief comment, Madam Chairman, I
just want to compliment you and Ranking Member Isakson for this
opportunity to discuss employment and labor issues that will be
debated in the 110th Congress. And I'd like to thank the
witnesses who have come here to testify before us. It's not
always easy to get away from your families or your place of
work to be here, to share with us your experiences and your
thoughts about this very important issue.
No doubt, domestic violence is a very devastating crime and
has an effect on obviously, the families but it can extend into
the workplace and we need to make sure that the police and the
prosecutors and the counselors and courts are all collaborating
together on these types of issues and we need to make sure that
the workplace, again, is sensitive to those conditions that
would allow those prosecutors and collaborator and what not to
do their job and allow the victim an opportunity to get the
time off to move an action against whoever that spouse might be
where you have domestic violence.
I would side with--or just make a few comments about what
Senator Isakson said. We have to be careful here. If you have a
small business, all of a sudden, the small businessman, in a
sense, becomes a victim, too. So I think we have to be very
careful about how we draft this so that we don't create an
environment for the real small employer, where they can help
the victim if they so desire or in some cases, they find
themselves in a position where they become pulled in as the
victim because of what is happening in their workplace and how
it affects their community and what they are trying to do.
Because small business people, sometimes they are very
specialized people in that small business and nobody else in
that business can do that.
So we need to reach a proper balance here so I'm anxious to
hear what all your comments might be in regard to your
experiences and your concerns. Thank you very much.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Allard. And I
again want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
as we move forward on this critically important issue. I look
forward to hearing from each of you and we will start with Ms.
Rodgers on my left and then to Ms. Fortman, Ms. Cade and Ms.
Willman.
STATEMENT OF KATHY RODGERS, PRESIDENT, LEGAL MOMENTUM, NEW
YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. Rodgers. Good morning and thank you very much, Senator
Murray and good morning to the other members of the
subcommittee. I am Kathy Rodgers, President of Legal Momentum
and that organization was founded in 1970, which makes us the
oldest national legal organization fighting to advance the
rights of women and girls. Certainly since 1990, we have been
deeply involved in issues of violence against women.
So I thank you very much for this opportunity to testify
today and also to join you in our collective grief as to what
happened at Virginia Tech. It's just unimaginable. Our hearts
are with the folks in Virginia and the families of those
students.
Today also marks the beginning of a timeframe here in
Washington of Lifetime Television's End Violence Against Women
Week and Victims Rights Week so it's an appropriate time for
this hearing and I look forward to a productive exchange on the
best ways to support victims of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assaults and stalking, especially as these
issues carry over into the workplace.
Now, today's headlines indicate that the event today may
have been sparked by a dating violence incident. That certainly
dramatically reminds us that this issue is not an abstract one.
It matters to real people and real families, people like Yvette
Cade and her family, whom we are privileged to have here today.
And it mattered to three women whom you referred to, Senator
Murray--one white, one Latino and one African-American, all who
lost their lives in the workplace just in the last month,
including in Washington and Georgia, your home States.
It also matters to me and my colleagues at Legal Momentum
in the context of our work, both to reauthorize and fund the
Violence Against Women Act and in our program on employment and
housing rights for victims of domestic violence, two of the key
supports that any victim needs.
The issues of the impact of domestic and sexual violence in
the workplace becomes visible to all when lives are lost or
victims are set on fire but most victims are hidden victims.
One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in her
lifetime and you can be sure that many such victims are our
fellow employees, whether or not we are aware of it. Many do
not speak up and they do not seek employer assistance because
they are embarrassed or worse, because they are afraid they'll
be fired.
Even more hidden is the issue of employees who are abusers
not victims. A recent study found that 78 percent of abusers
use their employer's property--a phone, computer, a company
car, to keep track of the victim's whereabouts. This is an
issue that has to be addressed as well.
Now some employers and States have been working to help
employees to maintain their safety and their job stability but
far too few. We know from a Bureau of Labor Statistics Study
released last year that only 4 percent of employers have
policies that explicitly address domestic and sexual violence
in the workplace and although many States have passed
legislation to address parts of the solution, very few have all
the pieces in place.
Among the 13 States represented on this subcommittee, 8
provide unemployment insurance to survivors who must leave
their jobs because of the abuse. Five have domestic violence
specific leaves. But only two have provisions preventing a
victim of violence from being fired and just one, Illinois, has
all three provisions.
The good news is, such policies are not, in fact, onerous
to employers. They are beneficial to them. They are of
significant help to the employee involved, obviously. It also
makes other fellow employees feel more secure and satisfied
with their employer. But for the employer, it also helps to
maintain and increase business productivity and we have worked
with many employers on these issues and hope that others and
I'm sure, Ms. Willman's organization, will join us.
It is far better to support your valuable, productive
employees than to have to recruit and retain new ones.
Employers who don't recognize this simple fact are simply short
changing themselves and I speak not only as an advocate but as
an employer myself. We have two offices and 38 staff and 10 or
more interns at any given time.
Legal Momentum voluntarily affords our employees the
protections of the FMLA and has a policy to support employees
who are victims of violence. But employers are largely unaware
of the benefits of violence against women policies and the
simple and cost effective practices that can really help their
employees who are victims of domestic violence or sexual
assault.
There is a need for Federal legislation to establish a
floor of protections for all victims, regardless of where they
live and work, which is often in two different States. Now the
lynch pins of this protection are three. First, provisions that
prevent victims of domestic or sexual violence from being fired
because they are victims. This is all too common and we have
represented such victims around the country. There are, I'm
afraid, employers who do not have the best interests of their
employees in mind and one example in our case is Angela, a
bartender in Wisconsin and she became pregnant and her
boyfriend began making death threats against her. In May 2005,
she applied for a protective order and when she told her boss
about it, her boss told her to drop the protective order or she
would be fired because one of the ex-boyfriend's friends had
threatened to stop coming to the bar, had threatened to stop
bringing his business to the bar. Immediately after she
obtained the protective order, she was fired.
The second lynchpin is unpaid leave to allow victims the
time to go to court for a protection order, to do safety
planning or seek other assistance from a service provider, to
have locks changed or to secure a safe home for themselves and
their families.
Senator Murray. Ms. Rodgers, one thing I didn't say before
we all started but if everybody could keep their testimony to
the 5-minute limit so we have an opportunity to ask questions
and make sure we have an opportunity to do that. If you could
sum up your remaining remarks, I'd appreciate it.
Ms. Rodgers. Thank you. The third is unemployment
insurance, if the violence forces them to leave their
employment. With those three things, that ends my testimony
here today and I look forward to discussing how we can move
forward in what are clearly the common interests of employers
and employees. Thank you very much and I'm sorry for running
over.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy Rodgers
I. LEGAL MOMENTUM IS A LEADER IN PROMOTING THE ECONOMIC SECURITY OF
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
For 37 years, Legal Momentum has advanced the rights of women and
girls through the power of the law and effective public policy. As
President of Legal Momentum, I am grateful for this opportunity to
testify before the HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
and to submit this written testimony on the issue of domestic and
sexual violence in the workplace. My colleagues and I, and the women we
represent, are also indebted to Senator Murray, her staff and the staff
of the subcommittee for their enduring commitment to this important
issue.
Legal Momentum's commitment to assisting victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault secure economic independence stems from our
longstanding dedication to two related goals--ending violence against
women and eliminating barriers that deny women economic opportunities.
We helped craft and generate support for the Violence Against Women Act
of 1994 and its reauthorizations in 2000 and most recently in 2005. We
created and currently chair the National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence Against Women, the umbrella entity under which
national, State, and local organizations representing hundreds of
thousands of survivors, advocates, and professionals join together to
work for VAWA reauthorization. We also chair the workplace subcommittee
of the Task Force, which specifically works to ensure that victims of
domestic and sexual violence have the economic independence they need
to separate effectively from an abuser or recover from a sexual
assault. Through our ``Employment and Housing Rights for Victims of
Domestic Violence'' program, we provide information to domestic and
sexual violence survivors to help them understand their employment and
housing rights and we represent individual women seeking to enforce
those rights. Additionally, we work closely with employers to develop
best practices for companies that seek to deal with the workplace
effects of violence against women.
Our advocacy in both the workplace and housing areas is a direct
response to calls we receive every day from real people: women and men
seeking guidance in how they can keep their jobs and their housing
while they address the effects of domestic violence or a sexual
assault, or, worse, women and men who have lost their jobs or their
housing because of that violence. A few of their stories are included
in the testimony below. More are attached as an appendix. A victim of
violence should not need to choose between her physical safety and her
economic independence, especially since that economic independence is a
linchpin for ensuring that she is able to end an abusive situation.
II. DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM
Since its enactment in 1994, VAWA has dramatically improved the
response of the police and the criminal and civil justice systems to
victims of domestic and sexual violence and the availability of
shelters, counseling, and other essential services for them. But far
too many working women and men who are victims of domestic and sexual
violence remain unable to access these services simply because they
cannot take any time off from work. Many victims are too afraid of
losing desperately needed jobs to take the time to pursue legal
remedies, seek medical treatment, or to take other essential steps to
secure their safety.
I wish I could tell you that this fear is unfounded--but it is not.
For example, we represented Sophia Apessos, a newspaper reporter in
Plymouth, MA. On Saturday, July 29, 2000, her day off from work,
Sophia's then-husband assaulted her in her home. Sophia fled to the
local police department to report the incident and seek assistance. The
police immediately arrested her husband, charged him with assault and
battery, and helped Sophia obtain a temporary restraining order.
Because the temporary restraining order could not be extended unless
Sophia appeared in court during regular business hours, she called her
work supervisor and left a message that she would be absent on Monday,
July 31, to attend court proceedings relating to domestic violence.
When she reported to work on Tuesday morning, the human resources
director called Sophia into her office and fired her.\1\
Sophia's story is typical. Forty percent of Americans working for
private industries have no paid leave.\2\ Thus, taking a single day off
from work to go to court to get a protective order can mean that a
victim will lose her job--and with it the economic security she needs
to separate from her abuser. Additionally, victims of domestic violence
and sexual assault often face harassment at the workplace. As many as
96 percent of employed domestic violence victims experience problems at
work due to their abuse or abuser, and 70 percent report being harassed
by telephone or in person by their abuser.\3\ The combination of
necessary absences related to the violence and harassment or
discrimination at work means many victims lose their jobs. According to
a 1998 report of the U.S. General Accounting Office, between 25 percent
and 50 percent of domestic violence victims in three studies reported
that they lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.\4\
Similarly, almost 50 percent of sexual assault survivors lose their
jobs or are forced to quit in the aftermath of the assaults.\5\ The
prevalence of sexual assault and other violence against women at work
is also dramatic. About 36,500 individuals, 80 percent of whom are
women, were raped or sexually assaulted in the workplace each year from
1993 through 1999.\6\ Domestic violence also affects perpetrators'
ability to work. A recent study found that 48 percent of abusers
reported having difficulty concentrating at work and 42 percent
reported being late to work.\7\ Seventy-eight percent reported using
their own company's resources in connection with the abusive
relationship.\8\
Recognizing the need to support survivors of sexual and domestic
violence that are seeking to establish or maintain their financial
independence, State legislatures and advocates for survivors have
worked to enact legislation to ensure that victims can have access to
job-protected leave, or if they have to leave a job because of
violence, unemployment insurance. Twenty-eight States and the District
of Columbia have laws that explicitly provide unemployment insurance to
domestic violence victims in certain circumstances; some of these laws
also explicitly provide benefits to victims of sexual assault or
stalking. Thirty-two States have enacted statutes that afford
protection to victims of crime who need time off to attend court
proceedings, while eight have statutes that specifically afford leave
to survivors of intimate partner violence. Three States and New York
City protect, at least in certain circumstances, employees who are
victims of violence from being fired simply because they are victims or
have obtained a protective order.
Experience in States that have enacted these laws demonstrates that
these provisions reasonably protect employers' interests and will help
make workplaces safer. As Maine Labor Commissioner Fortman discusses in
her testimony, implementation of its domestic violence workplace
protections were not onerous for employers. Reports from States such as
California and Illinois, which have enacted comparable legislation,
likewise confirm that implementation has worked well for employers and
employees.\9\ Federal legislation is necessary, however, to ensure that
all workers have these essential protections.
III. ADDRESSING DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS
Forward-thinking companies, such as Harman International, Liz
Claiborne, American Express, Verizon Wireless, Altria have realized
that proactively addressing the effects of violence against women in
their workplaces is simply good business practice. They understand that
this issue affects their most important asset--their employees--and so
undeniably affects their bottom line. Domestic violence costs employers
at least $3 to $5 billion a year in missed days of work and reduced
productivity.\10\ These figures do not begin to address the costs of
additional security, liability, and employee assistance benefits, or
the toll violence takes on women's personal economic security.\11\ In
addition to costs associated with diminished productivity, businesses
often lose valuable employees when those employees are victimized.\12\
Losing loyal and experienced employees generates substantial hiring and
training costs, which would be largely avoided by addressing the impact
of domestic and sexual violence in the workplace.\13\
Recognition of the costs that domestic and sexual violence impose
on businesses is growing. Sixty-six percent of corporate leaders
identified domestic violence as a major social issue and one that
affect business functioning and the ``bottom line.'' \14\ Seventy-eight
percent of human resources professionals consider intimate partner
violence a serious workplace issue.\15\ Ninety-four percent of
corporate security and safety directors at companies nationwide rank
domestic violence as a high security concern.\16\ And 44 percent of
employed adults report personally experiencing the effects of domestic
violence in their workplace.\17\ However, according to a 2006 study by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 70 percent of U.S. workplaces
have no formal program or policy that addresses workplace violence,
including domestic violence that spills into the workplace.\18\ In
fact, only 4 percent of employers provide training on domestic
violence.\19\ Sue Willman, who will also be testifying this morning,
has written about the importance of employer-employee training in other
contexts. To the extent that employers are already providing training
on a variety of other subjects, broadening their already-existing
curriculum to include domestic and sexual violence would help support
employees and would not be unduly burdensome to them.\20\
Fortunately, we know that there are effective steps that businesses
can take to help keep victims and their co-workers safe. Permitting
individuals to take time off to take actions outside of work to address
the violence--like going to court or moving to a safe location--is one
important aspect of supporting employees. Other easy, low-cost or no-
cost steps that a company might be able to take include changing a
phone extension so that an abuser can no longer harass a victim at
work, or letting an employee modify her regular working hours so that
her abuser will no longer know when she's likely to be commuting to or
from work. If a batterer has threatened to come to the workplace,
registering a copy of a protective order with building security or a
receptionist, or transferring the employee to another work site, might
be appropriate. Companies that make personal information available to
other employees, through an internal intranet system or other
directories, may need to take steps to protect the location of
individuals who have successfully separated from a batterer.
Importantly, addressing domestic or sexual violence does not mean that
a company must (or should) counsel the individual involved about how to
address the violence in her life; instead, generally an employer should
simply help her access resources in her community and give her the
support she needs at work to take the steps that she (after
consultation with appropriate professionals) determines are
appropriate.
Many businesses are taking the lead in implementing such policies.
Their experience shows that programs can be effective for both victims
and their employers. Creating legal mandates that set a reasonable
floor of protections to ensure that victims can take necessary time off
from work and can safely tell their employers about their situation
without jeopardizing their jobs will spur further business leadership
in addressing domestic and sexual violence and their effects on the
workplace.
IV. THE NEED FOR FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
As described above, States and some businesses are very actively
trying to support survivors of intimate partner violence who are trying
to achieve or maintain financial independence. Well over half of the
States now have at least some explicit employment-related protections
for victims of domestic or sexual violence. States have crafted
legislation that appropriately balances employer and employee interests
and, perhaps even more important, helps employers and employees work
together effectively to keep workplaces safe. Congress can look to
these proven models in crafting legislation addressing these issues.
But the existing State laws have created an uneven patchwork of
protection, where a victim's access to the economic security she needs
to separate from an abuser depends on the State in which she happens to
live. For the true potential of these statutes to be realized, Federal
legislation is needed to ensure that all survivors of sexual and
domestic violence receive at least basic economic protections.
Congress began the process of addressing this vital issue as a
Federal matter during reauthorization of VAWA. The 2005 VAWA
reauthorization bill introduced in the Senate, S. 1197, made up to 10
days job-protected leave available to all eligible employees. Another
VAWA 2005 reauthorization bill, H.R. 3171, contained several strong
provisions that would promote the economic security of victims,
including a right for victims to take up to 30 days off to address the
effects of the violence and anti-discrimination protections for
victims. A third, H.R. 2876, would have permitted individuals who
already had paid leave to use it for purposes related to domestic or
sexual violence. Although the leave and anti-discrimination protections
were not included in the final bill, Congress took an important step
forward by authorizing appropriations to create a workplace resource
center to assist employers in learning how to support their employees
who are victims of intimate partner violence.
Other Federal agencies, focusing on the domestic violence that
spills over into violence in the workplace, have also made addressing
the issue a priority. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
particularly its National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) unit which is charged with enforcement of workplace safety
rules, and the Occupational Safety and Health Agency each recognize
domestic violence and its workplace effects as a significant risk to
workplace safety.\21\ In 2004, these agencies worked with leading
employers to organize a national conference that brought together
experts to develop proposed policies.\22\ NIOSH has also funded several
grants to outside researchers to conduct systematic research into the
prevalence of violence and effective prevention mechanisms. These are
welcome steps forward, but they are not enough. Congress should
continue its commitment to supporting the workplace needs of victims of
sexual and domestic violence by building on the successful experience
of States and businesses that have made protecting the economic
security of victims and the safety of businesses a priority.
V. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROTECTIONS ARE NECESSARY TO THE WORKPLACE
Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking are often afraid that telling their employers what is going on
outside work will jeopardize their employment. Again, unfortunately,
this fear is quite reasonable. For example, we are currently
representing Angela Thoma, a waitress in Wisconsin who was fired after
she obtained a protective order because some of her ex-boyfriend's
friends said they would stop coming to the tavern where she worked.\23\
We were also involved in a case brought by a male bus driver in North
Carolina who was fired after he was shot (off work premises) by his ex-
wife because the incident ``injured'' the reputation of his
employer.\24\ Although some such individuals are able to obtain relief
under sex discrimination laws or tort-based claims that firing a victim
violates public policy, most are left with no legal recourse. For
example, in the North Carolina case, the North Carolina Supreme Court
denied the bus driver's claim that the termination was a violation of
public policy, affirming a lower court decision that held that absent
specific legislation it was legal to fire victims simply because of the
violence against them.\25\
The experiences of our clients and of others who call us are
typical. As noted above, between 25 and 50 percent of victims of
domestic violence, and almost 50 percent of sexual assault survivors,
lose their jobs as a result of the violence and almost 50 percent of
sexual assault survivors.\26\ In some cases, this is because of
absences or job performance problems. But victims also lose their jobs
simply because they are victims or because an abusive partner disrupts
the workplace. Supervisors or human resources personnel may subscribe
to common stereotypes regarding domestic violence, which blame victims
for the violence against them. Employers may not realize that there are
other steps that they can take against the abuser--such as reporting
harassment to the police or, in States that authorize it, seeking a
workplace restraining order--to address harassing or disruptive
conduct, rather than firing the victim of the violence. Likewise,
employers may mistakenly believe that firing a victim is the only way
to ensure that the violence does not spill over into the workplace.
Again, the success of businesses that have proactively developed
programs addressing domestic violence demonstrate that other
mechanisms--such as changing an employee's work shift, registering a
protective order, alerting security, or transferring an employee--are
effective means of addressing any potential threat to the workplace.
But employers cannot take safety precautions if they do not know what
is going on.
The best way to ensure that victims feel comfortable telling their
employers about their situation is enacting legislation that makes
clear that victims cannot be fired simply because of their status as
victims. Illinois, New York City, and Westchester County have addressed
this issue by enacting antidiscrimination protections that include
domestic and sexual violence victims as protected classes under their
human rights laws.\27\ Rhode Island and Connecticut specifically
prohibit firing victims because they have obtained protective
orders.\28\ Congress has also dealt effectively with a similar problem
in the housing context by enacting provisions in the 2005
reauthorization of VAWA that make clear that victims cannot be denied
access to or evicted from public housing or terminated from housing
assistance based on incidents of violence against them.\29\ Although
privacy laws and good employment practices make clear that victims
should never be required to disclose personal experiences such as
domestic violence or sexual assault, victims who wish to disclose--or
whose victimization is made obvious by physical markers such as bruises
or harassment by the abuser at work--should know that the criminal acts
against them will not cost them their employment. Anti-discrimination
protections are necessary to ensure that victims can talk about their
situation with employers without jeopardizing their jobs. Like other
anti-discrimination protections, such provisions would not limit the
ability of employers to terminate victims for legitimate performance
problems. What they would do is ensure that employers and victims can
work together to jointly assess any security risk and take appropriate
precautions. These protections also ensure that victims feel
comfortable asking for time off or other modifications they may need at
work to remain productive while addressing the violence.
VI. VICTIMS CANNOT OBTAIN ESSENTIAL SERVICES WHEN THEY FEAR LOSING
THEIR JOBS
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed have made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. For example,
``Penny,'' in St. Claire, MO, called us to ask for advice. She had been
fired after 18 years working as a shipping clerk because she had missed
work to go to court for a restraining order and get treatment for
injuries; although she had provided her employer paperwork from the
doctor and the court, she hadn't been able to provide her employer with
the 24-hours advance notice required under her employment policy to use
vacation days. She was fired for excessive absences--and unfortunately,
there was no law to protect her.
Forty percent of the American workforce has no paid sick leave.\30\
Low-wage workers, who tend to be at greater risk for domestic and
sexual violence, are even less likely to have paid time off--one study
found that 76 percent of low-wage workers have no paid sick leave.\31\
Additionally, as Penny's experience makes clear, even employees who do
have sick days or vacation days may not be able to use them to cover
the range of needs associated with addressing domestic or sexual
violence. Thus, without legislative protection, a victim of domestic
violence who misses work to testify at a criminal prosecution, to
obtain a civil protective order or to take other steps to address the
violence typically knows that her absence could cause her to lose her
job. And therefore many victims, knowing their safety depends on an
independent income stream even more than other safety-enhancing
measures such as a protective order, forego services rather than risk
their employment.
Responding to this reality, more than half of the States have
passed laws that permit crime victims time off to attend court
proceedings and laws specifically addressing the needs of domestic and
sexual violence victims. Thirty-two States (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE,
FL, GA, HI, IN, IA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NY, NV, ND, OH, PA, RI,
SC, TN, UT, VT, VI, VA, WI, WY) and the Virgin Islands have laws
specifically permitting an employee who is a victim of a crime to take
time off from work to attend court, at least under certain
circumstances.\32\ These laws obviously can be a great help to some
victims of domestic or sexual violence--but they are not sufficient.
Many of the laws only apply if the victim is subpoenaed to appear. They
do not address the specific needs of victims of these particular crimes
to take a range of other steps, such as finding safe housing, in
addition to attending court proceedings related to the crime. In fact,
since generally a victim can seek a protective order only in civil
court (a criminal protective order may sometimes be issued in
conjunction with a criminal prosecution, but a victim does not
determine whether a given case is prosecuted), crime victim leave laws
do not even ensure that a victim may take time off from work to get a
protective order. And of course, they offer no protection at all to
individuals who live in the 28 States that do not have any kind of
crime victim leave law.
As of April 2007, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas,
and Maine provide an affirmative right to victims of domestic violence
(and in some of these States, sexual assault) to take unpaid leave to
go to court, seek medical treatment, obtain counseling, or take other
steps to address the effects of such violence.\33\ New York and North
Carolina provide victims time off to seek civil protective orders but
do not address the need of victims to take other steps related to the
violence.\34\
These State laws can provide workable models for Federal
legislation providing victims time off from work. The State laws have
ensured that victims can take necessary steps to address the violence,
while appropriately protecting business interests by specifying
appropriate forms of certification that victims can use to demonstrate
their eligibility for these protections. In most State laws, the leave
is unpaid, although victims may use available paid leave in its place.
This likewise helps ensure that the provisions are not abused.
Survivors who have only unpaid leave need the income to maintain their
independence and those who have paid leave tend to safeguard it for
crisis situations.
Importantly, the protections provided under the Federal Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are not adequate to meet many of the needs of
survivors of domestic or sexual violence. Of course, victims of
domestic or sexual violence will in certain circumstances be able to
take time off to address medical conditions under the FMLA. However,
many of the typical injuries caused by domestic or sexual violence--
such as a badly-swollen eye from a punch in the face or a sprained
ankle from a push down the stairs--may not qualify as ``serious health
conditions'' under the FMLA but could nevertheless require that an
individual miss a day of work. Additionally, many victims work for
employers who are too small to be required to provide FMLA leave.
Federal legislation that simply permitted individuals who have
otherwise available leave to use it for purposes related to domestic or
sexual violence would also be grossly inadequate. A provision that only
permits individuals to use existing leave does nothing for the victims
who are most vulnerable--low-wage workers who lack any paid time off at
all. It is these workers for whom the loss of employment is most likely
to result in the unconscionable choice of returning to an abuser or
becoming homeless. To make a real difference for victims of domestic
and sexual violence whose jobs are in jeopardy, any contemplated
Federal legislation must include provisions that guarantee that all
eligible employees have the time off they need to take essential steps
to secure their safety, not only those employees who are lucky enough
to have otherwise available time off.
VII. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS CAN HELP TRANSITION VICTIMS
WITHOUT RAISING COSTS TO BUSINESSES
Sometimes employees choose to leave their jobs to protect
themselves, family members that are being victimized, their coworkers,
or to take other essential steps to ensure their safety. In most
States, the general rule is that individuals are ineligible for
unemployment benefits if they leave work voluntarily without ``good
cause'' or if they are discharged for ``misconduct'' such as
absenteeism.\35\ Such provisions can bar victims who left or lost their
jobs because of the violence from receiving benefits. (In fact, in some
States, individuals who voluntarily quit a job to relocate with a
spouse can receive benefits--but those who are forced to flee an
abusive spouse cannot.) In recent years, however, there has been a
dramatic growth in State laws explicitly making victims eligible for
benefits if they left or were fired from their jobs for reasons
relating to domestic violence.\36\
In 1996, Maine was the first State to amend its unemployment
insurance law to acknowledge the effects that domestic violence may
have on employment.\37\ Now 11 years later, 28 States, and the District
of Columbia, have amended their unemployment insurance laws to address
domestic violence.\38\ Most of these laws define ``good cause'' to
include leaving a job for reasons related to domestic violence. A few
States have laws excluding situations related to domestic violence
(e.g., absences or tardiness) from ``misconduct.'' Experience in States
shows that the number of claims made under existing laws is generally
very low (typically well under .1 percent of all claims made).\39\ In
most States, claims are not charged to the employers' accounts, and the
number of claims, relative to all claims made in the unemployment
insurance system, is quite small. Thus, allowing victims of domestic
and sexual violence to receive unemployment benefits generally does not
affect employer tax rates.
We urge you to adopt legislation that would make such benefits
available to victims regardless of where they live. Provisions such as
those that were included in the last Congress in Title VII of the VAWA
2005 bill sponsored by Representative Lofgren (H.R. 3171) and Title II
of the Security and Financial Empowerment Act sponsored by
Representative Roybal-Allard (H.R. 3185) are good models for Federal
legislation in this area. They are drafted to ensure that victims who
must leave a job because of domestic or sexual violence can get
benefits while permitting States flexibility in how they address the
issue. A victim who must leave her job to protect herself, her family,
or her coworkers must be able to maintain financial independence at
this critical time and to return to the workforce as soon as possible.
VIII. CONCLUSION
In the decade since it was first passed, VAWA has made a world of
difference for victims of domestic and sexual violence by opening up
the court system and helping ensure that shelters, counseling, and
other support services are available. But too many working women and
men continue to fear--rightly--that accessing such services could cost
them their jobs, and thus the financial independence they need to
separate effectively from an abuser. There is a desperate need for
economic security provisions that would make unemployment insurance
benefits available to victims who must leave their jobs because of the
violence. Victims cannot be forced to choose between their economic
independence and their physical safety--both are essential if they, and
we as a society, are to move forward in our efforts to end domestic and
sexual violence.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Apessos v. Memorial Press Gp., No. 15 Mass. L. Rep. 322, 2002
Mass. Super. LEXIS 404, at *10 (Super. Ct. Mass. Sept. 30, 2002).
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits Survey: Most
Requested Statistics, Benefits (2004), available at http://
data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?eb. (Showing 41 percent of workers in
private industry in 2004 had no available paid sick leave).
3. Connie Stanley, Domestic Violence: An Occupational Impact Study
3 (1992).
4. U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, Domestic Violence Prevalence and
Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients 19 (Nov. 1998).
5. S. Rep. No. 138, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 54, n. 69 (citing E.
Ellis, B. Atkeson and K. Calhoun, An Assessment of the Long Term
Reaction to Rape, 50 J. Abnormal Psychology 264 (1981)).
6. United States Cong. Senate. 107th Congress, 1st Session. S.
1249, Victim's Economic Security and Safety Act of 2001, at 8 citing
Greg Warchol, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Workplace Violence, 1992-96 (July
1998).
7. Ellen Ridley, Maine Dep't of Labor & Family Crisis Services,
Impact of Domestic Offenders on Occupational Safety & Health: A Pilot
Study (2004).
8. Id.
9. Letter from Elizabeth Kristen, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law
Center to Senators Arlen Specter, Joseph Biden, and Orrin Hatch (June
21, 2005) (on file with Legal Momentum); Letter from Wendy Pollock,
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law to Senators Arlen
Specter, Joseph Biden, and Orrin Hatch (June 21, 2005) (on file with
Legal Momentum).
10. U.S. Cong. Senate. 107th Congress, 1st Session. S. 1249,
Victim's Economic Security and Safety Act of 2001, at 19 citing Joan
Zorza, Women Battering: High Costs and the State of the Law,
Clearinghouse Rev., Vol. 28, No. 4, 383, 385 (1994); National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence
Against Women in the United States, Atlanta: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2003; ``Intimate Violence Costs Billions,'' ABC
News, 4/29/2003.
11. See Bureau Of Nat'l Aff., Special Rep. No. 32, Violence And
Stress: The Work/Family Connection 2 (1990); Jody Raphael, Taylor
Inst., Prisoners Of Abuse: Domestic Violence And Welfare Receipt 8-9
(1996).
12. Legal Momentum, The Impact Of Violence In The Lives Of Working
Women: Creating Solutions--Creating Change 5 (2002), available at:
http://www.legal
momentum.org/pub/pubs/CreatingSolutions.pdf.
13. See generally New York State Office for The Prevention of
Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence--It Is Your Business: Employer
Handbook & Resource Guide 2 (2001), available at: http://
www.opdv.state.ny.us/workplace/privatepolicy/q&a.html.
14. See Patrice Tanaka & Company, Inc., Corporate Leaders See
Domestic Violence As A Major Problem That Affect Their Employees
According To Benchmark Survey By Liz Claiborne, Inc. (October 2002)
15. National Institute for School and Workplace Safety (under the
name of National Safe Workplace Institute), Talking Frankly About
Domestic Violence, (1995).
16. Joseph A. Kinney, Nat'l Safe Workplace Inst., Domestic Violence
Moves into Workplace (1994).
17. Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, National Benchmark
Telephone Survey, available at: http://www.caepv.org/about/
program_detail.php?refID=5.
18. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Survey of Workplace Violence
Prevention (2006).
19. Id.
20. Sue K. Willman, ``The New Law of Training: Training on
Harassment and Discrimination Is Not a Luxury Anymore,'' H.R. Magazine
115 (May 2004).
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, Workplace Violence Prevent
Strategies and Research Needs: Report from the Conference Partnering in
Workplace Violence Prevention Nov. 2004, 4-5 (2006). The vast majority
(85 percent) of workplace homicides result from criminal activity such
as robberies where the perpetrator has no legitimate relationship with
the business or its employees. Domestic violence is estimated to cause
about 5 percent of all workplace homicides. Id.
22. ``Partnering in Workplace Violence Prevention: Translating
Research into Practice.'' Conference held Nov. 15-17, 2004 (Baltimore,
MD).
23. Thoma v. L.J.'s Bad Penny Bar and Grill, No. CR200600641 (Wisc.
Dep't of Workforce Development) (filed February 21, 2006).
24. Imes v. City of Asheville, 606 S.E.2d 117 (N.C. 2004).
25. Id.
26. U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, Domestic Violence Prevalence and
Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients 19 (Nov. 1998); S.
Rep. No. 138, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 54, n. 69 (citing E. Ellis, B.
Atkeson and K. Calhoun, An Assessment of the Long Term Reaction to
Rape, 50 J. Abnormal Psychology 264 (1981)).
27. 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 180/1-180/45; N.Y.C. Admin. Code Sec. 8-
107.1; Westchester City Code Sec. Sec. 700.02, 700.03.
28. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 54-85b; R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 12-28-10.
29. 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1437d(c)(3); 1437f (c)(9); 1437f
(d)(1);1437f (o); 1437d(l)(5).
30. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits Survey: Most
Requested Statistics, Benefits (2004), available at http://
data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?eb. (Showing 41 percent of workers in
private industry in 2004 had no available paid sick leave).
31. Institute for Women's Policy Research, Pub. No. C349, The
Widening Gap: A New Book on the Struggle to Balance Work and Caregiving
3, Figure 4 (2001) (citing Jody Heymann, The Widening Gap: Why
America's Working Families Are in Jeopardy and What Can Be Done About
It (2000)).
32. Ala. Code Sec. 15-23-81; Alaska Stat. Sec. 12.61-017; Ariz.
Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 13-4439 and Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-420 (2004);
Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 16-90-1105; Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 24-4.1-303(8);
Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 54-85b; Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 11 Sec. 9409; Fla.
Stat. Sec. 92.57; Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 34-1-3; Haw. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 621.10.5; Ind. Code Sec. 35-44-3-11.1; Iowa Code Sec. 915.23; Md.
Code. Ann. Crim. Proc. Sec. 11-102; Mass Gen. Laws ch. 258B,
Sec. Sec. 3(l), 268-14(b); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. Sec. 780.790; Minn.
Stat. Ann Sec. 611A.036; Miss. Code. Ann. Sec. 99-43-45; Mo. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 595.209(1)(14); Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 46-24-205(3); Nev. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 50.070; N.D. Cent. Code Sec. 27-09.1-17; N.Y. Penal Law
Sec. 215.14; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 2930.18; 18 Pa. Code. Sec. 4957;
R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 12-28-10; S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 16-3-1550; Tenn. Code
Ann. Sec. 4-4-122; Utah Code Sec. 78-11-26; Va. Code Ann. Sec. 18.2-
465.1; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit 13, Sec. 5313; 34 V.I. Code Ann. Sec. 203
(e); Wis. Stat. Sec. 103.87; Wyo. Stat. Ann. Sec. 1-40-209(a).
33. Cal. Lab. Code Sec. Sec. 230 & 230.1; Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 24-
34-402.7; Haw. Rev. Stat. Sec. 378-72; 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 180/1-180/
45; Kan. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 44-1131, -1132; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
26, Sec. 850.
34. N.Y. Penal L. Sec. 215.14; N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. Sec. 50-B-5.5,
95-270a.
35. For a good overview of the history of legislation in this area,
see Rebecca Smith, Richard W. McHugh, and Robin R. Runge, Unemployment
Insurance and Domestic Violence: Learning from Our Experiences, 1
Seattle J. Soc. Just. 503 (2002).
36. Id.
37. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26, Sec. 1043(23)(B)(3) (providing
``misconduct'' may not solely be founded on actions taken by an
employee that were necessary to protect the employee or an immediate
family member from domestic violence if the employee made all
reasonable efforts to preserve the employment).
38. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 23-771; Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code
Sec. Sec. 1030, 1032 & Sec. 1256; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 8-73-
108(4)(r); Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-236(a)(2)(A); Del. Code Ann. tit.
19, Sec. 3314(1); D.C. Code Sec. 51-131; 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 405/601;
Ind. Code Sec. 22-4-15-1(1)(C)(8); Kan. Stat. Ann. Sec. 44-706(a)(12);
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26, Sec. Sec. 1043(23)(B)(3), 1193(A)(4);
Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann. ch. 151A, Sec. Sec. 1, 14, 25, 30; Minn. Stat.
Sec. Sec. 268.095(1)(8), 268.095(6)(a)(c); Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 39-51-
2111; Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 48-628(1)(a); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
23, Sec. 282-A:32(I)(a)(3); N.J. Rev. Stat. Sec. 43:21-5(j); N.M. Stat.
Ann. Sec. 51-1-7 (A); N.Y. Lab. Law Sec. 593(1)(a); N.C. Gen. Stat.
Sec. 96-14(1f); Okla. Stat. tit. 40, Sec. Sec. 40-2-405(5), 40-3-
106(G)(8); Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 657.176(12); R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 28-44-
17.1; 2005 S.C. Acts 50, to be codified at S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 41-35-
125; S.D. Codified Laws Sec. 61-6- 13.1; Texas Lab. Law.
Sec. Sec. 207.045, 207.046; 2005 Vt. ALS Sec. 49; Wash. Rev. Code
Sec. Sec. 50.20.050, 50.20.100, 50.20.240, & 50.29.020; Wis. Stat.
Sec. 108.04(7)(s); Wyo. Stat. Sec. 27-3-311.
39. National Employment Law Project, ``Unemployment Benefits for
Domestic Violence Survivors: What Are Its Costs? '' (March 2005) (on
file with Legal Momentum).
Legal Momentum,
April 25, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Subcommittee on Employment on Workplace Safety,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Employment on Workplace Safety,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: Record of ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the
Workplace''
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: Thank you for your continued
leadership on the issue of domestic violence in the workplace. Legal
Momentum was grateful for the opportunity to work closely with your
staff, particularly Paula Burg in helping to put together this hearing.
I write to clarify some issues and to submit additional information
for the record. During the April 17, 2007 subcommittee hearing, witness
Sue Willman testified that mandatory leave policies are unnecessary and
suggested that voluntary leave policies are adequate. The statistics do
not support her assertion but instead point toward inadequate leave
policies.
40 percent of working mothers lack both sick and vacation
leave.
Fewer than half of the nation's private-sector employees
are covered by FMLA unpaid leave.
Nearly two-thirds of employees who need--but do not take--
family or medical leave say they cannot afford to use it.
Nearly 1 in 10 workers who took advantage of FMLA was
forced into public assistance while on leave.
For FMLA users with incomes under $20,000, that rate
doubled to 1 in 5.
I also wanted to notify you of provisions in SEES (S. 1136) similar
to Maine's that prohibit insurers from discriminating against victims
of domestic violence. Under Sec. 2159-B of the Maine Insurance Code,
neither insurers nor HMOs may restrict coverage or refuse to renew
coverage for victims of domestic or sexual violence. An insurer may
deny coverage to the abuser.\1\ In situations where an insurer declines
new or continued coverage for an individual who is a victim of domestic
violence, they must show in writing that their denial did not arise
from the applicant/insured being an actual or perceived victim of
domestic violence and that it is permissible, under other law, to deny
people with similar medical conditions or disabilities, regardless if
the condition or disability is related to domestic or sexual violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Maine Sec. 2159 (B) (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also attaching for the record, copies of letters from the
Governors of Arizona and Wisconsin. The references to Title VII of the
Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill endorse provisions that
are nearly identical to those contained in SEES.
Finally, I have appended a copy of our ``State Law Guide: 50-State
Overview--Employment Protections for Victims of Domestic and Sexual
Violence'' that describes the employment protections available to
victims of intimate partner violence. I hope you find these statistics
helpful in your deliberations. Again, thank you for your dedication to
eradicating domestic and sexual violence. Please feel free to contact
me if you need additional assistance or have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Lisalyn R. Jacobs,
Vice President for Government Relations.
[Editor's Note: Due to the high cost of printing, the ``State Law
Guide: 50-State Overview: Employment Protections for Victims of
Domestic and Sexual Violence'' was not reprinted. It can be found at
www.legalmomentum.org.]
______
State of Wisconsin,
August 9, 2005.
Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Hon. Joseph Biden,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. House of Representatives.
Dear Chairman Specter, Senator Biden, Senator Hatch, and Chairman
Sensenbrenner: I am writing in support of the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), S. 1197. VAWA has achieved
tremendous success in bringing crimes such as domestic violence, sexual
assault and stalking to the forefront of the national consciousness.
VAWA has also created opportunities that have improved coordination and
service provision among and between larger systems, such as justice and
health care, and the grassroots advocacy communities. These
achievements, among many others, have led to greatly enhanced responses
to violence against women. As the Governor of the State of Wisconsin,
former Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin, and former District
Attorney for Dane County, Wisconsin, I have long been a champion for
the rights of all crime victims. I believe that S. 1197, the VAWA
reauthorization bill, is a critical component of each State's response
to victims of violent crimes.
While I support VAWA as a whole, I would like to draw attention to
and urge your support of several key titles of S. 1197. The law
enforcement and justice-related programs under VAWA have long been the
cornerstone of a strong response to violence against women crimes. I
also believe that several additional titles will build upon these well-
developed responses to provide needed support to victims and their
children as they recover from the trauma of violence and seek to
establish themselves independent of violence and abuse: Title III:
Children and Youth; Title IV: Prevention; Title VI: Housing; Title VII:
Economic Security, Title VIII: Immigrant Issues, and the Sexual Assault
Services Act.
As Governor of Wisconsin, I have crafted an agenda to invest in a
strong and secure future for children in Wisconsin. Entitled KidsFirst,
the initiative stresses the importance of education, safety, economic
security and health of children in order to promote the healthiest of
futures for them. Many of the issues identified and addressed in S.
1197 are consistent with my KidsFirst agenda, particularly Titles III
and IV but also the titles addressing economic security and housing
will greatly contribute to the safety and security of families. It is
common sense that by increasing the safety and stability of parents, we
will do the same for children. We can stop the inter-generational cycle
of violence by crafting interventions that help young people better
cope with violence and move beyond traumatic experiences into lives
that are healthy, safe and fulfilling. With S. 1197, we can also
envision a world in which we can actually prevent violence from
happening in the first place.
Making certain that victims of violence and their children are
economically secure and living in safe, stable housing should also be a
cornerstone of and intervention or responses to violence. S. 1197
addresses both economic security issues and housing for victims of
domestic and sexual violence and stalking. Protection from insurance
discrimination and access to unemployment compensation should a person
have to leave employment due to safety concerns related to domestic
violence are already law in Wisconsin. Victims of domestic violence
need to gain economic independence from their abusers in order to
achieve safety and liberty from violence. The provisions offered in S.
1197 will make it easier for victims to stay employed or to return to
work should they be required to temporarily take a leave for safety
reasons.
Victims of domestic and sexual violence should also be free from
worries of eviction should their abuser commit crimes in or around
their housing. Domestic violence is the single largest cause of
homelessness among women with children in the United States. The lack
of safe, affordable housing, including transitional housing, greatly
prohibits victims from establishing economic security and stability for
themselves and their children. S. 1197 provides for increased funding
for transitional housing and prohibits discrimination against victims
merely because they were victimized.
Some of our State's most vulnerable populations are those who are
immigrants and/or refugees. The immigration provisions of S. 1197 are
designed to remove barriers to safety that keep many immigrant victims
from reporting the abuse or leaving the abusive situation. Abusers of
immigrant women, either in legitimate relationships or via human
trafficking, prey on the vulnerability and fear of deportation of their
victims. The immigrant provisions of VAWA help to strip those abusers
of their power by providing victims with the opportunity to obtain
immigration relief without the knowledge or permission of their
abusers. These provisions are critical if we, as a Nation, are to
fulfill our promise of liberty and justice for all.
Finally, I urge you to support the Sexual Assault Services Act.
There are few funding streams available to meet the needs of sexual
assault victims. The proposed remedies included in S. 1197 will not
only provide for increased services to victims via the first ever
Federal funding directed specifically for sexual assault services, they
will also support and enhance law enforcement and justice system
responses to sexual assault through training and technical assistance.
Support for S. 1197 is critical. On behalf of victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, I urge you to
commit your support to the reauthorization of VAWA so that victims can
heal from their trauma while our society takes a stand against
perpetrators of violence. Law enforcement and justice systems'
responses are just one element of a coordinated response to violence
against women. Preventing and actually ending violence against women
will require us to eliminate as many barriers to their safety as
possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim Doyle,
Governor.
______
State of Arizona,
Office of the Governor,
Phoenix, AZ 85007,
June 27, 2005.
Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Hon. Joseph R. Biden,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman, Senator Biden, and Senator Hatch: I am writing
in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (S.
1197) and particularly to urge your support for four sections that
propose critical improvements to existing law: Title VII Economic
Security, Title III Children and Youth, Title IV Strengthening
America's Families by Preventing Violence, and Section 202 of Title II
the Sexual Assault Services Program. As Governor of the State of
Arizona, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, and
Arizona's former Attorney General, I have always been a champion for
the rights of crime victims of all ages and view S. 1197 as critically
important because it enhances the states' response to victims of
violence.
I strongly support the leave measure, along with the other economic
security measures in Title VII of VAWA. As Arizona Attorney General, I
crafted successful crime victim leave legislation to respond to
hardships faced by crime victims in the workplace. In 2001, Arizona
became one of the first states in the nation to provide workplace
protections for crime victims, requiring employers with 50 or more
employees to allow employees who are crime victims to attend court-
related proceedings. A.R.S. 13 4439. It is vital that employers support
employees who need time to attend court or undertake safety planning,
and I applaud your inclusion of these provisions in the bill.
I also urge you to support measures to improve services to victims
of sexual assault. As Arizona Attorney General I oversaw the creation
of statewide Guidelines for a Coordinated Community Response to Sexual
Assault to improve the investigation of sexual assault crimes, as well
as how crime victims are treated. The need for a dedicated funding
stream for sexual assault services is great in Arizona. Not only will
the Sexual Assault Services Program increase victims' opportunity for
justice and recovery, it will improve reporting of sexual assault to
law enforcement, thereby holding offenders accountable and lowering the
incidence of repeat crimes.
Finally, I encourage you to support Title III and IV, which titles
focus on children, youth, and prevention. By addressing the needs of
younger victims we can halt the cycle of violence at its origin,
whether it be domestic violence, dating violence, sexual violence, or
stalking. When we help young people to cope with and prevent violence
in their lives, we put them on track to be healthy, educated and
productive adults.
Your support for S. 1197, particularly for the aforementioned
provisions, is vitally important. Women, men, children and youth who
are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual violence and
stalking must be given support to recover from the crimes perpetrated
against them. Assisting victims where they are--in the home, workplace,
schools and other institutions--is one way we can assure their
opportunity for healing and survival.
If you have any questions about Arizona's efforts to support crime
victims, please do not hesitate to contact my advisor for crime victims
Dan Levey at (602) 364 2235. Thank you for your consideration.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano,
Governor.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Ms. Fortman.
STATEMENT OF LAURA A. FORTMAN, COMMISSIONER, STATE OF MAINE,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AUGUSTA, MAINE
Ms. Fortman. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Murray,
Senator Isakson, members of the committee. My name is Laura
Fortman. I am the Commissioner of the Maine Department of
Labor. Prior to being appointed by Governor Baldacci, I was the
Executive Director of the Maine Lobbying, Women's Policy Center
for 10 years and in that capacity, I worked with the Maine
Coalition to End Domestic Violence and the Maine Coalition
Against Sexual Assault to pass the first in the Nation Victim
Leave legislation and the reason I'm so happy to be here today
is to talk to you a little bit about what we have seen on the
ground in Maine with our experience with the legislation, both
victim leave legislation and unemployment insurance
compensation legislation. In my capacity as Commissioner of
Labor, my agency is responsible for the enforcement of those
laws.
It may seem odd to you that a State like Maine, which is
always one of the safest States in the country, has placed so
much focus on domestic abuse and sexual assault and in fact,
our former governor, Angus King, declared domestic violence as
public enemy No. 1 in his State of the State address in 2000.
He said that for victims, day to day life is a living hell of
fear and intimidation, fear of the monstrous violence that
takes place behind closed doors and is no respecter of
geography or social position. Our present governor, in 2004,
passed an Executive order requiring all State agencies to put
in place policies addressing domestic and sexual violence in
the workplace.
You may be surprised by all of the focus we've put on this
but the reality is that in our State, 50 percent of all
homicides are related to domestic violence. However it is not
just the pain that is caused, the suffering to the victims, the
families, the surviving children that has made an important
issue for us. It's also a workplace issue and that's where I'd
like to spend a little bit of time.
We are a State made up of small businesses. Only 8 percent
of our employers employ over 25 or more employees. So we are
very much a small business State. And as we were looking at
this issue of domestic violence, much work has been done
focused on the victims of sexual assault but we also wanted to
look at the impact that perpetrators had in the workplace. Most
of the perpetrators are employed and as many other people have
already stated, this is an issue that comes into the workplace.
One of the things that we saw was that 78 percent of those
perpetrators were using employer resources such as a company
car to follow or harass their partners. Eighty-five percent
were contacting their partner at the workplace, 75 percent of
them were using a company phone. Forty-eight percent reported
difficulty concentrating on their jobs due to thinking about
how to continue the perpetration. Nineteen percent of the
offenders had a workplace accident or near miss and from our
small sample of 124 perpetrators who were involved in a
batterer's intervention program. From that small sample--they
were all volunteers--we found that 15,221 hours of work time
were lost to employers due to the arrests of 70 of those men in
the study, equaling $200,000.
I'll skip over to talk a little bit about the legislation.
We do not have all of the pieces of legislation that are
proposed in your bill, Senator. However, we do have the
employment leave, which allows for victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault and stalking to take unpaid leave to
attend court, receive medical treatment or any other services
that are necessary to recover from the crime. This legislation
is not limited based on business size and we have had very few
complaints from employers about enforcing this. In fact, the
Maine State Chamber of Commerce, who initially opposed this
victim leave legislation, 2 years later, after the legislation
had been in place for 2 years, there was an expansion to cover
other family members, for example, if a child of yours had been
a victim of sexual assault, this leave would also apply to
that. At that time, Peter Core from the Maine Chamber, said
despite our original reservations, the bill became law and has
been in place for the last 2 years. During this time, this
organization has heard no complaints or concerns with its
implementation. While we hope that someday we will be in the
position that individuals and families do not need to access
leave for these very troublesome situations, we recognize that
should they need to do so, such leave is appropriate and
relatively unburdensome to the workplace. And I have attached
additional information from several other employers in my
testimony.
Overall, there is strong support among the business
community in our State and they have not experienced a negative
impact. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fortman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura A. Fortman
Good morning, Senator Murray and members of the committee. My name
is Laura Fortman and I am the Commissioner of the Maine Department of
Labor. Prior to being appointed by Governor Baldacci, I was the
Executive Director of Maine Women's Lobby a statewide nonprofit,
nonpartisan membership organization advocating for women and girls.
During my tenure I, along with Maine's Coalitions against domestic and
sexual violence and the leadership of Representative Mike Saxl, worked
to pass the country's first victim leave law. In my current position,
my agency is responsible for the enforcement of that law.
Therefore, I am especially grateful to you for inviting me to share
the experience we have had in Maine in addressing domestic violence. As
you know, domestic violence is a multifaceted problem that requires
multi-pronged strategies to be addressed. Some of the strategies that I
will discuss today include research, employer initiatives as well as
State policy and law.
First a quick snapshot of Maine. We are a small State with 1.3
million people spread over roughly 35,000 square miles. Our largest
city is Portland with a population of 64,000 people. Maine is
consistently rated as one of the safest places to live in the country.
Yet, Maine also has a serious problem with domestic violence.
Former Governor Angus King focused on the issue in his 2000 State
of the State address. In his remarks he named domestic violence as
Maine's Public Enemy Number One. I stated that for victims ``day-to-day
life is a living hell of fear and intimidation, fear of the monstrous
violence that takes place behind closed doors and is no respecter of
geography or social position.''
Our present Governor, John Baldacci, has continued the State's
commitment to take every step to prevent domestic violence and to
provide support for victim survivors. Governor Baldacci issued an
Executive order requiring all State agencies to develop a policy to
address domestic violence. (See Attachment I)
You may be puzzled by the level of attention domestic abuse has
received in Maine. I am sorry to say that it is not just because we are
a caring, compassionate State. Unfortunately, our concern is prompted
by the harsh reality that domestic abuse homicides account for over
half of all homicides in Maine. This statistic has been true for the
past 15 years. The victims are overwhelmingly adult women. However, 23
percent of victims are children. Of course, this homicide data does not
account for the trauma experienced by the surviving children who are
left to cope with this pain for the rest of their lives.
As in other States, Maine has a wonderful network of domestic abuse
projects. In 2006 over 13,000 people received services from the Maine
Coalition to End Domestic Violence. Nearly 97 percent of the people
served were women and children.
However, it is not only because of the tragic loss of life and
emotional distress experienced by families that domestic abuse is an
important public policy issue. It is also important to grapple with
domestic abuse because of the impact it has on the workplace.
Many Americans are developing their strongest friendships and
support systems at the workplace. For these workers, their place of
employment has become, ``the new American neighborhood.''
Numerous studies have shown that although domestic abuse may occur
behind closed doors--it does not stay there. When either the victim or
the perpetrator walks out their front door domestic abuse follows them
into their neighborhood--the workplace. And it impacts the employer and
other employees. This impact is felt even though domestic abuse is
often invisible. It is hidden for a number of reasons, including shame
on the part of the victim, and fear that disclosure will result in her
being fired.
You may believe that it is sufficient to have a supportive
employer. Unfortunately, even when an employer is supportive a victim
may still not feel supported.
This ``victim perspective'' became painfully clear to me in my own
workplace. One of my employees came to the office very upset. She had
ended an abusive relationship with her husband. She was worried that
her abuser was going to follow her to work and was terrified because he
had access to a weapon. A co-worker brought the situation to the
attention of a supervisor. The woman's supervisor invited her in to his
office. His intent was to express his personal support for her, do
safety planning and provide contact information for the local domestic
violence project. The woman burst into tears--she thought her
supervisor was planning to fire her.
This situation had a ``happy'' ending. The woman was kept safe and
is still with the Maine Department of Labor today. Also, staff has
received additional training in both domestic violence and workplace
violence and we now have a workplace violence policy.
We believe that employers with policies that support victims and
encourage disclosure of domestic violence have safer worksites as a
result of those practices. The guiding principle of all (OSHSA)
workplace safety training programs is to recognize hazards in the
workplace and develop strategies for prevention. It is impossible to
effectively respond to unknown dangers, and we know that domestic
violence is an under-reported problem in workplaces. Workplaces that
don't actively support and engage employees in disclosing incidences of
domestic violence are suppressing reporting of potential workplace
hazards and are missing important opportunities to prevent the real
hazard of domestic violence spill over in the workplace.
RESEARCH
Two recent studies by the Maine Department of Labor and the Maine
Coalition to End Domestic Violence shed more light on the impact of
domestic violence in the workplace of both the victim and the
perpetrator. The first study interviewed offenders and the second study
focused on victim/survivors.
The offender study was one of the first in the Nation where
workplace impact of domestic abuse was examined through the lens of the
offender's behavior. (See Attachment II)
The offender study included 124 domestic abuse offenders attending
a court mandated Batterer Intervention Program. All of the participants
were volunteers. One of the most revealing findings of this study was
the impact that offender's actions had on their employers. Behaviors
that negatively impacted employers included workplace accidents, lost
work time, and inappropriate use of business resources.
Some findings from the report are:
78 percent were using workplace resources including
company car to check up, harass, and threaten their partner;
85 percent contacted their victim from the workplace. 75
percent used the company phone;
48 percent reported difficulty concentrating due to
thinking about how to continue their perpetration;
19 percent of offenders had a workplace accident or near
miss; and
15,221 hours of work time were lost to Maine employers due
to arrests of 70 men in the study, equaling over $200,000.
SURVIVOR STUDY
The survivor study also demonstrated the significant impact of
domestic violence in the workplace. Participants in the study were a
self selected group of 120 women who were recruited through outreach to
employers, press releases, posters, visits to shelters, etc. They were
employed by a diverse group of employers and industries in Maine. (See
Attachment III)
Highlights from the report include:
60 percent of domestic violence victims/survivors lost
their job (43 percent fired, 57 percent quit);
13 percent reported the abuser assaulted them at work;
83 percent were harassed at work by the abuser who
repeatedly called their workplace;
78 percent reported being late to work as a result of the
abuse;
47 percent were assaulted before going to work;
46 percent reported abuser stalked them at workplace; and
23 percent of abusers violated a court order by contacting
the victim at work.
MAINE'S ACTION PLAN
Based on the data that we have collected and our experience, Maine
has focused efforts in the following areas:
1. Employer Initiative--Developing safety plans at work and an
environment that encourages victim/survivors ask for help.
2. Providing a safety net, unemployment insurance, for victims who
need to leave their jobs.
3. Providing leave to victim/survivors to receive treatment, attend
court or access other necessary services.
MAINE'S LEGISLATION
Maine has some important laws in place to provide employment
protections to victims of domestic violence, and a safety net for those
who lose their jobs because of abuse.
EMPLOYMENT LEAVE FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
26 MRSA Sec. 850
Requires employers to grant reasonable and necessary leave from
work if an employee or employee's daughter, son, parent, or spouse is a
victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
unemployment compensation disqualification clause
26 MRSA Sec. 1193(1)(A)(4)
States that an individual who voluntary leaves work may not be
disqualified from receiving benefits if the leaving was necessary to
protect the claimant from domestic abuse and the claimant made all
reasonable efforts to preserve the employment.
unemployment compensation misconduct clause
26 MRSA Sec. 1043(23)(B)(3)
States that misconduct may not be found solely on actions taken by
the employee that were necessary to protect the claimant or an
immediate family member from domestic violence if the employee made all
reasonable attempts to preserve the employment.
Unemployment claims resulting from domestic violence are charged to
the general unemployment fund, not to the individual business in which
the worker was employed.
MAINE BUSINESS SUPPORT
Employers in Maine have been supportive of these measures. One of
our large employers, Wright Express, asked me to share the following
comments with you:
Wright Express Corporation employs over 700 employees with
more than 600 employees located in Maine. We have supported
Maine legislation to protect the victims of domestic violence
and have taken steps to collaborate with local family crisis
agencies and law enforcement officials to protect our employees
in the workplace who are victims of domestic violence. We
understand the devastating impacts of domestic violence and the
importance for victims to feel that their workplace can provide
safety and support at a time when their lives outside of work
may be turned upside down. We have flexible paid time off
benefits and employee assistance programs that can be helpful
to employees who are dealing with this issue. We support
Maine's Victims Leave law that provides for reasonable leave
needed to address issues of family domestic violence. We feel
this makes good business sense since it helps keep employees
productive during times of personal crisis and it is the right
thing to do.--Robert Cornett, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, Wright Express Corporation.
Human Resource professionals are also supportive. I recently spoke
before a group of 40 HR professionals at a breakfast meeting of the
Kennebec Valley Human Resources Association. I had been asked to attend
and update the group on pending legislation in front of the Maine
legislature. Since Senator Murray had just invited me to testify, I
used my time with the Kennebec Valley HR group to ask them how our
current victim leave law and unemployment insurance program was working
from their perspective. In general, they were not experiencing problems
administering the leave. However, they felt that there were several
things we could do to strengthen the programs. They told me that there
was a lack of awareness of both the leave and the possibility of
unemployment insurance. In the course of our conversation,
They strongly recommended an awareness campaign either
about the availability of the Maine Department of Labor voluntary
domestic violence poster or that the poster becomes a mandatory poster.
They also recommended that every workplace develop a
workplace violence policy and that all supervisors receive training.
Finally, many raised a concern about a victim's ability to
take unpaid leave.
Maine's State Chamber of Commerce has been helpful as well. I have
attached a copy of the testimony of Peter Gore, Senior Governmental
Affairs Specialist, from the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. This
testimony was given in 2002 in support of expanding the 1999 Victim
Leave Law to cover family members. I will read a short excerpt from Mr.
Gore's testimony. (See Attachment IV)
``Despite our original reservations the bill became law and
has been in place for the last 2 years. During this time this
organization has heard no complaints or concerns with its
implementation. . . . While we hope that someday we will be in
the position that individuals and families do not need to
access leave for these very troublesome situations, we
recognize that should they need to do so, such leave is
appropriate and relatively unburdensome to the workplace.''
Other Employer Initiatives:
Maine Employers Against Domestic Violence is an effort to educate
employers about domestic violence in the workplace. The effort is
spearheaded by the Maine Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Maine
State Government. This initiative encourages major employers to take a
leadership role on the issue. It also encourages all employers to
develop a plan for their workplace that establishes internal policies,
security, safety protocols and employee outreach. CEOs of businesses
that join the Leadership Team commit to establish internal policies for
their own workplace, sponsor an informational event for businesses,
such as a Chamber ``Eggs `N Issues'' breakfast, and encourage other
employers to attend educational sessions that are held in the State
about the problem. Major Maine businesses have joined the leadership
team, including our major shipbuilder, Bath Iron Works, our largest
utility, Central Maine Power, and our largest health insurer, Anthem
Blue Cross Blue Shield. (See Attachment V)
State Government, which employs thousands of workers, is also
working to make our own workplaces safe. As I mentioned earlier in my
testimony, in October 2004, Governor Baldacci issued an Executive order
requiring each State agency to partner with the Maine Coalition to End
Domestic Violence to develop workplace policies for their agency.
Workplace plans must be detailed, including training for staff on
assisting co-workers who are victims of domestic abuse, training for
supervisors on being supportive and understanding even if the situation
is affecting the victim's work performance, providing referrals to
local domestic violence projects and employee assistance programs,
developing workplace safety plans, offering necessary leave, taking
corrective action regarding State employees who perpetrate domestic
violence, including disciplinary action if perpetrating domestic abuse
while they are working, as well as referring abusers to batterer
intervention programs or employee assistance programs.
So far, 9,000 State employees have been trained. Workplace policies
have been created across State Government. In addition to making Maine
government workplaces safer, an unplanned side effect was the creation
of an optional domestic abuse poster by the Maine Department of Labor.
This poster is available on-line and may be downloaded by any employer.
Online training has been developed and made available and, in general,
awareness of the issues surrounding domestic violence in the workplace
has been increased.
Yet, more must be done. We know that employees who are victims of
domestic violence still feel unsafe, stigmatized and afraid to come
forward to ask for help in their workplace. We think that Maine's
efforts would be more effective if there was a coordinated national
response to domestic violence.
Your committee has an opportunity to raise awareness of the impact
of domestic violence in the workplace and to firmly stand with victims
and survivors who need your help. I hope that you can move forward to
develop consistent national policies that create workplaces safe from
domestic violence and that help businesses develop internal policies,
including appropriate safety plans, that keep violence out of the
workplace. Business policies must both protect the employee who is a
victim and adopt a ``zero tolerance'' policy with respect to employees
who are perpetrators. We would also welcome a consistent, national
victim leave policy and encouragement for States to provide a safety
net through their unemployment compensation systems.
I have attached copies of all of the key documents that I
referenced in my comments to my testimony and want to thank you for
your attention to this critical issue.
ATTACHMENT I
October 7, 2004
An Order Regarding the Establishment Of Domestic Violence In the
Workplace Policies Within the Departments Of State Government
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a serious public policy concern of
the State of Maine requiring its participation in the coordinated
community response to support victims and hold abusers accountable; and
WHEREAS, employees and citizens of the State of Maine have a right
to be safe from harm; and
WHEREAS, the Maine Legislature has recognized an employer's
obligation to provide special assistance to victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behavior that
is used by a person against a current or former partner, or other
family or household member, to establish and maintain power or control
in the relationship; and
WHEREAS, for more than a decade fifty percent of the homicides in
Maine involved domestic violence; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a widespread community problem
affecting thousands of Maine families that extends beyond the family
and into all areas of society including the workplace; and
WHEREAS, abusers will often target victims at their workplaces,
endangering the safety and affecting the productivity of victims and
co-workers; and
WHEREAS, the State of Maine, as an employer, is additionally
affected by domestic violence in the loss of productivity, and
increased health care costs, absenteeism, and employee turnover; and
WHEREAS, the State of Maine, as an employer, should provide support
and assistance to employees who are victims of domestic violence and
should hold abusers accountable; and
WHEREAS, the State of Maine has a responsibility to model a
proactive response to domestic violence for other employers in the
State; and
WHEREAS, agencies of the State of Maine have partnered with the
Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence and the Maine Coalition
Against Sexual Assault to develop and promote workplace policies and
training for State employees; and
WHEREAS, the Maine Commission on Domestic and Sexual Abuse has
urged all employers in the State of Maine to develop and implement
workplace policies on domestic violence; and
WHEREAS, the State of Maine recognizes that employers can be
powerful allies to victims by creating a workplace that offers support,
information, and resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, John E. Baldacci, Governor of the State of
Maine, by the authority vested in me, do hereby order that:
1. For the purpose of this executive order, the following terms
shall have the following meanings:
Domestic violence: A pattern of coercive behavior that is used by a
person against family or household members to establish and maintain
power or control over the other party in the relationship. This
behavior may include physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional and
psychological intimidation, verbal abuse and threats, stalking,
isolation from friends and family, economic control and destruction of
personal property. Domestic violence occurs between people of all
racial, economic, educational, and religious backgrounds. It occurs in
heterosexual and same sex relationships, between married and unmarried
partners, between current and former partners, and between other family
and household members.
Sexual assault: An act of sexual violence whereby a party forces,
coerces, or manipulates another to participate in unwanted sexual
activity. This behavior may include stranger rape, date and
acquaintance rape, marital or partner rape, incest, child sexual abuse,
sexual contact, sexual harassment, ritual abuse, exposure and
voyeurism.
Stalking: Any conduct as defined in 17-A M.R.S.A. Sec. 210-A.
Abuser: An individual who commits an act of domestic violence. Victim:
An individual subjected to an act of domestic violence.
Workplace: An employee is considered to be in the workplace when
the employee is on duty, is traveling on behalf of the State, is in
State-owned or leased workspace, is using the facilities or services of
the State, is wearing a uniform, or is using a vehicle that is owned or
leased by the State or its agencies.
2. Each State agency convenes a diverse team of employees who will,
within the next year, develop a workplace domestic violence policy. The
team shall partner with the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence to
provide initial domestic violence training for the team and additional
guidance in the development of the policy.
3. Each State agency's domestic violence workplace policy:
a) Incorporates the above definitions of domestic violence, sexual
assault, stalking, abuser, victim, and workplace; b) Clearly directs
that the agency will not tolerate acts of domestic violence, sexual
assault, or stalking in the workplace, including harassment or violent
or threatening behavior that may result in physical or emotional injury
to any state employee while in state offices, facilities, work sites,
vehicles, or while conducting state business; c) Instructs employees on
how to offer assistance to co-workers who are domestic violence victims
in an expedient and confidential manner; d) Recognizes that victims of
domestic violence may have performance or conduct problems related to
their victimization and offers support and an opportunity to correct
the problems; e) Provides for assistance to victims to include at a
minimum: referrals to local domestic violence projects and the State's
Employee Assistance Program, and development of workplace safety plans
that seek to minimize the risks to the victims and other employees; f)
Recognizes the employer's obligation to grant reasonable and necessary
leave pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. Sec. 850; g) Provides assistance to
abusers to include at a minimum: referrals to the State's Employee
Assistance Program, and information about local state certified
batterer intervention programs; h) Provides that corrective or
disciplinary action may be taken against state employees who: misuse
state resources to perpetrate domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking; harass, threaten, or commit an act of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking in the workplace or while conducting state
business; or are arrested, convicted, or issued a civil order as a
result of domestic violence when such action has a nexus to their
employment with the State; i) Requires that all agency employees with
supervisory responsibility and any other designated individuals who
will respond to victims and abusers receive specialized training on
best practices for identifying and responding to domestic violence; j)
Includes a separate procedure which requires referral to the sexual
assault crisis and support centers for employees who have experienced
sexual assault or stalking; k) Directs that, to the extent that sexual
abuse or stalking is perpetrated as part of domestic violence,
employers should be prepared to respond to it utilizing the domestic
violence policy; and l) Requires that the policy be distributed to all
current employees and to every new hire.
4. To the extent that an agency employs individuals who are
authorized to carry firearms as part of their job duties, the policy
shall include provisions addressing firearms.
5. Each State agency implements the workplace policy via employee
training on the policy delivered in partnership with the Maine
Coalition to End Domestic Violence. The training shall include, at a
minimum, information as to: the dynamics and effects of domestic
violence; available resources for victims and perpetrators; and how an
employee can assist a co-worker who is experiencing or perpetrating
domestic violence. The Bureau of Human Resources will provide training
support and coordinate with the Maine Coalition to End Domestic
Violence to make sample policies available for all agencies.
6. Each State agency provides for the conspicuous posting of
information about domestic violence and sexual assault and available
community resources.
7. Each State agency incorporates reference to the State of Maine
Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy, the State of
Maine Harassment Policy and the State of Maine E-Mail Usage and
Management Policy in its domestic violence in the workplace policy.
Each State agency is also directed to review existing personnel
policies and procedures to ensure they do not discriminate against
victims of domestic violence and are responsive to the needs of victims
of domestic violence.
The cost to State agencies for implementing the tasks included in
this Executive Order will be used from existing resources.
The provisions of this executive order are not intended to alter
any existing collective bargaining agreements or to supersede
applicable Federal or State law.
Effective Date
The effective date of this Executive Order is October 7, 2004.
ATTACHMENT II
Impact of Domestic Violence Offenders on Workplace Safety & Health: A
Pilot Study
Executive summary. In spring of 2003, the Maine Department of Labor
and Family Crisis Services conducted an occupational safety and health
research project with four certified Batterer Intervention Projects
(BIPs) in Maine. The study was part of the Maine Occupational Research
Agenda (MORA) focusing on the safety and health of priority
populations. The subjects of the study were 152 male domestic abuse
offenders attending classes at the BIPs. The purpose of the study was
to measure how domestic abuse offenders affect workplace safety and
health, productivity, and lost work time. In addition, the study
investigated inappropriate use of company resources to harass the
intimate partner, as well as how the intimate partner was affected at
her place of employment. Finally, the study measured current supervisor
responses to knowledge of offenders' arrest and protection from abuse
orders, and also queried the study participants on their opinions
regarding effective workplace interventions.
Among the significant findings reported by offenders:
78 percent of offenders used workplace resources at least
once to express remorse or anger, check up on, pressure, or threaten
the victim.
73 percent of supervisors were aware of the domestic abuse
offender's arrest, but only 15 percent reminded the employee that
domestic abuse is a crime.
74 percent had easy access to their intimate partner's
workplace, with 21 percent of offenders reporting that they contacted
her at the workplace in violation of a no contact order.
70 percent of domestic abuse offenders lost 15,221 hours
of work time due to their domestic abuse arrests. At Maine's average
hourly wage, this equals approximately $200,000.
68 percent of offenders said that domestic abuse posters and
brochures in the workplace would help prevent domestic abuse from
impacting the business.
48 percent of offenders had difficulty concentrating at work, with
19 percent of offenders reporting a workplace accident or near miss
from inattentiveness clue to pre-occupation with their relationship.
42 percent of offenders were late to work.
The Maine study is a pilot study with a self-selected population.
If the same survey design were used and we were assured that the sample
represents the population (i.e. subjects were chosen randomly and/or we
had demographic data to compare/adjust the sample to the population),
then the margin of error for the questions we asked would range from
3.62 percent to 6.12 percent.
While this data cannot be extrapolated to the general population of
domestic abuse offenders, it identifies the broad impact the men in
this sample had on Maine businesses. More research is needed to further
understand how employers can effectively and accountably respond to
abusers in the workplace and to create safer working conditions for
employed victims and survivors.
ATTACHMENT III
Domestic Violence Survivors at Work: How Perpetrators Impact Employment
Executive Summary
During the summer and early fall of 2004, The Maine Department of
Labor and Family Crisis Services conducted a joint research study on
domestic violence and the occupational impact to victims/survivors.
Subjects of the study were 120 women who met the following criteria:
experienced domestic abuse within the last three years, were employed
in Maine (not self-employed), and were affected at work by the abuse.
The purpose of the study was to identify ways in which perpetrators
of domestic abuse impact victims/survivors at their employment;
determine the frequency and methods abusers used to contact the victim/
survivor at the workplace; identify and quantify performance and
productivity issues, lost work time, absenteeism, workplace delays, and
workplace accidents as a result of these events; measure employer
responses, including frequency of policies as a prevention tool; and
examine survivors' views on how employers can create safer workplaces.
Survivors were invited to participate through a press release, Web
site postings, and participation in local domestic violence projects.
Information was collected in a survey format during one-on-one, thirty-
minute interviews in person or over the telephone. The following
findings represent the data from interviews with 120 domestic violence
survivors:
98 percent reported that domestic abuse caused them to
have difficulty concentrating on work tasks.
96 percent reported that domestic abuse affected their
ability to perform their job duties.
94 percent were unaware of statutes that provide
unemployment compensation to victims of domestic abuse, and 93 percent
were unaware of Maine law that requires employers to provide time off
to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
87 percent reported the abuser made harassing phone calls
at work, with some survivors receiving between 50-100 phone calls per
week.
83 percent reported the employer became aware of domestic
abuse in employee's life.
78 percent reported the abuser showed up at the workplace;
13 percent reported being assaulted at work.
78 percent reported being late to work as a result of
domestic abuse.
77 percent reported they were prevented from getting to
work on time because the abuser kept them up late or all night; 47
percent reported being assaulted before work.
60 percent reported losing their job due to domestic abuse
(fired or quit).
56 percent reported the workplace contact changed
(increased in frequency or became more threatening) when the victim/
survivor attempted to leave.
45 percent reported they were concerned they would get
fired if they discussed domestic abuse situation with employer.
23 percent reported the abuser violated a protection from
abuse order or other condition by contacting the victim/survivor at
work.
5 percent reported their employer had a domestic violence
policy in place.
ATTACHMENT IV
Maine State Chamber of Commerce,
Augusta, Maine 04330-9412,
January 10, 2002.
Senator Beth Edmonds, Senate Chair,
Augusta, Maine 04333 001.
Representative George Bunker, House Chair,
Joint Standing Committee on Labor,
Augusta, Maine 04333 0115.
Senator Edmonds, Representative Bunker and Members of the Joint
Standing Committee on Labor: I apologize for not being present to
deliver this testimony personally, however, business has me out of town
for the next few days. On behalf of the Maine State Chamber of
Commerce, we would like to voice our support for LA 1960, An act to
Promote Safety of Families through the Workplace, sponsored by Speaker
Saxl.
As members of this committee may remember that this legislation
first appeared before the 119th Legislature in the form of LD 944, and
extended unpaid leave from the workplace for employees in the event
they are a victim of violence, assault, sex assaults, stalking or any
other act that would support an order of protection.
At that time the Maine State Chamber expressed concerns about the
bill even though it was greatly altered from its original form and
falls under the auspices and rulemaking authority of the Department of
Labor.
Despite our original reservations the bill became law and has been
in place for the last 2 years. During this time this organization has
heard no complaints or concerns with its implementation. It appears
that the bill supporters were correct regarding its application and its
impact on the workplace.
It is for this reason we believe it is appropriate to extend the
same leave opportunities for parents of children who are unfortunate
enough to be victims of violence.
We believe this bill, like the current law, is appropriate given
the difficult times we now live in. While we hope that someday we will
be in the position that individuals and families do not need to access
leave for these very troublesome situations, we recognize that should
they need to do so, such leave is appropriate and relatively
unburdensome to the workplace. It is for these reasons we would again
reiterate our support for LD 1960. I will do my best to be present at
the work session on this bill and appreciate the opportunity to provide
you with our comments. Thank you very much.
Peter M. Gore,
Senior Governmental Affairs Specialist.
ATTACHMENT V
Domestic Violence and the Workplace: The State of Maine Initiative
September 2006
INTRODUCTION
The Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence and its member
projects seek to end domestic violence by creating a culture in which
abuse and violence have no place. All community sectors have a role in
providing support to people who experience abuse and creating a
structure of accountability for people who choose to abuse and use
power over other people in their lives. Maine State Government has
taken a dramatic step forward in moving us all toward such a culture.
PROJECT SUMMARY
In October of 2004, the Maine Department of Public Safety hosted
two day-long conferences in Maine that focused on domestic violence and
the workplace. Hundreds of Maine employers attended and received
information about the impact of domestic violence on the workplace and
the power of developing a comprehensive workplace response. At the
start of the session held in Portland on October 7th, Governor John
Baldacci signed an Executive Order that required all State agencies to
develop and implement a domestic violence and the workplace policy,
through collaborative consultation and training with the Maine
Coalition to End Domestic Violence, also known as MCEDV. (See Appendix
A.)
In the following many months, MCEDV partnered with the many
agencies in Maine State Government and collaborated with them through
the process of developing policies and training employees on the
components of the policies. (See Appendix B.) At the time of this
report, nearly all the agencies had a final policy in place and had
trained supervisors, voluntary responders, and general employees.
The State of Maine employs approximately 14,000 individuals. To
date, MCEDV estimates that 2,800 supervisors and 5,875 general
employees have received live training about domestic violence and their
specific agencies' policies through this initiative. In addition, The
Maine Department of Public Safety and Maine Department of Corrections
employees received required training through an on-line, e-learning
training tool developed by DPS in collaboration with the Maine
Coalition to End Domestic Violence (available at
www.myworkplacehelp.org).
POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The process that each agency underwent to comply with the Executive
Order involved five steps: 1) Create an internal policy development
team made up of diverse members of the agency; 2) train that team in
collaboration with MCEDV; 3) draft a policy; 4) train all supervisory
employees and others who volunteered to be specially-trained
``responders'' about the draft policy and protocol for response to
employees; and 5) implement the final policy via training of all
general employees.
During the policy development stage of the process, State agencies
did a stellar job of developing new best practices with care and
creativity. New best practices generated through policy development
included response to employees who are abusers, confidentiality,
protocol for abusers carrying state-issued firearms, and several
others.
TRAINING CURRICULA COMPONENTS
Through its member domestic violence projects, the Maine Coalition
to End Domestic Violence provided all trainings for State supervisors,
responders, and general employees. The goal of the training was to
prepare State employees to recognize abuse, to reach out to co-workers
experiencing abuse, and to refer them to help sources. The training
emphasized the particular role that employers and co-workers play in
being a bridge to community services.
The curricula initially provided information about why domestic
violence is a workplace issue and relied heavily on the findings of two
recent research studies completed by Family Crisis Services in
collaboration with the Maine Department of Labor. These studies
involved interviews with domestic violence offenders and survivors, and
revealed how specifically and pervasively abusive behavior undermines a
safe and productive workplace. Visit http://www.maine.gov/labor/bls/
and click on Safety research to download the reports from these two
studies.
The trainings then focused on the dynamics and effects of domestic
violence, to give employees an understanding of the impact of abuse on
an employee. This section included discussion about the challenges
people face in creating lives free from abuse. Every employee was also
given information about community domestic violence and sexual assault
services available to assist employees, concerned co-workers, or
supervisors.
Finally, the trainings outlined the components of the policies,
relative to appropriate responses to people affected by abuse and
perpetrators. This included supervisory responsibility, as well as
peer-to-peer or co-worker response. The policies and trainings also
addressed the important issues of confidentiality, the process of
workplace safety planning, and collaborating with community resources
such as the local domestic violence projects.
IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE
It is clear from the initiative that domestic violence has affected
many current and former State employees. In a review of 1000
evaluations gathered from the State training effort, 10 percent of
employees revealed that they were survivors of domestic abuse when
asked in Question Two to ``describe previous knowledge or experience of
domestic violence, if any.'' An additional 3.8 percent of respondents
indicated they had family members who were currently or had previously
been impacted by intimate partner abuse. Despite this, the problem has
been largely invisible in that agencies' responses were not guided by
formal policy or protocol, response and documentation was inconsistent,
and there was an overall lack of workplace safety planning and referral
to helpful community agencies and the Employee Assistance Program when
an employee presented domestic violence issues. Both within agencies
and between agencies, domestic violence has been an invisible but
dangerous and very real presence.
Training evaluations indicated that supervisors and general State
employees overwhelmingly embraced the new policies and training. The
initiative was very well received in that employees showed an eagerness
for the information. They continuously expressed in evaluations and in
comments made to trainers that they wished they had the information
earlier in their work or personal lives, as well as gratefulness that
there are protocols and resources to guide them in the future.
Some of the comments that trainers heard from training participants
and read repeatedly in the evaluation forms included:
An appreciation for knowledge about the broad services of
MCEDV's member domestic violence projects.
Gratefulness for information about current Maine laws--
specifically the Victim's Leave Act and Maine unemployment provisions--
that provide specific protections to victims of domestic violence.
Employees often indicated in evaluations that these laws are vital
resources for themselves, their co-workers, and also for their clients/
consumers. (See Appendix C.)
A gratefulness to have the information to respond
helpfully to a co-worker, family member, or friend who may be a victim
or offender. Many people disclosed in the trainings or immediately
after the trainings with stories of dangerous domestic violence
situations they were currently aware of.
A shift in thinking that this was a ``politically
correct'' initiative to appreciating the important practical outcomes
to a domestic violence policy that increases safety in the workplace
for all employees.
Gratitude that the State of Maine is taking a lead on
keeping employees safe at work when domestic violence is present in
their personal relationships.
Overwhelming, Maine State employees reported that this
training made them more aware of the issue of domestic violence and
provided them with the necessary resources to recognize it in their co-
workers and respond to it with sensitivity and effectiveness. In
addition, many State workers reported that their attitudes had been
altered by the training.
``I will try not to say things like ``I wouldn't let
someone treat me like that' around other people.''
``I will watch/be more aware of what I say just in case
one of my coworkers is a survivor of DV.''
``More folks will have empathy and knowledge that should
lead to better support systems for victims and abusers and more
appropriate responses to the victim.''
``I will be more careful about what I say at work, and
will be more sensitive and aware.''
``[I will] More easily recognize the signs of abuse/
abuser. Know not to give advice--before training I might have said `why
don't you leave.' ''
Several State workers commented on the need to continue this
education throughout the State:
``Throughout the presentation I kept thinking about the
societal influences that permit and encourage this problem and others
like it. I'm so happy to hear the presenter say ``It's about a sense of
entitlement.'' I think that hits the nail on the head, and I'm so
grateful to hear this message and work is going out to schools and to
children.''
``Make it mandatory to all State employees and encourage
to all business and workplaces in the State.''
``Mak[e] a training like this to everyone an annual,
mandatory training.''
``Start educating at High School level to get awareness at
earliest level. This should begin as age relationships begin.''
A number of employees made a specific note of the professional
nature of the instruction offered by Maine Coalition to End Domestic
Violence trainers:
``Good mix of training styles utilized. Great,
knowledgeable, articulate presenters!''
``Great presentation with very professional instruction.''
``Excellent training.''
``Excellent job! Skit was extremely powerful and moving!''
``This training was really fantastic! The skit was a
particularly good visual and thought provoking.''
``This is the best presentation I have seen in 22 years of
State employment. Superb!''
Some employees commented on their personal experience with abuse:
I thought the training was very effective. It brought up
many bad personal memories and made me more aware of the numerous
characteristics my ex-husband has/had that makes him an abuser. On a
happier note, it makes me realize how much more I appreciate my new
husband!
Finally, both State agency coordinators and employees who took the
training remarked that the training would help to promote change:
``Have already seen new policy making a difference in my
office for the good.''
``After the training, several employees approached me to
say they thought this would be valuable. Two people indicated that they
knew of people who were in a violent relationship and would be passing
the resources on to them. They also found it helpful to understand that
their friends may be feeling embarrassed and alone . . .''
``A large number of staff commented that they were glad
this had been undertaken, and that their own awareness had been
increased; and to a certain extent, previous responses to domestic
violence situations were validated.''
``. . . [W]e did have several employees who were very
resistant and negative to the effort; commenting that it was a waste of
time, there wasn't any domestic violence at the [workplace], didn't
believe domestic violence was really much of a problem, etc. After the
training, these same people came to us, commenting they were astounded
and amazed--they had no idea and thanked us for our work . . . several
people revealed that domestic violence has touched their lives, either
personally or with someone close to them.''
unanticipated positive outcomes within state agencies
This initiative created a momentum that led many agencies to
develop additional resources for their employees and employees of other
agencies that were not mandated by the Executive Order. These things
included:
The Department of Transportation (DOT) created many
printed materials featuring a State logo and informational materials
including small laminated resource cards with telephone numbers, an
employee brochure, notepads, tent cards for use at trainings, and
posters with community domestic violence and sexual assault resources
listed. DOT has generously made these materials available to other
State agencies at cost. (See attached workplace brochure.)
The Department of Health and Human Services (as well as
the Office of the Attorney General, which created its policy prior to
the Executive Order) created a process by which employees can donate
comp time to support a victim of domestic violence. The Maine State
Housing Authority also created a special pool of time to which
employees could donate.
The Department of Labor created a new optional employment
law poster highlighting current Maine laws relating to domestic
violence in the workplace and community domestic violence resource
providers. This poster can be downloaded free at http://www.maine.gov/
labor/posters/.
The State of Maine revised its Employee Assistance Program
request for proposals and contract and as of October 1, 2005, has
contracted with a new organization that has a domestic violence
specialist on staff and offers domestic violence training to its member
providers.
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) utilized grant
funding to create a web- based domestic violence and the workplace
training for all general employees of the Department. DPS also funded
several television public service announcements to promote this
initiative and offer the web-based training to any employer in the
State. The training can be accessed free at www.mvworkplacehelp.com by
signing in as an anonymous guest.
The Department of Conservation has created an internal
corresponding policy to protect employees and visitors via a domestic
violence and visitors to the park policy.
It is clear that agencies did more than merely respond to a
mandate, and an unfunded mandate at that. They took ownership of the
policies, went above and beyond in crafting solutions and new best
practices, and showed their pride in providing leadership and models to
guide other employers in Maine.
NEXT STEPS
While the original work envisioned in the Governor's Executive
order is nearly complete, many potential next steps have emerged from
the initiative. These include:
The creation of a schedule of ongoing trainings for new
State employees, new State supervisors, or those seeking a refresher
course, through the Maine State Training Unit. These trainings will
likely begin in the fall of 2006 and will be provided by staff of the
member projects of MCEDV.
Determining outcomes from the initiative. Current ideas
for measuring the impact of this initiative include tracking the use of
the State policies utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data,
providing detail on workplace safety plans, and determining whether
there has been an increased use of our domestic violence related
unemployment statutes and the Victim's Leave Act. In addition, future
focus groups or policy revisions may provide opportunities to capture
new best practices emerging from experience.
Additional topics for future policy revisions include
adding critical incident protocol as well as how State agencies can
keep and provide documentation for prosecution purposes or to support
the enforcement of protection from abuse orders.
By mandate of the Executive Order, all agencies are
required to conspicuously post information about domestic violence
resources, and MCEDV would like to provide additional literature and
posters to assistance agencies in complying with this provision of the
Order.
The laws currently in place to support employed victims of
domestic violence may be ready for review and enhancement.
Specifically, the Victim's Leave Act currently does not include
domestic partners. In addition, the unemployment statutes may currently
have unintended consequence of creating safety issues for claimants
when employers are contacted regarding the claim.
CONCLUSION AND CONTACT INFORMATION
For more information about the State of Maine Workplace Initiative
or to find out more about how any employer can create a comprehensive
workplace response to domestic violence, contact your local domestic
violence project which you can locate online at www.mcedv.org. You are
also encouraged to contact any of the following people who worked
extensively on this initiative:
Kate Faragher Houghton, Family Violence Project, P.O. Box 304,
Augusta, Maine 04332 0304, (207) 623 8637 x304,
katef@familvviolencenrojectorg; Ellen Ridley, Family Crisis Services,
P.O. Box 704, Portland, ME 04104, (207) 767 4952 x105, ellen--
refamilycrisis.org; Nicky Blanchard, Maine Coalition to End Domestic
Violence, 170 Park Street, Bangor, Maine 04401, (207) 941 1194,
[email protected]; Francine Stark, Spruce Run, P.O. Box 653, Bangor, ME
04402, (207) 945 5102, fstarkesprucerun.net.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
MCEDV has found it a pleasure to work with the State of Maine on
the largest outreach effort the Coalition has ever undertaken. The
successes within the initiative are many, and on behalf of domestic
violence service providers in the State of Maine, we thank the State
for its fine work.
This project would not have happened without the exceptional work
undertaken by Maine's Attorney General Steven Rowe and his Special
Assistant Jessica Maurer, who have continuously placed domestic
violence policy and education at the top of their priorities. Prior to
this initiative, the Maine Office of the Attorney General underwent a
14-month initiative to develop and implement a domestic violence and
the workplace policy and train all of its 200 plus staff across the
State. This work created the momentum for doing this policy work
throughout all of State Government.
We thank Governor John Baldacci for his leadership in signing the
Executive Order requiring all State agencies to develop and implement
domestic violence and the workplace policies. We also offer thanks to
Daryl Fort, the Governor's Director of Community Development, who has
focused persistent attention on issues affecting marginalized and
vulnerable Mainers. His particular efforts regarding domestic violence
and sexual assault have positively impacted Governor Baldacci's
Administration as well as all Mainers impacted by these crimes.
Within State Government many champions moved this initiative
forward--one deserves special recognition for her role as coordinator
and point person for this project within the State of Maine. This
person is the State Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator Laurel
Shippee. Her tireless support of the initiative is greatly appreciated.
Many people within MCEDV participated in this project and special
thanks and recognition are offered to Kate Faragher Houghton of the
Family Violence Project who coordinated the initiative for the
Coalition, Ellen Ridley of Family Crisis Services who developed much of
the curricula and delivered countless trainings, Francine Stark of
Spruce Run who partnered with the largest State agency as well as many
others, and Nicky Blanchard of the Maine Coalition to End Domestic
Violence who provided ongoing coordination of training logistics and
countless other types of ongoing support for the initiative. Additional
thanks and recognition go to other domestic violence project staff
around the State who participated in agency policy development and
training of State employees.
Finally, a huge thank you is offered to those agencies and
organizations that provided training space, audio-visual equipment, and
technical assistance at no cost for the slate of general State employee
trainings that occurred in the spring of 2006. These trainings were
largely held at sites within the University of Maine system, at Anthem
Blue Cross in South Portland, and at the Maine Department of Public
Safety in Augusta. We offer our gratitude for those organizations'
generous support of this initiative.
Appendix A: Governor's Executive Order
25 FY 04/05,
October 7, 2004.
an order regarding the establishment of domestic violence in the
workplace policies within the departments of state government
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a serious public policy concern of
the State of Maine requiring its participation in the coordinated
community response to support victims and hold abusers accountable; and
WHEREAS, employees and citizens of the State of Maine have a right
to be safe from harm; and
WHEREAS, the Maine Legislature has recognized an employer's
obligation to provide special assistance to victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behavior that
is used by a person against a current or former partner, or other
family or household member, to establish and maintain power or control
in the relationship; and
WHEREAS, for more than a decade fifty percent of the homicides in
Maine involved domestic violence; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a widespread community problem
affecting thousands of Maine families that extends beyond the family
and into all areas of society including the workplace; and
WHEREAS, abusers will often target victims at their workplaces,
endangering the safety and affecting the productivity of victims and
co-workers; and
WHEREAS, the State of Maine, as an employer, is additionally
affected by domestic violence in the loss of productivity, and
increased health care costs, absenteeism, and employee turnover; and
WHEREAS, the State of Maine, as an employer, should provide support
and assistance to employees who are victims of domestic violence and
should hold abusers accountable; and
WHEREAS, the State of Maine has a responsibility to model a
proactive response to domestic violence for other employers in the
State; and
WHEREAS, agencies of the State of Maine have partnered with the
Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence and the Maine Coalition
Against Sexual Assault to develop and promote workplace policies and
training for State employees; and
WHEREAS, the Maine Commission on Domestic and Sexual Abuse has
urged all employers in the State of Maine to develop and implement
workplace policies on domestic violence; and
WHEREAS, the State of Maine recognizes that employers can be
powerful allies to victims by creating a workplace that offers support,
information, and resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, John E. Baldacci, Governor of the State of
Maine, by the authority vested in me, do hereby order that:
1. For the purpose of this executive order, the following terms
shall have the following meanings:
Domestic violence: A pattern of coercive behavior that is used by a
person against family or household members to establish and maintain
power or control over the other party in the relationship. This
behavior may include physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional and
psychological intimidation, verbal abuse and threats, stalking,
isolation from friends and family, economic control and destruction of
personal property. Domestic violence occurs between people of all
racial, economic, educational, and religious backgrounds. It occurs in
heterosexual and same sex relationships, between married and unmarried
partners, between current and former partners, and between other family
and household members.
Sexual assault: An act of sexual violence whereby a party forces,
coerces, or manipulates another to participate in unwanted sexual
activity. This behavior may include stranger rape, date and
acquaintance rape, marital or partner rape, incest, child sexual abuse,
sexual contact, sexual harassment, ritual abuse, exposure and
voyeurism.
Stalking: Any conduct as defined in 17-A M.R.S.A. Sec. 210-A.
Abuser: An individual who commits an act of domestic violence.
Victim: An individual subjected to an act of domestic violence.
Workplace: An employee is considered to be in the workplace when
the employee is on duty, is traveling on behalf of the State, is in
state-owned or leased workspace, is using the facilities or services of
the State, is wearing a uniform, or is using a vehicle that is owned or
leased by the State or its agencies.
2. Each State agency convenes a diverse team of employees who will,
within the next year, develop a workplace domestic violence policy. The
team shall partner with the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence to
provide initial domestic violence training for the team and additional
guidance in the development of the policy.
3. Each State agency's domestic violence workplace policy:
a) Incorporates the above definitions of domestic violence, sexual
assault, stalking, abuser, victim, and workplace;
b) Clearly directs that the agency will not tolerate acts of
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking in the workplace,
including harassment or violent or threatening behavior that may result
in physical or emotional injury to any State employee while in State
offices, facilities, work sites, vehicles, or while conducting State
business;
c) Instructs employees on how to offer assistance to co-workers who
are domestic violence victims in an expedient and confidential manner;
d) Recognizes that victims of domestic violence may have
performance or conduct problems related to their victimization and
offers support and an opportunity to correct the problems;
e) Provides for assistance to victims to include at a minimum:
referrals to local domestic violence projects and the State's Employee
Assistance Program, and development of workplace safety plans that seek
to minimize the risks to the victims and other employees;
f) Recognizes the employer's obligation to grant reasonable and
necessary leave pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. Sec. 850;
g) Provides assistance to abusers to include at a minimum:
referrals to the State's Employee Assistance Program, and information
about local State certified batterer intervention programs;
h) Provides that corrective or disciplinary action may be taken
against State employees who: misuse State resources to perpetrate
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking; harass, threaten, or
commit an act of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking in the
workplace or while conducting State business; or are arrested,
convicted, or issued a civil order as a result of domestic violence
when such action has a nexus to their employment with the State;
i) Requires that all agency employees with supervisory
responsibility and any other designated individuals who will respond to
victims and abusers receive specialized training on best practices for
identifying and responding to domestic violence;
j) Includes a separate procedure which requires referral to the
sexual assault crisis and support centers for employees who have
experienced sexual assault or stalking;
k) Directs that, to the extent that sexual abuse or stalking is
perpetrated as part of domestic violence, employers should be prepared
to respond to it utilizing the domestic violence policy; and
l) Requires that the policy be distributed to all current employees
and to every new hire.
4. To the extent that an agency employs individuals who are
authorized to carry firearms as part of their job duties, the policy
shall include provisions addressing firearms.
5. Each State agency implements the workplace policy via employee
training on the policy delivered in partnership with the Maine
Coalition to End Domestic Violence. The training shall include, at a
minimum, information as to: the dynamics and effects of domestic
violence; available resources for victims and perpetrators; and how an
employee can assist a co-worker who is experiencing or perpetrating
domestic violence. The Bureau of Human Resources will provide training
support and coordinate with the Maine Coalition to End Domestic
Violence to make sample policies available for all agencies.
6. Each State agency provides for the conspicuous posting of
information about domestic violence and sexual assault and available
community resources.
7. Each State agency incorporates reference to the State of Maine
Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy, the State of
Maine Harassment Policy and the State of Maine E-Mail Usage and
Management Policy in its domestic violence in the workplace policy.
Each State agency is also directed to review existing personnel
policies and procedures to ensure they do not discriminate against
victims of domestic violence and are responsive to the needs of victims
of domestic violence.
The cost to State agencies for implementing the tasks included in
this Executive Order will be used from existing resources.
The provisions of this executive order are not intended to alter
any existing collective bargaining agreements or to supersede
applicable Federal or State law.
Effective Date
The effective date of this Executive Order is October 7, 2004.
John E. Baldacci, Governor
______
appendix b: departments, quasi-agencies, and organizations of state
government that participated in the initiative
Atlantic Salmon Commission
Department of Administrative and Financial Services
Department of Agriculture
Department of Conservation
Department of Corrections
Department of Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management
Department of Economic and Community Development
Department of Education
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Department of Labor
Department of Marine Resources
Department of Public Safety
Department of Transportation
Department of Professional and Financial Regulation
Finance Authority of Maine
Maine Arts Commission
Maine Historic Preservation
Maine State Housing Authority
Maine State Library
Maine State Museum
Maine Warden Service
Office of Health, Policy and Finance
Office of the Attorney General
Office of the Governor
Public Utilities Commission
State Planning Office
State Treasurer's Office
Worker's Compensation Board
APPENDIX C: IMPORTANT POINTS ON MAINE LAW
DID YOU KNOW? MAINE LAW CAN HELP EMPLOYERS ASSIST VICTIMS WHEN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE COMES TO WORK
Maine law protects employed victims of domestic violence through
Bureau of Labor Standards and Bureau of Unemployment Compensation
statutes. These laws are useful tools for employers when victims need
special assistance in the workplace.
Employers should ensure that their workplaces are in compliance
with these laws, and that victims of domestic violence are made aware
of the protections available to them.
Employment Leave for Victims of Violence
Title 26, Chapter 7, Subchapter 6-B, Sec. 850.
Employers must grant reasonable and necessary leave from work if an
employee or employee's daughter, son, parent, or spouse is a victim of
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
The employee can use this leave to prepare for and attend court
proceedings; receive medical treatment; or obtain necessary services to
remedy a crisis caused by domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking.
Exceptions to this would include the following: if the leave would
cause the employer to sustain undue hardship from the employee's
absence; if the request for leave is not communicated to the employer
within a reasonable time under the circumstances; or If the requested
leave is impractical, unreasonable, or unnecessary based on the facts
then known to the employer.
For more information go to ftp://ftp.state.me.us/pub/sos/cec/rcn/
apa/12/170/170c010.doc.
Unemployment Compensation
Title 26, Chapter 13, Sec. 1193, #1(A)(4).
Disqualification: An individual who voluntarily leaves work may not
be disqualified from receiving benefits if the leaving was necessary to
protect the claimant from domestic abuse and the claimant made all
reasonable efforts to preserve the employment.
For more information go to http://janus.state.me.us//legis/
statutes/26/title26sec1193.html.
Title 26, Chapter 13, Sec. 1043, #23(B)(3).
Misconduct: Misconduct may not be found solely on actions taken by
the employee that were necessary to protect the claimant or an
immediate family member from domestic violence if the employee made all
reasonable efforts to preserve the employment.
For more information go to http://janus.state.me.us//legis/
statufes/26/title26sec1043.html.
Please note: Unemployment claims resulting from domestic violence
are charged to the general unemployment fund, not to the individual
business from which the worker was employed. For more information
contact the Maine Unemployment Benefits Division at (207) 287 3805. To
reach an Unemployment Call Center call 1 800 593 7660 or TTY, 1 888
457 8884.
______
Department of Labor,
Augusta, ME 04330,
April 19, 2007.
Hon. Johnny Isakson,
120 Russell Senate Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: Maine's Penalty for Violating the Victim Leave Law
Dear Senator Isakson: I enjoyed testifying on Tuesday before the
HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety at the hearing
``Too Much, Too Long?: Domestic Violence in the Workplace.'' Thank you
very much for your work and attention to this important topic.
You had asked me during the hearing what the penalties in Maine are
for violating our law providing unpaid leave for victims of domestic
violence. I believe I misspoke when I responded and want to be sure
that I give you the correct information. In Maine we have a modest
penalty for violating this law of $200 per violation.
Thank you, again, for your concern about domestic violence in the
workplace. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Laura A. Fortman,
Commissioner.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. All of your testimony
will be part of the record. Thank you very much.
Ms. Cade.
STATEMENT OF YVETTE CADE, SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE
WORKPLACE, TEMPLE HILLS, MARYLAND
Ms. Cade. Thank you. I'd like to begin by thanking my
family for all the support they have given me throughout my
life and during this recovery period since October 10, 2005.
I'm very honored to appear here today and I'm grateful to
Senator Murray and the members and staff of this Senate HELP
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety for inviting me
to testify. I want to begin by pointing out the obvious. What
happened to me is extreme but as these events of recent weeks
suggest, it is by no means isolated.
In the last month, three women from different parts of the
country--one was a State employee, one was a national hotel
chain employee and one was a local business, were murdered in
their workplaces by abusive former partners. Although what
happened to me is extreme, I am fortunate that I survived to
tell the story of what happened to me in the hope that things
could be different for other victims.
I hope that you will join me in working to ensure that no
more women have to die needless and senseless deaths in their
workplaces or go to work in fear that something may happen to
them at work, as they are struggling to be a good and
productive employee and to support themselves and their
families.
Those of you who are familiar with my story know that when
the newspaper began covering it, it was not a case of workplace
violence. At that stage in September 2005, I was seeking to
have Judge Richard Palumbo of Prince George's County, Maryland
District Court, keep in place the protective order that I had
obtained against my estranged husband in July of the same year.
After treating me shamefully and suggesting that I should
obtain marriage counseling, I had made it clear to the judge
that my husband was violating the protective order, that I had
no interest in reconciling with him and wanted an absolute
divorce. Judge Palumbo rescinded my protective order.
What happened less than a month later is the reason I am
appearing before you today. In the fall of 2005, I was employed
by T-Mobile and was working at a store in Clinton, Maryland. I
had notified my employers during the summer of my concerns
about my husband and informed them I had a protective order.
They were not supportive. My concerns were not taken seriously.
When my then-husband walked in, I was agitated because I
had told him to stay away from me. I was actually a short
distance from him. I was picking up paper off the printer. I
went and sat down. He approached me and began pouring some sort
of liquid from a Sprite bottle on me. Initially, I thought that
he was just trying to humiliate me. I threw my hands in the
air, trying to protect my face and got up and ran out the back
of the store.
He chased me and I ran out the back door. He caught me and
stomped on my foot, crushing every bone in it. I fell to my
knees and that's when I felt intense heat on my back. I was on
fire.
I knew at that point I was on fire. I got up, ran back in
the store as fast as I could. I got to the sink and stood and
took the sprayer off the sink and began spraying my face. I
felt my skin slipping, dripping. The flames covered my entire
face so I was just like a great ball of fire. From a little
below my waist, part of my right leg on up was completely
engulfed in flames. I had burns on my right leg, my behind,
stomach, chest, my back--both arms and my face. I've lost parts
of my ears and my chin was actually melted. My lip was melted
to my chin. So there was a lot of damage.
I suffered third degree burns over 60 percent of my body
and my initial hospital stay lasted 92 days. But I am a
survivor. Since October 2005, I survived numerous surgeries.
Moving on, I think employers have a significant role to
play in helping victims of domestic violence obtain and
maintain their independence from their abusive partners. I will
admit that I have found the response of my employer, T-Mobile,
to be sometimes frustrating and other times, depressing.
Employers stand to benefit greatly from supporting many of
their victims. In my 3 years at
T-Mobile, I was top sales representative for 2 years. In many
cases, there is a great value to supporting a good employee.
Not only are they productive and good for the bottom line,
employers avoid recruiting and retaining costs when they
support the employees they already have.
The Congress took an important first step in acknowledging
this when they reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act in
December 2005. One of the new programs that was created is this
resource engine to help learn how to support their employees.
Let me close repeating that as I said earlier, my story is
extreme but I was fortunate enough to survive. Not every one is
as fortunate as I have been, as we have been reminded recently
but regardless of how severe the issue is--it could be someone
who repeatedly calls the victim on the job and often checking
their whereabouts.
I hope that you will do all in your power to make sure that
others don't have to continue to confront the same obstacles
that I have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cade follows:]
Prepared Statement of Yvette Cade
I'd like to begin by thanking my family for all the support they've
given me throughout my life and during this recovery period since
October 2005. I am very honored to appear here today, and am grateful
to Senator Murray and the members and staff of the Senate HELP
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety for inviting me to
testify and to submit this written testimony.
I want to begin by pointing out the obvious: what happened to me is
extreme, but as the events of recent weeks suggest, it is by no means
isolated. In the last month, three women from different parts of the
country, one with a State employer, one with a national hotel chain
employer, and one with a local business, were murdered in their
workplaces by abusive former partners. So although what happened to me
is extreme, I am fortunate. I survived to tell the story of what
happened to me in hopes that things could be different for other
victims. I hope that you will join me in working to ensure that no more
women have to die needless and senseless deaths in their workplaces.
Those of you who are familiar with my story know that when the
newspapers began covering it, it was not a case of workplace violence.
At that stage, in September 2005, I was seeking to have Judge Richard
Palumbo of the Prince Georges County, Maryland District Court keep in
place the protection order that I had obtained against my estranged
husband in July of the same year. After treating me shamefully, and
suggesting that I should obtain marriage counseling (I had made it
clear to the judge that my husband was violating the protection order,
that I had no interest in reconciling with him, and that I wanted a
divorce), Judge Palumbo rescinded my protection order. What happened
less than a month later is the reason I am appearing before you today.
In the fall of 2005, I was employed by T-Mobile and was working in
a store in Clinton, Maryland. I had notified my employers during that
summer of my concerns about my husband and informed them that I had a
protective order. They were not supportive; my concerns were not taken
seriously. When my then-husband walked in, I was agitated because I had
told him to stay away from me. I was actually a short distance from
him, and was picking up paper off the printer. I went and sat down, and
he approached me and began pouring some sort of liquid from a Sprite
bottle on me. Initially, I thought that he was just trying to humiliate
me. I threw my hands in the air, trying to protect my face. And I got
up and ran to the back of the store. He chased me, and I ran out the
back door. He caught me, and stomped on my foot, crushing all the bones
in it. I fell to my knees, and that's when I felt this intense heat on
my back, and I knew at that point, that I was on fire.
I got up, ran back into the store as fast as I could. I got to the
sink. And I took the sprayer off the sink and began spraying my face. I
felt my skin, dripping. The flames covered my face entirely so I was
just like a great, big ball of fire. From a little below my waist, part
on my right leg on up was completely engulfed in flames. So I have
burns on my right leg, my behind, stomach, chest area, my back, both
arms and my face. I've lost parts of my ears, and my chin was actually
melted. My lip was actually melted to my chin. So there was a lot of
damage. I suffered third degree burns over 60 percent of my body, and
my initial hospital stay lasted 92 days, but I am a survivor.
Since October 2005, I have survived numerous surgeries, and though
I still have many more on the horizon, I am recuperating well at home.
I am slowly making progress. My main concern is for my family and
making sure that I stay strong and focused on moving forward. I am very
thankful and appreciative of all the support I have received from
everyone. The thoughts, prayers, and donations I have received were and
are deeply appreciated by me and my entire family.
I think that employers have a significant role to play in helping
victims of domestic and sexual violence obtain and maintain their
independence from abusive partners. I will admit that I have found the
response of my employer, T-Mobile to be at some times frustrating, and
at others, depressing. Employers stand to benefit greatly from
supporting many of their employee victims. In my 3 years at T-Mobile I
was top sales representative for 2 years. In many cases there is great
value to supporting a good employee. Not only are they productive, and
good for the bottom line, employers avoid recruiting and retraining
costs when they support the employees they already have.
The Congress took an important first step in acknowledging this
when they reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act in December 2005.
One of the new programs that was created is a resource center to help
employers learn how to support their employees, and provide them with
model policies and other materials. Hopefully, these materials will
help employers understand how to respond and support their employees
who have protection orders, although that did not happen for me. This
resource center is a terrific first step, and I hope that it will
receive funding. But more remains to be done, and I hope this Congress
will continue to lead the way to ensuring that victims of domestic and
sexual violence, regardless of where they live, will enjoy the same
level of security with regard to domestic and sexual violence in the
workplace.
First of all, no one should be fired from their job just because
they are a victim of domestic or sexual violence. This will only cause
them to remain dependent on the abuser and mired in a situation that,
as far as the victim is concerned, is very likely to deteriorate and to
be dangerous for herself and her children.
Second, to the extent that victims need a small amount of time off
to work with an advocate to ensure their safety, to change their locks,
and/or get a protection order, they should be able to take that needed
time, and to know that their jobs are secure and will be waiting for
them. Third, if someone has to leave a job because of domestic or
sexual violence suffered by themselves or a family member, they should
be able to receive unemployment insurance. Each of these three
protections is available in some States, but rarely are they all
available. I worked for a national company, T-Mobile. If I had worked
in Washington, DC., unemployment insurance would have been available to
me, but because I work in Maryland, it is not. It is not fair that
access to such basic protections should depend on where a victim lives.
Every victim deserves a high level of protection. Congress should make
sure that every victim of domestic or sexual violence, no matter where
she lives, can have the support of her employer for addressing her
situation and access to unemployment benefits if she needs to leave a
job.
Finally, although I know that this committee is focused on
employment issues, I would like to say a word in support of anti-
bullying programs. I am particularly supportive of them and feel that
making them widely available in school settings will go far in teaching
young men and women how to behave appropriately in intimate
relationships. If you teach young people about appropriate behavior
early, before they begin to engage in destructive patterns that
ultimately lead to violence and abusive behavior, everyone will benefit
in the long run. At this point, my medical bills are in excess of $1
million. Surely an investment in prevention is much better than paying
a heavier price later with the involvement of the health care, criminal
justice and other systems.
For obvious reasons, I also hope the Congress will also fund and
support training for judges so that no one else has to endure the type
of treatment that I did at the hands of someone who could have done so
much to help me escape the abusive situation in which I found myself.
When your colleague in the House, Judge Ted Poe was interviewed about
my case he said, ``in these types of cases, we know that abusers do not
change--and [that Judge Palumbo] ought to have granted [my request to
have the protection order stay in place].'' Judge Palumbo's actions
were unconscionable. By improperly rescinding the protective order,
Judge Palumbo gave my abuser the courage and confidence to approach
me--a decision that, as you know, had disastrous results. But the
justice system failed to ensure that similar misconduct does not happen
in the future. After public outcry over his actions, Judge Palumbo
retired. The Maryland Judicial Disabilities Commission then decided
that charges concerning his misconduct should be dropped. Judge Palumbo
was permitted to retire with his pension and full State benefits.
Judges need to be held responsible for their actions. When justice is
not served, all citizens suffer.
Let me close by repeating something that I said earlier: my story
is extreme, but I was fortunate enough to survive. Not everyone is so
fortunate as we have been reminded recently. But regardless of how
severe the issue is--and it could be someone who repeatedly calls the
victim on the job, stops by often to check on their whereabouts, or who
is constantly e-mailing from their job--workplace violence, and the
potential for it is a serious matter. I hope that you will do all in
your power to make sure that others do not continue to confront the
same obstacles that I did.
Senator Murray. Ms. Cade, thank you very, very much for
your very compelling story and I know you have a number of
suggestions in your written testimony that we will keep as part
of the record and I really appreciate your thoughts and all of
what you've given us to ponder. Thank you very much.
Ms. Cade. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Ms. Willman.
STATEMENT OF SUE K. WILLMAN, ATTORNEY, SPENCER FANE BRITT AND
BROWNE, LLP, ON BEHALF OF SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
Ms. Willman. Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member Isakson and
other distinguished Members of Congress who are present, my
name is Sue Willman. I am an employment attorney with the Law
Firm of Spencer Fane Britt and Browne in Kansas City. I commend
the subcommittee for holding this hearing on domestic violence
in the workplace and I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
I have over 30 years of experience, both as an employment
lawyer and as a human resource professional. I have spent a
good part of my career advising employers on issues relating to
leave in the workplace and on domestic violence situations.
I am also a certified human resource professional and I
appear today on behalf of the Society for Human Resource
Management, also known as SHRM. SHRM is the world's largest
organization devoted to human resource management with over
217,000 members in the world. It is well positioned to provide
insight on the impact of domestic violence in the workplace as
well as the role of employers in responding to this issue.
I also approach this issue from a personal perspective. I
am a survivor of domestic violence, having divorced my first
husband in 1978, after 3 years of physical abuse, followed by
stalking, death threats and an attempt on my life. During the
last 15 years, I have been a strong supporter of domestic
violence prevention and intervention. I have served on the
Board of Directors for Safe Home, Inc., which is a shelter for
battered women in the Kansas City area. I have also served on
the Board of Directors for the Domestic Violence Network, which
is a coalition of shelters and other organizations in Kansas
City, devoted to addressing domestic violence issues.
With nearly one in three women reporting abuse at some time
in their lives, domestic violence is likely to affect most
workplaces. As a result, employers have begun to recognize its
impact. Many employers have been leaders in the fight against
domestic violence and have long provided support and resources
to victims.
At the same time, employers understand there is no one-
size-fits-all approach when domestic violence finds its way
into the workplace. Each situation has to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and numerous factors have to be taken into
account.
All of us here recognize the importance of assisting
victims of domestic violence as they find the path to survivor
status. But none of us should be advocating Federal employment
legislation without first examining the issue from all
perspectives, including the perspectives of the victim and the
employer.
With regard to prior legislation introduced by Senator
Murray as well as perhaps the most recent bill that will be
introduced, which I have not yet had the pleasure of reading,
there are four key issues that must be taken into account.
First, any such legislation in the past that has been
proposed has been based on the assumption that employers are
not adequately addressing domestic violence in the workplace.
In my experience, that is not the case. Overall, I find
employers to be extremely compassionate about these situations
and very willing to voluntarily provide reasonable assistance,
including time off from work.
I have also not seen any statistics indicating that
employers are refusing to assist victims. In the absence of any
reliable data demonstrating that employers are regularly
interfering or discriminating against a victim and their
efforts to leave an abusive situation, a legislative mandate is
simply not warranted.
Second, any such legislation has primarily focused on
protecting individual victims of domestic violence and have
overlooked the inevitable workplace safety issues that will
arise and affect other employees. The victim's welfare is
required to be protected even at the risk of the safety of
other employees. Unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act,
prior legislation in this area includes no direct threat
defense when the domestic violence poses a significant risk of
substantial harm to the safety or health of the victim or other
employees.
A third area of concern is the questionable necessity of
the leave benefit provided in such legislation. There is no
data to suggest that current leave programs provided by
employers fail to provide adequate time off for victims of
domestic violence. Employers nationwide are already committed
to and actually providing on a voluntary basis, paid leave for
their employees, such as sick days, vacation, personal days and
short-term disability. In addition, employers also provide
additional unpaid leave under their FMLA, medical and personal
leave policies. Therefore, a Federal mandate requiring leave
for domestic violence is not necessary.
The fourth major concern I have had in the past with this
type of legislation has involved numerous implementation and
interpretation challenges. Many of these challenges are listed
in my written comments. A significant issue in the past has
been lack of coordination and confusion between the Safe Act,
the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, all of which could arguably apply.
While the purpose of the Safe Act is a laudable one but its
unintended consequences suggest that it is not the best
approach for helping victims of domestic violence. There are
too far better approaches.
First, encourage employers to develop best practices and
become trailblazers on this issue by providing incentives in
the form of Federal grants, tax credits, training programs,
initiatives where they are encouraged to partner with shelters
for battered women to get these women into the workplace.
Second, encourage collaborative efforts and joint programs
between employer organizations such as SHRM and advocacy groups
such as Legal Momentum so that all perspectives are taken into
account.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide my
perspective on an issue that is important to SHRM and to me
both personally and professionally. I look forward to answering
any questions you have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Willman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sue K. Willman
INTRODUCTION
Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member Isakson, distinguished members of
the committee, my name is Sue Willman, and I am an employment attorney
with the law firm of Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP. I commend the
subcommittee for holding this hearing on domestic violence in the
workplace, and appreciate the opportunity to testify. My comments will
focus on my experience with workplace violence and legislation that
Chairwoman Murray has introduced in previous congresses, known as the
Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act.
By way of introduction, I am a member of my law firm's labor and
employment practice group. I have over 30 years of experience both as
an employment lawyer and as a human resource (HR) professional, and
have spent a good part of my career advising employers on issues
relating to leave in the workplace, including the Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA).
I am also a certified human resource professional, and appear today
on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). SHRM is
the world's largest association devoted to human resource management.
Representing more than 210,000 individual members, the Society's
mission is to serve the needs of HR professionals by providing the most
essential and comprehensive resources available. As an influential
voice, the Society's mission is also to advance the human resource
profession to ensure that HR is recognized as an essential partner in
developing and executing organizational strategy. Founded in 1948, SHRM
currently has more than 550 affiliated chapters within the United
States and members in more than 100 countries.
SHRM is well positioned to provide insight on the impact of
domestic violence in the workplace as well as the role of employers in
responding to this issue. HR professionals are responsible for
designing and implementing employee benefit programs that meet the
needs of workers and contribute to organizational success. HR
professionals strive to offer the right mix of benefits to attract and
retain top performers while balancing the increasing costs of offering
these benefits. Organizations also depend on their respective HR
departments to craft policies that help to ensure a safe workplace.
I also approach this issue from a unique perspective, from that of
a survivor of domestic violence. I am one of the nearly one-third of
American women who report being physically or sexually abused by a
husband or boyfriend at some time in their lives.\1\ I divorced my
first husband in 1978, after 3 years of physical abuse. Wanting to help
other women make the journey from victim to survivor, I have served the
last 15 years on the Board of Directors for both Safehome, Inc., a
shelter for battered women in Kansas City, and the Domestic Violence
Network, a coalition of shelters and organizations devoted to
preventing domestic violence. These organizations provide invaluable
support and education to countless women nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
(2000). Intimate Partner Violence. NCJ 178247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As employment counsel to hundreds of employers, I have provided
legal advice on domestic violence situations for over 10 years. Such
counsel has included drafting workplace domestic violence policies and
conducting training on best practices for dealing with domestic
violence situations at work, including stalking of employees, threats
by abusers against employees, and frequent requests for time off. I
have also developed a web-based training program on workplace violence
for my clients.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
As a result of my background and experiences, I am extremely
sensitive to the perspective of domestic violence victims. With nearly
one in three women reporting abuse at some time in their lives,
domestic violence is likely to affect most workplaces. Indeed, I
believe employers are legitimately concerned about harmful domestic
relationships spilling over into the workplace as the number of these
incidents continues to grow.
Domestic violence can affect an organization in numerous ways.
Certainly, violence in the workplace exposes employees to physical
harm, but even the threat of violence can be detrimental to employee
output, attendance, morale, well-being, and retention. In a survey of
Fortune 1000 companies, 49 percent of corporate leaders said domestic
violence had a harmful effect on their company's productivity; 47
percent said it had a harmful effect on attendance; and 44 percent said
it had a harmful effect on health care costs. For all these reasons,
workplace violence can negatively affect employers' bottom lines. In
2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated
domestic/intimate partner violence cost employers $727.8 million in
lost productivity.
Not only does domestic violence affect a victim at work, domestic
violence often infiltrates a workplace to the point of placing the
safety of other employees in jeopardy. Studies of survivors (cited by
the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence) indicate that 67 percent of
their abusers came to the victims' workplaces. A recent study in Maine
found that 78 percent of surveyed perpetrators used the workplace to
check up on, pressure, threaten, or express anger or remorse to their
victims. In addition, the SAFE Act states that 94 percent of corporate
security and safety directors at companies nationwide rank domestic
violence as a ``high security'' concern, and for good reason, as
explained in the following paragraph.
It is not unusual for abusers to threaten the safety of other
employees in an effort to control, gain access to, and/or determine the
whereabouts of the victim. It is also not unusual for the employer and
other employees to become targets of the abuser's violence if the
abuser perceives them as providing assistance or protection to the
victim. Any measures to address domestic violence in the workplace must
appropriately balance the victim's individual interests with the rights
of all employees to work in a safe environment.
One of the many situations in which I participated as a domestic
violence prevention team member involved a female abuser who threatened
the life of a male employee (her significant other) and other employees
who refused to disclose his whereabouts or permit her to speak with him
by phone at work. This went on for several weeks, during which time the
employer adjusted his work schedule, placed him on paid leave, required
that he obtain a restraining order, and imposed other conditions to
protect him and the workforce. Notwithstanding these efforts, she
persisted in stalking him at work. In the meantime, and while the
employer was assisting the victim, he, unbeknownst to the employer,
disclosed to her where he was staying while on leave and advised her of
all efforts the employer made to help him. She then became extremely
angry at the employer for interfering and began making threats,
including death threats, against other employees (the receptionist, his
supervisor and others), which led the employer to place the
receptionist on paid leave in order to protect her. The abuser then
showed up on the premises with a loaded gun and threatened to kill
employees if her significant other did not come out to see her, while
her four small children were in her car observing. Although the
employee had obtained a restraining order against her, and although the
police were called to subdue the situation and arrest her, she posted
bail and later was involved in a drive-by shooting at the victim's
resident. She ultimately spent time in jail, but was later released and
resumed her relationship with this gentleman, in spite of all the
efforts the employer had made to protect him and other employees.
Thereafter, the relationship would become volatile (violence and
threats) again. The employer finally determined that the only way to
protect the safety of the entire workforce was to terminate his
employment.
EMPLOYER RESPONSE
Over the last decade, employers have begun to recognize the impact
domestic violence has on the workplace and have actively sought to
mitigate its potential effect on their organization. Certainly,
progress varies across the professional landscape; while some employers
are just starting to develop and implement workplace violence programs,
other organizations have been leaders in the fight against domestic
violence and have long provided support and resources to victims. The
SHRM Knowledge Center is frequently contacted in regards to issues
relating to domestic violence in the workplace. Specifically, HR
professionals are interested in learning how to implement successful
workplace policies, make available victim referral services, and
establish workplace security measures around workplace violence events.
SHRM strongly believes that every employee is entitled to a safe
work environment, and HR professionals play a critical role in ensuring
their organizations provide necessary support. HR professionals can
help their organizations create and foster a culture that promotes
diversity, effective communication and the dignity and respect of all
employees.
To reinforce this culture, it is SHRM's view that organizations
need domestic violence policies that ensure a consistent and uniform
organizational response to domestic violence and limit the occurrence
of violent incidents. Employers need policies that outline ways the
organization can support victims and the safety of all employees. Once
a policy is in place, an employer must make sure all employees are
aware of it through communication, training and enforcement. To reduce
violence at the workplace, it is critical that employers create
workplaces where employees will feel free to come forward by ensuring
their situation is handled in a sensitive and confidential manner.
Progressive employers who have addressed this issue realize the
complexities of dealing with domestic violence in the workplace. They
understand there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to providing
assistance when domestic violence finds its way into the workplace.
Each situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Employers
have established multi-disciplinary teams that are charged with
evaluating workplace violence issues as they arise. These teams are
normally comprised of human resource, security, safety, legal, and
operations personnel who have been trained in evaluating and handling
workplace violence situations. These teams often have outside
consultants on call, such as psychologists and law enforcement
personnel who have expertise in domestic violence evaluation and
intervention.
When these teams evaluate domestic violence situations, the first
issue is to assess whether the domestic violence has infiltrated the
workplace, and if not, the likelihood that it might. The next step is
to assess the risk to the workplace as a whole. Numerous factors must
be taken into account. These factors include: (1) whether the abuser
has visited the employer's premises; (2) the abuser's behavior while on
any of the employer's property (including parking lots, etc.); (3)
whether the abuser has been contacting the victim at work; (4) the
nature of any communications the abuser has had with the victim at
work; (5) whether the abuser has threatened or attempted to penetrate
the employer's security measures; (6) whether the abuser has threatened
other employees or the employer's property; (7) whether the victim has
obtained a restraining order; (8) whether the victim is seeking
assistance from a lawyer, the courts, domestic violence advocates, a
therapist, and other resources; (9) whether the abuser has previously
caused physical harm to the victim; (10) whether any efforts by the
employer to assist the victim will increase the likelihood, nature, or
extent of violence in the workplace; (11) whether the victim has
children who are also at risk; and (12) whether the victim will fully
cooperate and not undermine any assistance the employer provides.
Psychological experts on domestic violence have advised employers
that they must be careful about the steps they take to assist victims
when domestic violence finds its way into the workplace. Even seemingly
helpful measures such as providing time off to the victim, changing the
victim's telephone extension, refusing to allow the abuser to speak
with the victim by telephone, requiring the victim to obtain a
restraining order, and refusing to tell the abuser whether the victim
is or is not at work can jeopardize the safety of the entire workforce.
Abusers, who have anger and control problems, often perceive such
efforts as a conspiracy between the employer and the victim. They
become frustrated, angry, and feel out of control when employers make
it difficult for them to access their victims. Unfortunately, and in
too many cases, the employer and other employees unwittingly become
additional targets of violence because of their good faith efforts to
help or protect the victim.
As I mentioned earlier, I have advised numerous employers on
workplace violence and workplace domestic violence situations. I have
found employers to be extremely compassionate about the challenges
facing victims. I have also found them to be more than willing to
provide reasonable assistance to victims (including reasonable time off
from work), without a government mandate, as long as the assistance did
not jeopardize the safety of the rest of the workforce. In fact, a new
Federal mandate, as proposed in the SAFE Act, could prevent an employer
from properly assessing and reacting to the unique situation they are
facing.
I encourage employers and my clients to adopt voluntary policies to
address domestic violence in the workplace, as employers need
flexibility when providing any particular measures or benefits when
domestic violence becomes a workplace issue. Every situation has to be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with safety of the entire workforce
being the top priority.
I am not familiar with any data that demonstrates that employees
have been discriminated against by their employers because of their
domestic violence situations or that employers are regularly
terminating their employment because of the domestic violence. Many of
the statistics surrounding the issue of domestic violence come from
victim studies. To serve as a useful guide for employers and public
policy makers, this information must be combined with the experience of
employers and experts on the psychological and safety aspects of
domestic violence. Because of the many factors that must be considered
when domestic violence enters the workplace, Congress would be remiss
in mandating any measures unless adequate research examining the total
picture has been done.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
studied the issue of workplace violence for many years. However, to
date, OSHA has only issued guidelines and elected not to issue
regulations because of the difficulty in mandating specific standards
when there are no easy answers, many factors are involved, and there is
no perfect solution.
Before any Federal employment legislation is considered, the
government should thoroughly research best practices already utilized
by employers to address domestic violence situations, provide
guidelines to employers on how to assess workplace risks of domestic
violence, encourage employers to provide victims with referrals and
resource materials, encourage employers to take steps to increase
workforce awareness of domestic violence issues, and consult with
psychological and law enforcement experts on the risks of well-
intentioned intervention by employers.
GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE SAFE ACT
The SAFE Act incorporates concepts from the Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and various Federal laws on domestic violence
(such as the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and the Violence
Against Women Act). It gives enforcement power to the Department of
Labor (DOL), rather than the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) or OSHA, who have far more familiarity and expertise in dealing
with employment discrimination and safety issues.
SHRM is concerned that the legislation primarily focuses on
protecting individual victims of domestic violence and ignores the
inevitable workplace safety issues that will arise and affect other
employees and entire workforces. SHRM believes that there needs to be a
balance between the interests of a victim and the welfare of all other
employees who, due to no fault of their own, often become
unintentional, additional victims of the domestic violence.
The other major challenge with the SAFE Act involves numerous
implementation and interpretation challenges. In an effort to protect
victims, it overlooks the realities of the workplace and the
difficulties that employers will have in administering its provisions.
SHRM also has concerns with the leave benefit provisions of the
legislation. Both of these issues are addressed later in these comments
LEAVE BENEFITS
The SAFE Act would provide a Federal entitlement to workers to
emergency leave in the event of domestic or sexual violence. As I
understand it, one of the purposes of the SAFE Act is to allow victims
of domestic violence to take time off from work to make court
appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning.
However, I question the necessity of a Federal requirement that
employers provide an entirely new category of leave when employees
virtually always have available other types of leave.
There are no data to suggest that current leave programs fail to
provide adequate time off for victims of domestic violence. Employers
nationwide are committed to providing voluntary paid leave to their
employees because offering competitive workplace benefits allows
employers to increase employee morale, retention, and productivity, all
of which are crucial elements to organizational success.
In fact, a majority of employees view paid time off as one of the
more important benefits an employer can offer. For example, employee
benefits were cited as the second-most important recruitment and
retention factor behind only compensation in the 2005/2006 SHRM Job
Satisfaction Survey Report. To compete for talent, most employers
currently provide voluntary paid vacation, paid sick days, paid
personal days, paid time-off (PTO) plans and liberal attendance
policies. These benefits come at a significant cost to employers, as
roughly 31 percent of payroll is spent on benefits (both voluntary and
involuntary benefits). Moreover, the cost of these voluntary benefits
increased by 29 percent in 2006 over the previous year.\2\ Even with
these benefit cost increases, employers continue to offer these
benefits because they are committed to helping their employees balance
the demands of both their work and personal lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2006 SHRM Benefits Survey Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many employers also offer nontraditional scheduling options to help
accommodate employees' work/life balance. According to the 2006 SHRM
Benefits Survey Report, 35 percent of organizations allow for
compressed workweeks, where full-time employees are allowed to work
longer days for part of a week or pay period in exchange for shorter
days or a day off during the same period. Such scheduling benefits give
another dimension of flexibility to employees who are dealing with
domestic violence issues.
Since many employers already offer paid leave voluntarily to their
employees, a Federal mandate requiring leave for domestic violence
could have the opposite effect of its intention. It is likely that some
employers would be forced to reduce existing employee benefits in order
to comply with a new Federal standard for domestic violence-related
leave. In this way, any Federal initiative that limits employer
flexibility tends to work against employees. This reality has been
well-documented in several congressional hearings since enactment of
the Family and Medical Leave Act. Employers that provided generous paid
leave benefits prior to the FMLA's enactment have been impacted the
most by the act's provisions. The end result has been more
organizations rethinking their existing sick leave programs and the
voluntary expansion of paid leave policies. Adding a new type of leave
system will only heighten this concern, and will discourage employers
from implementing additional improvements in their paid leave programs.
Moreover, under current law, employees already have access to job-
protected leave under the FMLA, which was established to assist
employees in balancing their work and family life. The law guarantees
eligible employees 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month
period for the birth or adoption of a child or for an employee's
serious medical condition or to care for a parent or child. Some States
have additional family and medical leave requirements as well. Federal
law does not require FMLA leave to be paid, but 32 percent of HR
professionals responding to the 2006 SHRM Benefits Survey Report
indicated that their organizations did offer some paid family leave.
Twenty-seven percent of HR professionals reported that their
organizations offered family leave above required Federal FMLA leave,
and 25 percent offered family leave above required State FMLA leave.
The leave benefits proposed in the SAFE Act provide for six (6)
weeks of time off. This time off is in addition to any FMLA leave
benefits to which the employee is entitled. There is no requirement
that these 6 weeks run concurrently with FMLA leave. Being the victim
of domestic violence is emotionally and psychologically traumatic, and
as a practical matter, it is highly likely that the situation would
qualify as a serious health condition under the FMLA, allowing the
victim to take up to 12 weeks of leave.
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
The legislation not only proposes that employers provide 6 weeks of
time off, it also requires unemployment benefits for victims of
domestic violence who are separated from employment ``due to
circumstances resulting from the individual's experience of domestic
violence.'' There is no requirement that the victim must actually
remove himself/herself from the abuser's household. SHRM is concerned
that language in the SAFE Act would allow an abuser to manipulate the
victim by forcing a victim to quit his/her job and stay home (in the
abuser's household) while collecting unemployment compensation at the
same time. Employers should not be required to fund unemployment
benefits when the victim has not taken steps to actually remove
himself/herself from the abusive situation.
DISCRIMINATION AND ACCOMMODATION BENEFITS
The discrimination provisions in the legislation prohibit
discrimination because an applicant or employee: (1) is or is perceived
to be a victim of domestic violence; (2) participates in legal
proceedings related to the domestic violence; or (3) requests an
accommodation to increase his/her personal safety in the workplace. As
a result, an employer would also have a ``duty to reasonably
accommodate'' the employee. However, unlike the ADA, the legislation
does not provide a process to engage the employee to determine what
type of accommodation is necessary. If the employer requires the
employee to take a leave of absence because the abuser is harassing or
stalking the employee at work, and if the employee refuses to do so, it
could be considered a discriminatory practice. If the employer requires
the employee to adjust his/her work schedule and the employee refuses,
it could be considered discrimination if the employer insists upon it.
If the employer refuses to install additional locks or other security
measures, it could be considered discrimination. Unlike the ADA, the
SAFE Act does not require an interactive process for evaluating
accommodations.
More significantly, the SAFE Act specifically states that:
``an employer shall not . . . discharge . . . or otherwise
discriminate against any individual . . . because the workplace
is disrupted or threatened by the action of a person whom the
individual states has committed or threatened to commit
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking
against the individual, or the individual's family or household
member.''
This language raises serious concerns about an employer's ability
to ensure a safe workplace. For example, consider the situation in
which an abuser has threatened to kill other employees because they
will not disclose the whereabouts of the victim or will not provide
telephonic or in person access to the victim. In this situation, the
welfare of other employees is certainly being threatened, but under the
SAFE Act, employers would be prohibited from terminating or placing on
administrative leave the employment of the victim, even when such
termination might be the only way to remove the safety risk from the
workplace.
IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS
I understand the desire of members of the subcommittee to help
victims of domestic violence. Although well-intentioned, the SAFE Act
includes a host of broadly based employment-related provisions that
would negatively impact employers. Moreover, these provisions conflict
with other Federal and State employment laws, which will cause
confusion for both employers and employees. In particular, the bill
would invite confusion with the FMLA and State FMLA laws.
The SAFE Act would apply to employers with as few as 15 employees.
The bill would be a monumental new requirement on small employers that
are not currently covered under the FMLA. Also, unlike the FMLA, there
is no service eligibility requirement under the SAFE Act, so an
employee who has been with an organization even 1 day would be eligible
for the 30 days of leave, and all part-time employees are presumably
covered under the proposed legislation as well.
Employers would face many implementation and interpretation
problems if the SAFE Act were enacted. I have outlined a number of
these issues below.
New Federal Leave Statute.--The SAFE Act proposes an entirely new
Federal leave statute for addressing employees, or employees' family
members, who are victims of domestic violence. The leave provisions
entitle employed victims of domestic or sexual violence to take 30 days
(6 workweeks) of leave in any 12-month period to seek medical help,
legal assistance, counseling, safety planning, and other assistance. A
victim of the kind of domestic violence contemplated by the proposal is
under substantial personal stress that normally results in one or more
psychological conditions (such as post-traumatic stress syndrome,
battered woman syndrome, startle response syndrome, and a host of other
related conditions). These conditions would, in all likelihood, qualify
as a psychological serious health condition under the FMLA. Therefore,
the FMLA already provides adequate leave.
Impact on Small Employers.--The SAFE Act would apply to employers
with 15 or more employees, placing significant new requirements on
small employers that are not currently covered under the FMLA. Instead
of burdening small employers, Congress might consider incentives for
employers to provide additional resources or benefits to employees who
may be victims of domestic violence.
Coordination with Other Laws.--Many of the SAFE Act provisions are
not coordinated with other Federal and State employment laws, which
will cause confusion for both employers and employees. Most notably,
they are not coordinated with the FMLA or the ADA, or OSHA. They will
be administered by the DOL, rather than EEOC or OSHA who have far more
experience with discrimination and accommodation issues.
Interaction with Other Laws.--The psychological condition of the
victim could potentially qualify as a ``serious health condition''
under the FMLA and a ``disability'' under the ADA. This invites
confusion as to which law will apply and how they will relate to each
other. For example, there is no requirement that domestic violence
leave run concurrently with FMLA, when the leave would in all
likelihood qualify as FMLA leave. The bottom line is that the SAFE Act
expands the FMLA entitlement from 12 weeks to 18 weeks when the
additional 30 days of domestic violence leave is added to it.
Furthermore, an employee may elect to use paid time off while on
domestic violence leave, whereas under the FMLA, an employer can
require that paid time off be used. If the victim's psychological
condition qualifies for leave under the SAFE Act, FMLA, and ADA, which
law will take precedent? Can an individual circumvent each law by
stacking leave under each one of them?
Ambiguous Definitions.--Many of the definitions in the SAFE Act are
overly broad and could result in interpretation disputes.
1. ``Domestic Violence.''--The definition of ``domestic violence''
is not clear. The proposal adopts the definition in the Higher
Education Act amendments. However, that definition states that domestic
violence ``includes felony and misdemeanor crimes of violence.'' What
else does it include? Are employers supposed to become experts on what
constitutes ``crimes of violence?'' Must there actually be a conviction
for a crime of violence for the abuser's conduct to constitute
``domestic violence?''
2. ``Family Member.''--The definition of ``family member'' includes
the abuser and perhaps others not intended by the proposal. The abuser
could purportedly take leave to appear in court where he/she is being
prosecuted for a crime of domestic violence. The abuser could also take
leave for his/her own psychological condition to purportedly attend
counseling, but without any required proof that he/she used the time
off for that purpose, the abuser could just as likely use the leave to
harass, stalk, and threaten the victim.
3. ``Perceive Victims.''--The civil rights protections apply not
only to victims, their family and household members, but also to those
``perceived'' by the employer to be victims even though they had never
suffered any actual threats or violence. It is unclear what is meant by
``perceived'' or how it would have any relevance if the individual is
not actually a victim of domestic violence.
4. ``Victim.''--If co-workers become an unintended target of the
domestic violence, there is an argument that they may be covered by the
proposal as a ``victim.''
Accommodation Process.--Unlike the ADA, there is no requirement
that the victim engage in an interactive dialog with the employer to
identify and evaluate the effectiveness of possible accommodations.
There is no protection for employers should a victim refuse to
cooperate with any protective measures that the employer might feel
would be appropriate. For example, if the employer complies with a
request by a victim for a different telephone number at work so that
the abuser cannot reach him/her directly, and if the employee then
turns around and gives the new number to the abuser, should the
employer have any further duty to accommodate? Unfortunately, there is
no provision in the SAFE Act that would require the victim to have a
genuine and demonstrated commitment to improve his/her situation or to
refrain from contributing to workplace safety risks.
``Direct Threat''.--As mentioned earlier, an employer is basically
prohibited from protecting other employees who may be threatened by the
abuser. The victim's welfare is required to be protected even at the
risk of the safety of other employees. SHRM is concerned that the
legislation overlooks the effects that the domestic violence may have
on other employees, including their overall safety. Unlike the ADA, the
SAFE Act includes no ``direct threat'' defense when the domestic
violence poses a significant risk of substantial harm to the safety or
health of the victim or other employees. If the victim's safety or
other employees' safety is at risk, employers should be able to apply
the direct threat concept and defense. If the employee does not request
an accommodation or believes one is not necessary, and if the employer
disagrees because the victim's or other employees' safety is in
jeopardy, there is no mechanism that would allow an employer to force a
needed accommodation without potentially violating the proposal's anti-
discrimination provisions that protect ``perceived'' or actual victims.
Victim Commitment.--Another concern with the SAFE Act is that it
does not require that the victim have actually left the abusive
situation and does not require that the victim refrain from conduct
that would undermine any assistance provided by the employer. For
example, it will apply to victims who stay with their abusers. It is
not unusual for victims to pursue avenues for leaving the abusive
situation, but then return to the abuser. The bill would allow a victim
to prepare to leave over and over again without really doing so, year
after year. At some point, an employer should not be required to
provide further assistance if the victim is not genuinely committed to
permanently removing himself/herself from the abuse.
Certification Requirement.--Another practical concern with the
proposal is the certification requirement. The bill allows an employee
to simply provide a sworn statement of the employee that he/she is the
victim of domestic violence without any corroborating proof. The entire
leave entitlement rests solely on an employee's word or attestation
with no verification required from a third party. This raises concerns
about fraudulent uses of the leave, as there is nothing preventing
anyone from merely claiming he/she is a victim of abuse and receiving
the benefit.
Verification Requirement.--The proposed bill does not permit
employers to obtain verification that the employee actually spent his/
her time off for one of the stated purposes.
Timeframe.--There is no provision requiring that the domestic
violence be recent enough to justify any time off. An employee could
produce a police report of domestic violence that is 3 years old and
still be entitled to take the leave.
Confidentiality Requirement.--Information in connection with
domestic violence leave or reasonable accommodation of an employee's
circumstances must be maintained in the ``strictest'' confidence. Such
strict confidentiality is not necessarily in the victim's best
interests or the workforce's best interests. For example, if the
receptionist who answers all calls knows the victim is absent, but does
not know the victim has gone to court to get a restraining order or is
making arrangements to move to a shelter, the receptionist might
inadvertently take a call from the abuser and tell him/her that the
victim is not at work that day. The abuser would not have known it in
the absence of that disclosure, could get very angry, and could then
physically abuse the victim later for not being at work. Also for
example, an abuser may have told the victim that he/she would harm or
kill any co-worker who interferes with his/her attempts to reach the
victim at work. The victim passes along this threat to the HR manager
when the victim requests time off. Under the confidentiality provisions
of the bill, the HR manager would be prohibited from warning other
employees that their safety or lives might be in jeopardy. A better
approach would be to require a good faith effort by the employer to
maintain confidentiality to the extent reasonably possible under the
circumstances, but an employer should not be restricted from disclosing
information that it reasonably believes would be beneficial in
protecting the victim or other employees.
Purpose of Leave.--Under the proposal, there is a very real
possibility that an abuser could take advantage of the situation by
requiring his/her victim to take ``domestic violence leave'' to stay
home, go on vacation, or engage in other activities under a threat of
violence. Rather than risk physical abuse to self or perhaps his/her
children, the victim will be inclined to go along with the abuser's
wishes, knowing that the leave is job-protected. This will only
perpetuate the abusive situation, not end it as presumably intended by
the bill.
Service Eligibility Requirement.--Unlike the FMLA, there is no
service eligibility requirement under the SAFE Act, so an employee who
has been with an organization even 1 day would be eligible for the 30
days of leave.
``Hours Worked'' Eligibility Requirement.--Unlike the FMLA, there
is no ``hours worked'' prerequisite under the SAFE Act. All employees
would be covered, including temporary, seasonal, contract labor, and
part-time employees. An employer's efforts to adequately staff to meet
business needs can be easily undermined by an employee who simply hires
on, even as a temporary employee, knowing that he/she can immediately
request time off with guaranteed reinstatement rights.
Duration of Leave.--There is no basis or justification for
mandating six (6) weeks of leave, as opposed to a shorter amount of
leave, especially given that other leave programs are usually
available. Six weeks seems to be an excessive amount of leave and could
invite misuse of the leave provisions.
Intermittent Leave.--SHRM is also concerned that the proposal
stipulates that the 30 days of leave do not need to be taken
continuously, but can be taken on an intermittent basis and advance
notice is not required. Leave taken on an intermittent basis under the
FMLA has resulted in a host of challenges for HR professionals. It is
often difficult to track an employee's intermittent leave usage,
particularly when the employee takes leave in small increments. In
addition, unscheduled, intermittent leave poses staffing problems for
employers. When an employee takes unscheduled, intermittent leave with
little or no advance notice, organizations must cover the absent
employee's workload by reallocating the work to other employees. For
example, 88 percent of HR professionals responding to the 2007 SHRM
FMLA Survey Report indicated that during an employee's FMLA leave,
their location attends to the employee's workload by assigning work
temporarily to other employees.
Statute of Limitations.--The statute of limitations for filing a
claim under the SAFE Act is 2 years, even though it is only 300 days
maximum for discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, the ADEA, and
the ADA. This could suggest that discrimination based on domestic
violence is given more weight than discrimination based on sex, race,
national origin, religion, age, and disability.
Leave as an Accommodation.--In light of the fact that the
reasonable accommodation provisions require that a leave of absence be
considered as an accommodation, there is no reason to mandate 6 weeks
of leave. This creates an incredible inconsistency and could also be
interpreted to mean that more than 6 weeks of leave might be a
reasonable accommodation.
Unemployment Provisions.--The proof of domestic violence required
for unemployment purposes is inconsistent with the proof required for
the leave and discrimination portions of the proposal. Interestingly, a
State would not be required to merely accept a sworn statement by the
victim, whereas an employer would be required to do so. There appears
to be no legitimate reason why two different standards should be used.
While the purpose of the SAFE Act is a laudable one, the unintended
consequences of this legislation suggest that it is not the best
approach for helping victims of domestic violence. Another approach
that would be far less disruptive to employers and employees would be
for Congress to provide Federal grants, tax incentives/credits, or
training program initiatives for employers. Under such initiatives,
employers would be encouraged to employ and train victims of domestic
violence and collaborate with shelters for victims of domestic violence
to provide employment and other resources. Such programs would be
particularly attractive to larger employers, who are in a better
position to employ, provide resources and assistance to, and protect
victims. Large employers might very well view such an initiative as an
attractive opportunity for contributing to the community on a social
issue of great importance. In addition, they could lead the way for
developing best practices and evaluating the success and challenges of
such initiatives so that other employers could learn and benefit from
their experiences.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide my perspective on
an issue that is important to me both personally and professionally.
SHRM is committed to working with members of the subcommittee to
formulate policies that will encourage employers to continue to offer
reasonable leave benefits that support their employees as they respond
to personal needs. I look forward to answering any questions you might
have.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. I'm sorry about the
time limit. We just want to make sure everybody has an
opportunity to ask questions here as well. But we will submit
all of your testimony for the record, as I said.
As we sit here today, obviously all stunned by what
happened on the campus yesterday, none of us know the facts and
we shouldn't jump to conclusions and certainly, we'll all be
watching and waiting to see what happens, to see what kind of
appropriate response needs to occur. But we do know that in my
home State, a University of Washington employee was recently
murdered and as we said, an employee at CNN Atlanta hotel
recently and I think the question that is so important, is do
we still, in this country, do we see domestic violence as just
domestic violence and don't see it as a community response. Is
that still a challenge for us today and I'd like to ask each
one of you.
Kathy.
Ms. Rodgers. Yes, Senator. I think that is very definitely
still a problem. We've made great progress, as you said before
and we have a national policy, which recognizes domestic
violence as a crime but all of society has not come around to
that point of view and I would just say, look at the numbers in
terms of employers. Only 4 percent have some sort of voluntary
policies that apply to these issues. Clearly, they need to be
spending more time thinking about them and providing some kinds
of solutions. I'll stop there on that question.
Senator Murray. OK, thank you.
Ms. Fortman.
Ms. Fortman. Yes, I think we are still seeing that it is
not integrated into how we're looking at all aspects of a
person's life. I think the workplace is an area that even when
we do have supportive employers--I think I would consider
myself a supportive employer--and yet we did more after the
governor gave us an Executive order. We created a voluntary
poster. Our Department of Conservation came up with new
strategies for helping victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault in their parks. Having that added push really caused us
to focus in a different way on this issue and the workplace is
the area we need to be looking at now.
Senator Murray. Ms. Cade.
Ms. Cade. Could you repeat the question?
Senator Murray. Do you think that we see domestic violence
today still as too much of just a person's problem rather than
as it can grow into something bigger and affect the entire
community and needs a community response?
Ms. Cade. Since my attack on October 10, I don't know if I
paid very much attention before but it seems like my attack was
like a highlight and I received national and international
attention. So I believe, through my experience now, yes, that
employers are more and more jumping on board and trying to
learn about workplace safety. But they do need training to back
up, just--even in my case, my manager was in the store but he
didn't help me. He didn't call 911, to my knowledge.
My co-worker--she called 911. She knew that I had a
protective order but I felt it was my manager's place to
contact authorities as well. I've been informed he had not and
from my experience, I could have gotten off my job that day, if
the law was put in place. He called me at 2:30 in the morning
and said he was going to fry me like Crisco grease. I could
have contacted my employer instead of me trying to keep my job,
showing up to work at 8:30 to open the doors at 9:00, being set
on fire at 9:30, instead of me having to choose my job, being
fired or going to the courthouse that morning. I had no clue
that Judge Richard Palumbo had dropped--I thought dismissed
meant the current protective order was still in place. But this
is a mark, in December 2005, the Violence Act Against Women,
they are taking it seriously. Thank you.
Senator Murray. Ms. Willman.
Ms. Willman. Employers have made a great deal of progress
in raising their awareness on domestic violence in the
workplace as well as violence in the workplace and there is
still more room for improvement. I am in favor of employers
voluntarily adopting policies, conducting training, offering
support groups in the workplace, making an environment where
victims feel free to come to their employer for assistance
because I do believe employers will be very supportive of that
in the absence of legislation.
But if we really want to attack this problem, we also have
to look at it from another community angle and that is
increasing the educational resources for children in school.
This is one of the suggestions Ms. Cade makes in her written
comments and I agree with it 100 percent. We have to start
educating people about what normal families look like, what
abuse is, where these children can go get resources because
many of them are going to be the abusers of the future. So if
we want to really attack the problem, we have to go to the
source of why it's occurring in the first place and a
multipronged approach at the school level, in work places, to
increase everybody's awareness, is probably the route to go, in
my opinion.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Chairman Murray. Ms. Fortman,
what are the enforcement provisions that you have in your
department in Maine?
Ms. Fortman. We have the authority to--it's damages and
restoring wages if wages are lost. So there is not a huge
incentive to--it's not a huge punishment. One of the things
that we have seen is that we're getting very few complaints. So
this may mean that people are voluntarily complying. We've
looked at the numbers for the past 5 years and in 2003, there
were no complaints and we found no violations of the law. In
2004, again, there were no complaints. In 2005, there were only
two complaints and one of those complaints, the employer was
found to be in violation. So there seems to be fairly either
high compliance with the law that is in place or fairly low
knowledge that the law exists.
Because that's the other issue, Senator, is that there is
no mandatory outreach campaign so there is some concern that
both victims and employers may not be aware that this law is in
place and when it is brought to the employer's attention, it
appears that there is compliance.
Senator Isakson. But if I understand it right, you would--
in the case that you did make a determination on, you have the
ability to force them to restore compensation, things of that
nature if somebody was denied that.
Ms. Fortman. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Isakson. OK. Ms. Rodgers, in the testimony of Ms.
Fortman, the printed testimony, she refers to a study that
spikes my interest in asking you a question. They had 120 women
who volunteered information regarding their story and 60
percent of domestic violence victims or survivors lost their
jobs. Forty-three percent were fired and 57 percent quit. That
was in the study in your testimony.
My question to you, in your recommendations regarding
unemployment compensation, is someone eligible whether they
quit or whether they are fired or if they quit, is there some
substantiation they have to make in order to be eligible?
Ms. Fortman. Well, many States do provide unemployment
insurance to women who are forced to leave their jobs, which I
think is different than quitting.
Senator Isakson. I agree.
Ms. Fortman. I think it's a big difference in the sense
that they want those jobs and they are forced to leave them and
they can get unemployment insurance and different States do
things in different ways. Some kind of flexible certification
requirements where a woman might have to provide a medical
certificate or she may provide something from a service
provider--her safety plan--some kind of a system that is
flexible. That's fine. I mean, I don't believe that the system
is abused because people want their jobs and they want to
support their kids.
And when they get fired, the case there is that they have
plainly been fired because of the domestic violence and the
employer knows that. Certification becomes a different issue
there.
Senator Isakson. So they become eligible if they're fired.
They need substantiating evidence if they decide, if they elect
to quit. But they would be eligible either way.
Ms. Fortman. Either way, they would be eligible,
absolutely. This is firing for cause. They should not be fired
because of somebody else's crime.
Senator Isakson. Correct. Ms. Willman, you made a statement
regarding the--and I have not seen Chairman Murray's
legislation either. You said you had some concern about
protecting the individual at the risk of safety to others?
Ms. Willman. Yes.
Senator Isakson. Would you elaborate on that?
Ms. Willman. Yes. Many times, domestic violence in the
workplace affects other employees in the sense that their lives
get threatened. They are brought into the dispute. Abusers are
very controlling people and that is part of the issue and when
they view anybody as assisting the victim, they look at it many
times as a conspiracy.
So another employee who may keep the victim's whereabouts
private and won't tell the abuser when he or she calls in, will
not let the abuser speak to the victim and even the employer
who provides time off or other assistance to the victim, can
become targets of the violence and that is not unusual in the
workplace when it infiltrates to that level where other
employees' safety is affected and that's a major concern for
employers when they're dealing with any kind of violence in the
workplace.
Senator Isakson. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Senator Clinton.
Opening Statement of Senator Clinton
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Chairman Murray and
thank you to Senator Isakson for calling this hearing. I'm
really pleased that the scourge of domestic violence is back on
the agenda and certainly the impact of it in the workplace is
being seen as a very significant problem for a lot of people.
I want to thank the witnesses particularly for being here
and Ms. Rodgers, thank you for all the great work that you do
in New York and the results of that great work is that we do
have more flexibility and more support for victims of domestic
violence in the workplace.
I want to just quickly ask Ms. Rodgers first, for the last
couple of years, I have teamed up with Senator Crapo to
increase awareness about Liz Claiborne's Love is not Abuse
curriculum, which I think is something that Ms. Willman also
mentioned. Try to get into the schools to convince young women
and young men that just because they see it on TV or they hear
about it in a song doesn't mean that they should do it.
So we have a lot of work ahead of us and I'm very familiar
with some of the work that you do. How could you sort of marry
up some of the points we've made today, Ms. Rodgers? You know,
we do need legal protections but we also need outreach and
education. Those are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go
hand in hand and perhaps you could explain some of what Legal
Momentum has done.
Ms. Rodgers. Well, I agree they go hand in hand and I also
agree with Ms. Cade that the sooner that we can start educating
our young children that violence is not the solution to the
problems that they perceive out there, the better off we all
will be. We can also have education programs. There are a
number--again, far too few, but companies like Harmon
International, American Express, Liz Claiborne, with whom we
have partnered, who are doing wonderful training programs with
their peers and colleagues and other similar corporations,
which is very helpful, although Federal legislation, which
applied to these national employers, would set a common
standard and it would not be so confusing for people, including
employees. So those kinds of training programs are important
and corporations that support both--teaching of colleagues and
peers and students is wonderful.
But there is another issue here, which is the violence is
happening now. Lives are being affected now, today and every
day. Sometimes lives are lost. But even if they are not lost,
they are scarred and they are ruined in many, many ways. We
can't use a voluntary program, we can't use educational
programs to replace the need to put programs and policies in
place now, which will protect those who are out of school,
which will protect the employees who don't have the options
about providing training or getting training.
So the multipronged approach has to include these measures
for the long-term and also imposing--giving a strong push to
employers to do something now, for people who are at risk
today.
Senator Clinton. I agree with that because I think that the
impact on the individual and on the workplace and productivity
is certainly significant. I wanted to ask you, Ms. Fortman, is
Maine one of the States that provides for unemployment
insurance to be available in the event of domestic violence
forcing someone to leave a job?
Ms. Fortman. Yes, it is, Senator and I'd like to just
follow up on that a little bit. Earlier it was mentioned about
if someone has to voluntarily leave their job. When we were
looking at that under other statutes--before we changed the
statute, one of the things that would happen is that it would
be considered a voluntary quit, if the person felt that they
could no longer show up at that workplace because as Ms. Cade
pointed out, that's where the abuser knows that you are. So if
that person had called in, for example, if Ms. Cade had called
in and said, I can't come back to work anymore. In our State,
prior to expanding it to cover domestic violence, she would not
have been eligible for unemployment.
Now, if she called in, we would be looking at that, looking
at whether or not there was a domestic abuse case involved
there and she would be if she met the eligibility requirements,
be able to collect unemployment in that situation. And again, I
believe it was in Ms. Rodgers' written testimony, in the States
that do have unemployment insurance for victims of domestic
violence that is also not incredibly burdensome. In our State,
it's a cost that is shared by all employers and again, it's a
very low number. There were approximately 52 people who were
eligible for that since approximately 1998.
Senator Clinton. I think if Ms. Cade had been working in
the District of Columbia when she was attacked, she would have
been eligible for unemployment insurance compensation. And Ms.
Cade, I want to really thank you for your being willing to
become a spokesperson on behalf of so many women who are not
going to have anybody speaking up for them unless someone like
you does. And I think you have some family members here with
you, don't you?
Ms. Cade. Yes. My mother and father and two sisters.
Senator Clinton. And I know how much that family support
has meant to you in the last 2 years as well.
Ms. Cade. Yes. I'd just like to make a comment. I know the
committee is not focused on employment issues but I would like
to say a word in support of anti-bullying programs at all
levels of education. Train a child the way they should grow. I
don't know if this is particularly a class but somehow they can
intertwine the program in health and science classes throughout
the year so these children will be able to identify appropriate
and inappropriate behaviors.
Senator Clinton. I think that's very important and if I
could, just one final question for Ms. Willman. In your
testimony that you just gave, you talked about perhaps some
kind of incentives that would assist small employers to address
domestic violence. What type of incentives would you suggest,
Ms. Willman?
Ms. Willman. Well, incentives--I probably had more in
mind--would be ones targeted to the larger employers so that
they would absorb more of the burden of being the trailblazers
in this area. Some kind of incentives or training money where
they would partner with shelters for battered women to get them
employed, knowing full well what issues are going to come along
with that and the potential safety threats in the workplace as
well as to other employers.
The larger employers have more facilities to place somebody
to keep them safe. They can transfer them more easily. They can
better absorb the time off from work when it's needed. And they
would basically go with, let's give training money to them and
let them bring a lot of these women into the workforce--and
women are not the only victims of domestic violence, men are
sometimes, too. Get them trained if they don't have the skills.
Many times they don't have the skills. Let them have time off
to get back to their shelters for some of the support group
activities that they need.
But very much like maybe the Job Training Partnership Act
or the old CEDA and thinking along the lines of those kinds of
initiatives that would give incentives to large employers to
enthusiastically endorse these kinds of programs like they are
leading the path on diversity initiatives.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Clinton. Ms.
Willman, let me go back and ask you--you testified that there
is no data that employers aren't giving time off for victims to
get help but that seems in direct contrast to what Ms. Cade
experienced and the cases that Ms. Rodgers has talked about.
We've got all these anecdotes around the country and there
is a saying that the plural of anecdotes is data. Don't the
cases that have been mentioned today kind of give us the data
that victims are, in fact, having trouble getting leave from
work?
Ms. Willman. No, I don't think the data----
Senator Murray. Specifically to go to court or to go to the
police.
Ms. Willman. No, I don't think the data supports that at
all and I think it's very important to carefully look at what
the data is actually saying. Yes, there are some exceptions to
the rule. I do believe, as a general rule, employers are not
opposed to helping victims and in fact, do it more than any of
us probably know. It is true that a fair number of victims have
lost their jobs due, in part, to the domestic violence. That's
a lot different than saying that the employer fired them
because of the domestic violence.
And I think it's important to make that distinction so we
know what statistics we're really talking about. It is possible
that in the State of Maine, there have been no employers or
very few employers complaining about the mandated time off and
there have been few employee or victim complaints under it
because maybe it was working all right to begin with before the
law was even passed. And maybe employers were providing the
time off and that's why they don't complain about the bill and
that's why not too many victims are having a problem getting
their time off.
But to my knowledge, there is no data that says this is how
many employers are firing people simply because they have been
victims of domestic violence. However, I acknowledge that there
are going to be exceptions to that. I mean, I think there's
only been a handful of cases cited in anybody's materials where
there was some kind of a nexus between the domestic violence
and the employer actually discriminating against the person
because they were a victim.
Senator Murray. Ms. Fortman, do you have any response to
that or Ms. Rodgers?
Ms. Fortman. I believe that what we did when we passed the
law was heighten the awareness on the part of both employers
and employees. It's true, very few people have complained about
it but I think what it did was it allowed a concentrated focus
on bringing this issue into the workplace. For the last 30
years, people have been working on domestic abuse and I think
it started out very much as women helping women and trying to
get people to the emergency room. It moved into being an issue
that was dealt with by having partnerships with law enforcement
and medical personnel. It moved into being a health issue.
I think at this point in time, we are moving into that area
of looking at it in its greater context, which is both the
victim and the abuser are frequently employed and as Ms.
Willman pointed out, it is an issue that does come into the
workplace and what the legislation that we introduced in
Maine--as well as the unemployment benefit--did was, it allowed
us to have a slightly different conversation and really involve
employers in that conversation and it also let victims know
that they could come forward.
One of the things we do with the Department of Labor is
we're responsible for occupational health and safety laws and
as Ms. Willman also pointed out, this is an issue that goes
underground. There is no way that we can come up with a safety
plan that works in the workplace unless it is an issue that is
elevated, is discussed and that that safety planning is done.
Senator Murray. Ms. Rodgers.
Ms. Rodgers. Yes, I'd like to make a couple of quick points
on that. I think that just leaving this to voluntary programs
cannot work. It just reinforces the old ``it's not my problem''
standard that we have had. It leaves the burden with the victim
to always have to come forward. If you have a policy, all
employees know that the policy is in place. Other employees can
support the victim to use those policies. You can sometimes
address the problem much earlier, at a much less dangerous
phase than waiting until you get to the point where you are
afraid somebody is going to come in and shoot an employee
because of a domestic violence issue.
The fact is and I go back to the data we do have. Four
percent of employers have workplace violence programs and this
is despite the fact that studies show that 65 percent or so of
corporate leaders know that domestic violence is a social
problem and it's one that comes into the workplace.
People really close to it, 78 percent of human resources
people know that this is a serious problem. Ninety-four percent
of security directors in companies think this is a very serious
problem. With all that knowledge, we're still not getting
voluntarily policies. It's time to move.
Senator Murray. My time is up but do your employers include
the universities when you say employers, 4 percent of employers
have policies?
Ms. Rodgers. It includes State employers which would be all
of the major State universities and I'm not sure about the
private colleges. I believe this is primarily the corporate
world.
Senator Murray. All right. I'm going to turn to Senator
Isakson for questions.
Senator Isakson. Just two--well, one comment and then one
question. In that last exchange, I found it very interesting. I
hear--I think Ms. Cade's case absolutely demonstrates that
there is a problem. I think what Ms. Willman said with regard
to her first comment is, you don't want to pass legislation
that assumes all employers are not addressing domestic
violence. What you want to do is have legislation that
addresses those who aren't. In other words, most American
businesses--they wouldn't be in business were it not for their
employers so they're not all the enemy. But there are some that
obviously, and Ms. Cade's case is a perfect example that the
consequences should be terrific for the fact that they have not
paid any attention to the abuse of a specific individual.
Ms. Rodgers, you said in your testimony at the beginning
that 8 of the 13 States represented on this committee had
unemployment compensation provisions in their State law, is
that correct?
Ms. Rodgers. Yes.
Senator Isakson. Do you know what out of the 50 States--
well, 50 States and the District of Columbia--what is
nationwide?
Ms. Rodgers. Yes, in my testimony--my recollection in my
written testimony is around 27 or 28.
Senator Murray. Twenty-eight.
Senator Isakson. A little over half.
Ms. Rodgers. A little over half.
Senator Isakson. And Ms. Fortman, that was the next--you
gave a good explanation of the eligibility for that in Maine. I
appreciate that. That was very helpful.
Again, I want to start where I began. I want to commend the
Chairman on calling this hearing. This is a very important
issue and I want to once again thank in particular, Ms. Cade
and Ms. Willman for their testimony and their personal courage,
having been survivors of domestic violence, to come forward and
help us at this time and thank all four of our panelists for
the time they've given to the committee.
Senator Murray. I think Ms. Cade wanted to make a final
remark.
Senator Isakson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Cade. Yes, listening to their testimony, I wanted to
point out that some employers think that it is just a textbook
and the problem lies with the lower employee communicating with
the manager. We had the manager communicating with the regional
manager. I had purchased a recorder. The manager was aware. I
was trying to get enough information so that they would
understand so I wouldn't have to choose my financial stability
versus safety and quit and this will alleviate the problem. But
the problem I had was my manager not taking me serious enough
and acknowledging that there was a problem. He didn't--managers
are supposed to come in to fill your position and he had not.
They don't step up to the plate enough and fill in that
position so that we can. So I'm hoping that this unemployment
insurance will recognize that. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Your personal testimony is going to make a
tremendous difference and I again commend you on your courage
to be here and thank you for coming.
Ms. Cade. Thank you.
Senator Murray. I want to thank all of our witnesses for
being here today. I think that we have really seen that
domestic violence is an issue that can impact an entire
community and thousands of lives beyond just those two. We need
to do a lot of work. Education, as Ms. Willman said, to
hopefully looking at legislation like mine that will make it a
community response and one that we can all work together and
not have that person who is a victim feel like there is no one
above them who has some responsibility to help them out and
give them a way.
But importantly for this legislation, this hearing is the
nexus between the economic stability of someone who has been
abused and assuring that they have that, will help us, I
believe, in moving a long way toward helping solve this crisis
in many homes in our communities.
Senator Isakson, I appreciate your listening carefully and
hope that we can work together to move some legislation on
this. I again appreciate all of those who are here today to
help us work our way through this. I ask unanimous consent for
the record to remain open for 7 days to include additional
materials and with that, I adjourn this hearing.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin
I'd like to start by thanking our subcommittee Chair,
Senator Murray, for her strong leadership on this issue.
Unfortunately, I believe that as schools have been forced to
take serious action to crack down on school shootings,
workplaces now must acknowledge that domestic violence is not
confined to the home. Just this year, such atrocities have
occurred all over the Nation, from Chairman Murray's home State
just this month, to Detroit, Philadelphia, and Salt Lake City.
We need to put an immediate stop to this epidemic.
More than 2.5 million women are victims of violence each
year, and nearly one in every three women experience at least
one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. It is not
unreasonable to ask for a little compassion and understanding
for victims of domestic violence from their employers. If not
for altruistic reasons, then at least out of concern for their
ability to be productive employees and to protect their fellow
workers. Many of the health costs associated with domestic
violence are chronic health problems.
It is true that domestic violence costs employers. Victims
of domestic violence are distracted at work and have to miss
more days due to injury or fatigue. That's why we need to
provide services and counseling to prevent this from happening,
and to serve those who are affected.
But employers can no longer keep their heads in the sand
when it comes to workplace violence. If they want to have a
high-functioning, safe, productive workplace, they are going to
start facing the reality of domestic violence without blaming
the victims. Giving women the time they need to take care of
themselves will dramatically improve their health in the long
run, saving the company time and money as well.
That is why I will be cosponsoring Senator Murray's
Survivors' Empowerment and Economic Security Act. It is well
past time for employers to do their part to prevent the next
Virginia Tech-level tragedy. Senator Murray's bill is simple
and straight forward. It merely gives women the right to take
30 days away from work to take care of themselves and their
children if they find themselves in an abusive situation in
their homes. It also says that employers and insurance
companies cannot continue to take the blame for the violent, or
potentially violent actions of others.
It is past time that we work to prevent violence in the
workplace. Congress must act to enact Senator Murray's
legislation as soon as possible.
Prepared Statement of Caroline Fredrickson, Director, Washington
Legislative Office; Lenora Lapidus, Director, Women's Rights Project;
and Vania Leveille, Legislative Counsel, Washington Legislative Office,
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
INTRODUCTION
The ACLU is a national, nonpartisan public interest organization of
almost 600,000 members, dedicated to protecting the constitutional
rights of individuals. Through its Women's Rights Project, founded in
1972 by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ACLU has long been a leader in the
legal battles to ensure women's full equality. This commitment includes
fighting for equal employment opportunities for women and working to
protect the civil rights of battered women. In recent years, the ACLU
Women's Rights Project has taken an active role at the local, State,
and national levels in advocating for the employment rights of
survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Through
these and other activities, the ACLU has been at the forefront of
efforts to establish that discrimination against domestic and sexual
violence victims is a form of gender discrimination.
Congress has recognized the destructive impact of domestic and
sexual violence on the lives of women. Through passage of the Violence
against Women Act of 1994 and its reauthorization in 2000 and 2005,
Congress has taken important steps in providing legal remedies and
services for survivors of intimate partner abuse, sexual assault, and
stalking. However, victims need comprehensive Federal legislation to
address the obstacles to employment and economic security caused by
violence. Members of the House and Senate previously have introduced
the Security and Financial Empowerment (``SAFE'') Act \1\ and the
Victims' Economic Security and Safety Act \2\ to bolster the financial
independence of survivors by reducing the likelihood that violence will
force survivors out of their jobs and by providing a safety net for
those who do lose employment as a result of domestic violence, sexual
assault, or stalking.\3\ The ACLU urges Congress to enact legislation,
such as the SAFE Act, that promotes the employment opportunities of
survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, including
but not limited to provisions for emergency leave, unemployment
insurance eligibility, reasonable employment accommodations, and
protection from employment and insurance discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S .1796, H.R. 3185, 109th Cong. (2005); S. 1801, H.R. 3420,
108th Cong. (2003).
\2\ S. 1249, H.R. 2670, 107th Cong. (2001).
\3\ Senator Patty Murray recently introduced the Survivors'
Empowerment and Economic Security Act, S. 1136, 110th Cong. (2007), but
a bill has not been introduced yet in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
Intimate partner violence continues to be a pervasive crime,
committed primarily against women. A Department of Justice study
estimated that intimate partners were responsible for 691,710 instances
of rape, robbery and assault in 2001, with 588,490 crimes perpetrated
against women and 103,220 against men.\4\ Twenty-two percent of
nonfatal violent crimes experienced by women and 30 percent of
homicides against them are committed by intimate partners.\5\ Half of
those who experience nonfatal violence sustain physical injury as a
result.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence 1993-2001 1 (2003).
\5\ Shannan Catalano, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the United States (2006).
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic and sexual violence can significantly affect the
workplace. On average, 1.7 million violent crimes occur at the job.\7\
Approximately 36,500 people each year are raped and sexually assaulted
at work, 80 percent of whom are women.\8\ Homicide by an intimate
partner constituted 3 percent of workplace murders.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Detis T. Duhart, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Violence in the Workplace 1993-1999 2 (2001).
\8\ Id. at 2-3.
\9\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiencing domestic or sexual violence is also a direct cause of
workplace problems for the vast majority of victims who work. Batterers
often exercise control over victims by preventing them from going to
work or harassing them on the job.\10\ The work lives of survivors are
also disrupted if they need to seek housing or medical or legal help in
response to abuse. Three studies collected by the U.S. General
Accounting Office found that between 24 and 52 percent of victims of
domestic violence reported that they were either fired or had to quit
their jobs as a result of abuse.\11\ Up to 96 percent of domestic
violence victims have experienced employment difficulties because of
abusers and violence.\12\ These statistics represent a troubling
reality: thousands of employees who are suffering from intimate partner
abuse are at great risk of losing their jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Richard M. Tolman & Jody Raphael, A Review of Research on
Welfare and Domestic Violence, 56 J. Soc. Issues 655, 664-70 (2000).
\11\ U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, Domestic Violence: Prevalence and
Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients 19 (1998).
\12\ U.S. Dep't of Labor, Women's Bureau, Domestic Violence: A
Workplace Issue 1 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence, employers
have done little in response. More than 70 percent of workplaces in the
United States do not have a formal program or policy that addresses
workplace violence, and only 4 percent train their employees on
domestic violence and its impact on the workplace.\13\ In the absence
of such policies and training, employers frequently demonstrate ``zero
tolerance'' for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking. They may rely on stereotypes about victims, concluding that
survivors enjoy or encourage abuse and thus are mentally ill, will
endanger others in the workplace, or are otherwise unfit to work. Many
employers refuse to accommodate survivors' need for time off to attend
court dates or doctors' appointments, making it all but impossible for
survivors to address the violence in their lives while financially
supporting themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Survey of
Workplace Violence Prevention (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic and sexual violence thus renders women economically
vulnerable. When employers are free to discriminate against survivors,
battered women are forced to make the difficult choice between
suffering in silence and risking loss of their income. Such a choice
will be especially stark for the many victims whose abusers have
exercised complete control over their finances, a common abusive tactic
in violent relationships; thus, many experiencing domestic violence
will have little in the way of savings or other financial resources to
draw upon. A legal system that tolerates such obstacles to safe
employment discourages victims of these crimes from reporting their
abuse or otherwise taking steps to protect themselves. And by forcing
victims out of work when they need to seek safety, the current legal
framework often has the effect of forcing women to turn to public
assistance as their only means of sustenance and may cause them to
become homeless. In fact, research has shown that a large percentage of
Federal public assistance recipients and homeless women and families
have experienced domestic violence.\14\ Addressing the impact of
violence in the lives of employees serves the interest not only of the
individual employees, but also of the larger public, by giving workers
the tools necessary to remain self-supporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Tolman & Raphael, supra note 9; U.S. Conference of Mayors,
Hunger and Homelessness Survey 64 (December 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Simmonds, a client of the ACLU, illustrates the compelling
need for Federal legislation. Ms. Simmonds, a female corrections
officer, was sexually assaulted by a co-worker with whom she had no
previous personal interaction. When she reported the crime, her
employer, the New York City Department of Correction (``DOC''), neither
investigated nor took disciplinary action on her behalf against the
perpetrator. Instead, DOC refused to provide her with information about
her assailant's work schedule and his access to firearms--a minimal
disclosure necessary for her safety planning--and refused to provide
her with reasonable accommodations such as time off for medical
treatment. DOC further retaliated against Ms. Simmonds when she
inquired about how DOC was responding to her report by transferring her
to a less desirable worksite, issuing unwarranted reprimands, and
stripping her of the right to work overtime and to exchange shifts with
other officers. As a result of these changes to her schedule, Ms.
Simmonds was forced to quit her university coursework and to send her
children out of State to live with their grandfather. Federal
legislation aimed at defending the employment rights of victims of
domestic and sexual violence and stalking would assist women like Ms.
Simmonds in avoiding financial devastation when they are subjected to
violence.
The ACLU strongly supports introduction and passage of legislation
enhancing economic security for survivors of domestic violence, sexual
violence, and stalking. New legal protections are vital for survivors
both to escape violence and to achieve independence from abusers. At a
minimum, Federal law should provide for emergency leave and benefits,
unemployment insurance compensation, and reasonable employment
accommodations for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, and
prohibit employment and insurance discrimination against individuals on
the basis of their status as victims of domestic violence or sexual
assault.
EMERGENCY LEAVE AND BENEFITS
Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking must
be provided with emergency leave to allow them to pursue measures to
safeguard themselves and their children. They may need to take off
short periods of time from work in order to relocate themselves and
their families, obtain an order of protection, meet with law
enforcement officials, or receive medical treatment or counseling.
Without the option of emergency leave, many victims may decide to
endure abuse in order to hold on to their jobs. At present, only eight
States provide some form of leave specifically to domestic violence
victims, but even in some of those States, leave is restricted to a
particular purpose, such as court appearances; thus, a victim who needs
time off to address other compelling health and safety issues may be
left without protection.\15\ Congress must step in to ensure that
emergency leave is available to all survivors who seek safety for their
families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Cal. Lab. Code Sec. Sec. 230, 230.1; Colo. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 24-34-402.7; Haw. Rev. Stat. Sec. 378-72; 820 Ill. Comp. Stat.
180/1-180/45; K.S.A. Sec. Sec. 44-1131, 44-1132; 26 Me. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 850; N.Y. Penal L. Sec. 215.14; N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. Sec. 50B-5.5,
95-270(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previously introduced SAFE Act contained a provision allowing
States to use Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) dollars to
provide short-term emergency benefits to an individual for the duration
of any emergency leave. Emergency benefits are necessary in order to
lessen the economic burden placed on a victim and her family during a
leave, especially if it is unpaid. This is particularly essential for
survivors who work in low-wage jobs, and who thus have the fewest
financial resources, for they are least likely to have access to paid
leave through their employers to address these emergencies.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
In many situations, batterers pursue victims at work, forcing them
to leave their jobs altogether in order to escape. Other survivors may
be fired when violence interferes with their work if, for example, they
must search for a new home and do not have the opportunity to take
emergency leave in order to do so. These survivors of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking need access to unemployment
compensation in order to support themselves between jobs. In most
States, eligibility for unemployment benefits turns on whether the
former employee left work voluntarily without ``good cause'' or if she
was discharged for ``misconduct.'' Twenty-eight States and the District
of Columbia have enacted laws that guarantee unemployment compensation
to domestic violence victims, but in varying and sometimes limited
circumstances.\16\ In States without these protections, victims may be
deemed as having left employment voluntarily, without good cause, when
they needed to leave their jobs for safety reasons; victims may also be
denied benefits if they were fired for taking off time to go to court
or otherwise address the violence in their lives. A Federal law is
necessary to ensure eligibility for unemployment benefits to all
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking who must
leave their jobs because of abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See A.R.S. Sec. 23-771; Ca. U.I. Code Sec. Sec. 1030, 1032,
1256; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 8-73-107(1)(g), 8-73-108(4)(r);
Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-236(a)(2)(A); Del. Code Ann. tit. 19,
Sec. 3314(1); D.C. Code Sec. 51-131; 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 405/601; Ind.
Code Sec. Sec. 22-4-15-1(1)(C)(8), 22-4-15-1(1)(E), 22-4-15-2(E), 5-
26.5-2-2; Kan. Stat. Aim. Sec. 44-706(A)(12); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit.
26 Sec. Sec. 1193(A)(4), 1043(23)(B)(3); Mass. Gen. L. Ann. ch. 151A
Sec. Sec. 1, 14, 25, 30; Minn. Stat. Sec. Sec. 268.095(1)(8),
268.095(6)(a)(c); Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 39-51-2111; Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann.
Sec. 48-628(1)(a); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23 Sec. 282-A:32(I)(a)(3);
N.J. Rev. Stat. Sec. 43:21-5(j); N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 51-1-7(A); N.Y.
Lab. Law Sec. 593(1)(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 96-14(lf); Okla. Stat.
Title 40 Sec. Sec. 40-2-405(5), 40-3-106(G)(8); Or. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 657.176(12); R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 28-44-17.1; S.C. Cod. Ann.
Sec. Sec. 41-35-125, 41-35-130; S.D. Codified Laws Sec. 61-6-13.1;
Texas Lab. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 207.045, 207.046; 21 Vt. Stat. Ann. ch.
16A Sec. 1251; Wash. Rev. Code Sec. Sec. 50.20.050, 50.20.100,
50.20.240, 50.29.020; Wis. Stat. Sec. 108.04(7)(s); Wyo. Stat. 27-3-
311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE
Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking should
be entitled to obtain reasonable accommodations that permit them to
continue to work safely. Because batterers frequently seek to harass
victims at work, survivors may need basic accommodations from their
employers to ensure their safety, such as a change in telephone number
or seating assignment, installation of a lock, a schedule modification,
emergency leave, or job reassignment. These accommodations allow
survivors to continue to financially support themselves while imposing
a minimal burden on their employers. One State, Illinois, requires
employers to make reasonable accommodations, beyond providing leave,
related to violence.\17\ New York City and Westchester County in New
York State also require such accommodations.\18\ However, this
protection should be extended to all victims who struggle to remain
employed while escaping violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 180/30.
\18\ N.Y.C. Admin. Code Sec. 8-107.1; Westchester County Code
Sec. Sec. 700.02, 700.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROTECTIONS IN EMPLOYMENT AND INSURANCE
Federal legislation is needed to prohibit employment and insurance
discrimination against survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence,
and stalking. Currently, a victim is vulnerable to being rejected for
or fired from a position when an employer learns that she may have been
subjected to abuse. An employer may act on outdated, but commonly held,
notions about a victim--that she must enjoy being abused because she
stayed in a relationship, or that she invited sexual assault by her
attire or behavior. Very few jurisdictions currently deal with this
issue. Only the State of Illinois, as well as New York City and
Westchester County in New York State, ban discrimination against a
victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.\19\
Connecticut and Rhode Island bar employers from penalizing victims who
have attended court or obtained restraining orders.\20\ Federal anti-
discrimination law must intervene to combat these stereotypes about
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 180/30; N.Y.C. Admin. Code Sec. 8-107.1;
Westchester County Code Sec. Sec. 700.02, 700.03.
\20\ Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 54-85b; R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 12-28-10.
\21\ State legislatures have acted to prohibit discrimination on
the basis of one's status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking in other contexts, notably housing. N.C. Gen.
Stat. Sec. Sec. 42-40, -42.2, -42.3, -45.1; R.I. Gen. Laws
Sec. Sec. 34-37-1, -2, -2.4, -3, -4; Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
Sec. 59.18.130(8)(b)(ii). The 2005 reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act also prohibited discrimination against these
survivors in public and Section 8 housing. See 42 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1437d, 1437f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking also
need protection against insurance discrimination. The ability to obtain
and maintain insurance is a fundamental economic issue for all people,
but is particularly significant for victims of violence, who often need
medical and psychological treatment because of the crimes that have
been committed against them. Insurance companies frequently choose to
deny, refuse to renew, or cancel a survivor's policy or benefits plan,
particularly when originally issued in the name of the abuser. While 41
States have anti-discrimination laws on the books, they vary widely and
do not apply to the 36 percent of all employees who receive health
insurance coverage through self-funded plans that are governed by the
Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and are therefore
exempt from State law protections.\22\ Without confidence that they
will not lose their insurance, victims may be reluctant to seek
desperately needed medical treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Women's Law Project, F.Y.I. Insurance Discrimination Against
Victims of Domestic Violence: 2002 Supplement (2002), available at
http://www.womenslawproject.org/brochures/InsuranceSup--DV2002.pdf;
Women's Law Project, Insurance, http://www.womenslaw
project.org/pages/issue_insurance.htm (last visited April 18, 2007).
\23\ N.Y.C. Admin. Code Sec. 8-107.1.
\24\A pseudonym has been used to protect ``Kathleen's'' identity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUCCESS OF LEGISLATION LIKE THE SAFE ACT
Laws containing provisions such as those embodied in the previously
introduced SAFE Act already have proven effective in guaranteeing the
rights of survivors on the local level. In 2001, New York City amended
its Human Rights Law to prohibit employment discrimination against
victims of domestic violence--the first jurisdiction in the country to
do so.\23\ The city extended these protections in 2003 to require
employers to make reasonable accommodations--such as allowing time off
from work or shifts in schedule--to employees who are experiencing
domestic and sexual violence or stalking.
The ACLU relied on these provisions of the Human Rights Law when
representing ``Kathleen,'' \24\ a long-time employee of the New York
City public schools. After her intimate partner assaulted her, Kathleen
obtained an order of protection. She needed to take off several days of
work in order to attend court proceedings and seek medical attention.
When her employer reprimanded her for excessive absences, she disclosed
her partner's violence and requested to be transferred to another
school for safety reasons. Shortly after this conversation, she was
fired. The same day, another woman at the school where Kathleen worked
who had also experienced domestic violence was terminated under similar
circumstances. Because she lost her job and was unable to find
comparable employment, Kathleen was forced to move to substandard
housing and send her son to live with a relative.
The ACLU brought suit against the New York City Department of
Education on Kathleen's behalf, invoking the anti-discrimination
mandate of the city Human Rights Law. Ultimately, the Department of
Education agreed to settle the case and to void Kathleen's termination
and pay her retroactive compensation and damages. It also agreed to
undertake systemic changes, including amending its Equal Employment
Opportunity policy to cover victims of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking as protected classes, acknowledging that
reasonable accommodations must be offered to these survivors, and
publicizing its new policies throughout the school system. Had the New
York City Human Rights Law not existed, Kathleen may have been out of
work with no recourse, as a result of the violent conduct of her
partner. Had Kathleen lived almost anywhere else in the country,
financial ruin likely would have been her fate.
Enacting Federal protection for the employment rights of victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking is crucial to building
on local progress and ensuring economic security to survivors
nationwide. Federal legislation, such as the previously introduced SAFE
Act, would enable battered women to seek safety while working towards
financial independence.
The ACLU therefore calls on the 110th Congress to pass legislation
that would transform the current State-by-State patchwork of laws
governing the employment rights of victims of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking and allow these survivors to pursue both physical
security and economic independence.
Letters of Support
Eugene A. Rugala and Associates LLC,
Beaufort, SC. 29902.
Hello Crystal, my name is Gene Rugala and I am a retired FBI Agent
and a national advisory board member of the corporate Alliance to End
Partner Violence. I was formerly assigned to the FBI'S National Center
for the Analysis of Violent Crime where I spent much time studying
workplace violence issues. I have been involved in the area since the
late 1980's and am now working with a number of corporate clients on
prevention issues and still lecture around the United States. I am also
the Vice President of the Board of Directors of our local domestic
violence shelter in Beaufort, SC. and we have just initiated a new
program targeting businesses in our county to discuss workplace
violence to include domestic violence in the workplace.
I am very supportive of Senator Murray's bill and would like to
offer any testimony and/or other support on this important issue. I
have previously testified before the House Education and Workforce
Committee in September 2002 on workplace violence. I have also authored
a number of articles to include an FBI publication, Workplace Violence:
Issues in Response which can be downloaded from the fbi.gov Web site
and specifically includes a chapter on Domestic Violence and Stalking
in the Workplace and what businesses need to do. Please feel free to
``google'' my name as to some of the work I have done in this area.
I have included a bio, and my previous testimony. I look forward to
working with you on this important issue. Thank You,
Gene Rugala.
Previous Testimony of Eugene Rugala, Supervising Special Agent, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to the Subcommittee on Education and
Workforce
It is an honor to testify before you today about the problem of
workplace violence and the scope of the problem in America's
workplaces.
Before I speak to the issue of workplace violence, it may be
helpful if I briefly explain the roles of the FBI's Critical Incident
Response Group (CIRG) and that of the National Center For the Analysis
of Violent Crime (NCAVC). The CIRG is an FBI field entity located at
the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Established in May 1994, the
CIRG was designed to provide rapid assistance to incidents of a crisis
nature. It furnishes emergency response to terrorist activities,
hostage situations, barricaded subjects, and other critical incidents.
The CIRG is composed of diverse units that provide operational
support and training and conduct research in related areas. Expertise
is furnished in cases involving abduction or mysterious disappearance
of children; crime scene analysis; profiling; crisis management;
hostage negotiations; and, special weapons and tactics.
The NCAVC, is comprised of FBI Special Agents and Professional
Support staff who provide advice and support in the general areas of
Crimes Against Children; Crimes Against Adults; and, Threat Assessment,
Corruption, and Property Crimes. Typical cases received for services
include: child abductions or mysterious disappearance of children;
serial murder; single homicides; serial rapes; threats and assessment
of dangerousness in workplace violence; school violence; domestic
violence; and, stalking. Other matters that NCAVC personnel respond to
include: extortion; kidnapping; product tampering; arson and bombings;
weapons of mass destruction; public corruption; and, domestic and
international terrorism. Annually, NCAVC personnel respond to over
1,500 requests for assistance from law enforcement all over the world.
The NCAVC reviews crimes from both a behavioral and investigative
perspective. This criminal investigative analysis process serves as a
tool for client law enforcement agencies by providing them with an
analysis of the crime, as well as, an understanding of criminal
motivation and behavioral descriptions of the likely offender. Also,
the NCAVC conducts research into violent crime from a law enforcement
perspective in an effort to gain insight into criminal thought
processes, motivations, and behavior. Results of the research are
shared with the law enforcement and academic world through
publications, presentations and training, as well as, through
application of knowledge to the investigative and operational functions
of the center.
The NCAVC, specifically gets involved in matters of workplace
violence when contacted by a law enforcement agency, which, when
responding to a request by an employer about a potentially dangerous
employee, contacts our unit to conduct a threat assessment and render
an opinion as to the potential for dangerousness. Once this assessment
is done, NCAVC members will recommend intervention strategies to lower
the level of threat.
In June of this year, the NCAVC, held a Violence in the Workplace
Symposium in Leesburg, Virginia. Approximately 150 recognized experts
in workplace violence and violent behavior from law enforcement,
private industry, government, law, labor, professional organizations,
victim services, the military, academia, and mental health looked at
this issue from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Issues discussed
included workplace violence prevention, threat assessment and
management, crisis management, critical incident response, research,
and legislative recommendations. It is through this symposium and the
issues discussed that a written monograph will be produced detailing
findings and recommendations. This monograph will be available to
anyone who has a need, and will be furnished to this committee for
review.
For our purposes today at this hearing, workplace violence can be
defined as any action that may threaten the safety of an employee,
impact the employee's physical and/or psychological well-being, or
cause damage to company property. Workplace violence is now recognized
as a specific category of violent crime which calls for distinct and
specific responses from employers, law enforcement, and the community.
However, this recognition is relatively recent. Before the mid-1980's,
the few research and preventative efforts that existed were focused on
particular issues like patient assaults on healthcare workers, or the
high robbery and murder risks facing certain occupations such as taxi
drivers or late-night convenience store clerks. It was a number of
shootings at U.S. Postal facilities around the country in the mid-
1980's, where employees killed other employees, that raised public
awareness of the kind of incident that is most commonly associated with
the phrase ``workplace violence.'' In fact, the phrase ``going postal''
has been accepted as part of the public lexicon for this type of
activity.
Once workplace killings by unstable employees came to be seen as a
trend, incidents tended to attract wider news coverage. Thus, the
apparent rise in such cases may have been, in part, an impression
created by more media attention. In subsequent years, other mass
workplace shootings have occurred with the most recent being seven co-
workers slain by a software engineer at the Edgewater Technology
company in Wakefield, Massachusetts in December 2000. Four workers were
killed at a Navistar plant outside of Chicago in February 2001. There
were multiple shootings that occurred at an aircraft parts plant in
Indiana earlier this year.
However, sensational multiple homicides represent only a tiny
fraction of violent workplace incidents. The vast majority are lesser
cases of assaults, threats, harassment and physical or emotional abuse
that makes no headlines and, in many cases, are not even reported to
company managers or law enforcement. While data on homicides and other
assaultive behavior may be captured, specific data as to threats and
intimidating behavior are lacking.
In a December 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime
Victimization Survey on Violence in the Workplace from 1993-1999, it
was found that an average of 1.7 million violent victimizations were
committed during that period. The most common being simple assault.
This number does not include an average of 900 homicides which occurred
in the workplace during that period. Also, this study showed, that
along with all violent crime occurring in the United States, there was
a decrease in workplace violent crime. Since approximately 1993,
workplace homicides have been on the decline. Dropping from a peak of
over a 1,000 in the early 1990s to approximately 677 in 2000. It should
be noted that the majority of workplace homicides, about 77 percent,
are the result of robberies and related crimes. Part of the decline in
homicides may be the result of better security programs implemented by
companies impacted by this type of crime (i.e., better lighting, bullet
proof glass, video cameras, etc.). The remaining homicides are the
result of disgruntled employees, clients and customers, domestic
violence and stalking situations which spillover in the workplace.
Analysts and other occupational safety specialists have broadly
agreed that responding to workplace violence requires attention to more
than just an actual physical attack. Direct physical assault is on a
spectrum that also includes threats, harassment, bullying, emotional
abuse, intimidation, and other forms of conduct that create hurt and
fear. All are part of the workplace violence problem; and, workplace
violence prevention policies that do not consider threats and
harassment, are unlikely to be effective.
Workplace violence falls into four broad categories: (1) violent
acts committed by criminals who have no connection with the workplace,
but enter to commit robbery or another crime; (2) violence directed at
employees by customers, clients, patients, or any others for whom an
organization provides service; (3) violence against co-workers,
supervisors or managers by a present or former employee; and, (4)
violence committed in the workplace by someone who doesn't work there,
but has a personal relationship with an employee, an abusive spouse,
domestic partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.
While much has been done by the retail industry to lower the risk
of violent crime associated with category one type crime, additional
efforts should be focused to identify, prevent and/or manage workplace
violence that involve the remaining categories.
The impact of violence in the workplace from lost work time and
wages, reduced productivity, medical costs, worker compensation
payments, legal, and security expenses, is estimated to be in the many
millions of dollars. However, the impact of this type of crime goes
beyond the workplace. By impacting society as a whole, it damages
trust, harms the community, and threatens the sense of security every
worker has a right to feel while on the job. In that sense, everyone
loses when a violent act takes place within the work environment.
Everyone has a stake in efforts to stop violence from happening where
they work.
There is no one-size-fits-all strategy. Discussions with the multi-
disciplinary group of experts in workplace violence and violent
behavior, who attended the NCVACs violence in the workplace symposium
in June 2002, suggest that success will depend on several factors.
First, employers have a legal and ethical obligation to provide a safe
environment for workers; and, as a result, can face economic loss as a
result of violence. Second, employees have a right to expect to work in
a safe environment, free from violence, threats or harassment. However,
employees also have a stake in workplace violence prevention and have
to be an integral partner in any such effort. Third, law enforcement,
through the community-oriented policing concept, have placed greater
emphasis on prevention and responding to threats and violent incidents,
rather than the traditional view that law enforcement should be called
as a last resort or to effect an arrest.
Fourth, unions should regard workplace safety from violence as an
employee's right just as worthy of union defense as wages or any other
contractual right. Fifth, occupational, safety, and criminal justice
agencies at the Federal and State level have an important role in
developing model policies, improving recordkeeping as to number and
type of incidents, and reaching out to employers. Especially, those in
small companies. Sixth, medical, mental health, and social service
communities have a role in assessment of threats and recommending
intervention strategies and additional research regarding this issue.
Finally, legislators, policymakers and the legal community can review
legal questions that have an impact on workplace violence and on
preventative efforts such as identifying potentially violent employees.
A multi-disciplinary, broad-based and proactive approach, at all
levels, is what is needed to quantify, understand, and prevent and/or
manage the potential for violence in the workplace.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this hearing,
and hope that what we do here today helps in dealing with an issue that
potentially impacts us all. I am willing to answer any questions that
you may have at this time.
______
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: Domestic Violence in the Workplace Hearing of the Subcommittee on
Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the Security and Financial Empowerment Act, that
would promote the economic security of the victims by ensuring that
victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against them or
their efforts to take steps to address the violence and that victims
who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
I often work with victims of domestic violence. Some victims have
had to leave work only to be taken to a shelter for their safety and
the safety of their children. As you know once in the shelter their
protection is paramount. Their employment is at risk the moment they
enter the shelter as no one can know where they are. Fortunately, I am
able to speak on their behalf with our employer and at least reassure
them.
In 2001, New York City was the first jurisdiction in the country to
adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting employment discrimination
against victims of domestic violence. (Local Law 1 of 2001). In 2003,
the city expanded these protections to require employers to make
reasonable accommodations, such as permitting time off or a flexible
schedule for victims of domestic and sexual violence (Local Law 75 of
2003.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter service and improving the response of the criminal
and civil systems for domestic violence victims. It takes great courage
from the victims to admit they are a victim and the added fear is, if
they miss work they will lose their jobs. Please pass legislation that
ensures that victims can take steps to protect themselves without
jeopardizing their employment.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Diane L. Stangle,
Executive Vice President,
CWA1118 518 862 0095.
______
Newton Becker Bouwkamp Pendoski, PC,
Indianapolis, IN 46240.
As a practitioner of family law for more than 30 years and as one
who provides pro bono legal services for domestic abuse victims, I am
convinced that victims of domestic violence need additional protection.
At a minimum, they need to be free from negative repercussions from
their employers when they need time off to go to court and otherwise
take action to protect themselves and their family members.
Please support legislation to insulate victims from negative
actions taken by employers arising from conduct designed to obtain
protection from further domestic violence.
Thank you.
M. Kent Newton.
______
Law Offices of Christina M. Thomas, Attorneys at
Law,
Bloomfield, New Jersey 07003,
April 10, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am an attorney in the States of
New Jersey and New York, a former victim of Domestic Violence, and a
former White House staff person, and formerly employed with Corporation
Counsel, NYC, under Mayor Guiliani. I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation that would promote the economic security of victims by
ensuring that victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence
against them or their efforts to take steps to address the violence and
that victims who must leave their jobs because of the violence can
receive unemployment insurance benefits, including the Security and
Financial Empowerment Act.
As the pro bono attorney of the year in Essex County, New Jersey, I
have come across innumerable victims who have needed this type of help.
Having to advise them that ``there is nothing in the law to protect
them'' is truly a heartbreaking experience, particularly because so
many of these women and men are the sole support for their children.
Once the litigants learn that there is nothing that I can do to help
protect their rights against their employers, they often become
unwilling (or unable) to come to Court, and if the victim is not in
Court, the charges are dropped, plain and simple. The LACK OF
LEGISLATION HELPS THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE TO CONTINUE, AND THAT SHOULD
CAUSE EVERY AMERICAN TO BE ASHAMED.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser and that many victims lose their jobs because of the
violence against them. One victim losing their job because of domestic
violence is one too many. The General Accounting Office has found that
between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report that they
have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence. In
addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
New Jersey is already on the forefront of victim's rights, and has
been making certain that there are some basic controls in place, for
example, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(j) states that an individual who is otherwise
eligible for unemployment will not be denied benefits because the
individual left work or was discharged due to circumstances resulting
from domestic violence. The employer's account will not be charged, but
the individual must provide supporting documentation. Although this is
a good start, it is still far from where we should be in this area. We
need to understand that domestic violence is ugly, it is embarrassing,
and it is something that victims will keep secret for as long as they
can, so telling people who are already ``at the edge'' that they will
need documentation of their wounds is often not as easy as we might
like to believe. Should a person who told doctors that bruising is from
``falling down stairs'' or that a black eye was ``from a softball
game'' be turned down just because the medical records don't clearly
indicate ``domestic violence? '' Sometimes, it just takes the right
people to get the job done, but one person being ``re-victimized'' is
one too many.
New York City, too, has long recognized domestic violence as a
workplace issue and it has been a leader in ensuring that victims of
domestic and sexual violence can maintain stable employment while they
take steps to end the violence in their lives. In 2001, New York City
was the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt legislation
explicitly prohibiting employment discrimination against victims of
domestic violence (Local Law 1 of 2001). In 2003, the city expanded
these protections to require employers to make reasonable
accommodations--such as permitting time off or a flexible schedule--for
victims of domestic or sexual violence (Local Law 75 of 2003). Our
office has received no complaints from employers alleging employee
misuse of this law, and we know that it has helped working women (and
men) take essential steps to separate from an abusive or violent
relationship.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 201-988-6797.
Respectfully submitted,
Christina M. Thomas.
______
April 12, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace? Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the Victims Employment and Economic Security Act,
that would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring that
victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against them or
their efforts to take steps to address the violence and that victims
who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
I am an employee of Tri-County Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault in Rhinelander, Wisconsin where I work as a victim
advocate. This entails giving personal support, making referrals,
interacting with other agencies to prevent violence, and educating the
public about the nature of domestic abuse. In the course of starting
over after an abusive relationship, I see women who, after starting a
new job, need to take time off for court proceedings related to past
abuse. It is many times intimidating to request the necessary time off
from work in these instances. Legislation to aid victims in these
matters is needed so that time away from work does not become a
deterrent to safety planning measures.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 715-362-6841.
Sincerely,
Lynn Feldman,
Oneida County Advocate, Tri-County Council.
______
HELP of Door County, Inc.,
April 12, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the VEESA-Victims Employment and Economic Security
Act, that would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring
that victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against
them or their efforts to take steps to address the violence and that
victims who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
I work for a small rural domestic violence program in Door County,
WI. HELP of Door County, Inc. provides the following services to our
community: individual and group support for adult and child victims,
older adult services, safe home placements, visitation & exchange
program, transitional living program, legal advocacy, information &
referral, and a 24-hour hotline.
I have had numerous victims in my office that are in need of a safe
home placement, but due to our rules of not leaving the safe home while
there for her own protection, she may not have a job to return to. I've
also had victims unable to leave work in order to go to court for
orders of protection or just to come in during office hours to plan for
their safety. This intense fear of losing their job is a huge barrier
to her leaving the abusive relationship, especially in a small
community where good paying jobs and affordable housing are hard to
come by.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 920-743-8785.
Sincerely,
Amy L. Jahnke,
Domestic Abuse Services Coordinator.
______
April 13, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the Security and Financial Empowerment Act, that
would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring that victims
do not lose their jobs because of the violence against them or their
efforts to take steps to address the violence and that victims who must
leave their jobs because of the violence can receive unemployment
insurance benefits.
Brighter Tomorrows provides services to thousands of women each
year. Once they leave the abusive situation, not only are they their
sole support, but they have to miss work in order to file protective
orders and attend court on numerous occasions because of the abuse.
Often it is unsafe for them to return to their work because the abuser
knows where she is and may come to her place of work, or harass her at
work and get her terminated. The need for unemployment insurance
benefits is vital so that they have the economic independence they need
to stay out of the abusive situation.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 972-263-0506.
Sincerely,
Jana Barker, LBSW.
______
April 15, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
Senator Bernie Sanders,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray, Isakson, and Sanders: I am writing to urge
you to pass legislation, such as the Security and Financial Empowerment
Act, that would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring
that victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against
them or their efforts to take steps to address the violence and that
victims who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
First and foremost, I am a survivor of a sexual assault and
attempted murder that took place in Warren, Vermont in 1992. Due to the
injuries I sustained (communicated decompressed skull fracture) and the
time it took to recover (over 6 months), I was unable to work and lost
my job. In addition, during the decade that I worked as a victim
advocate for the following Vermont domestic and sexual assault
programs; Battered Women Services and Shelter (Barre, VT) and WomenSafe
(Middlebury, VT), I recall several cases in which the woman was fired
due to her husband harassing her at work. I also recall working with
woman who had to quit their job due to safety concerns. Many of these
women were unable to obtain unemployment insurance. Some of these women
chose to return to the abuser because of economic needs and the need to
provide for their children. In some of these cases the woman was the
sole bread winner and her family depended on her wages to make ends
meet.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/2\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
Vermont in 2005 passed the Domestic and Sexual Violence Survivors
Employment Transition Fund, which provides temporary economic support
for survivors who are forced to leave work as a result of the violence
they are experiencing. That initiative has been vitally important for
the few survivors who have needed it, and has not had a significant
financial impact on the State's general fund. Supports such as this one
can be an important component of survivors' efforts to seek physical
and economic safety.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 802-476-2669 (w).
Sincerely,
Susan S. Russell, M.A.
______
April 16, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety--Letter
Submitted for the Record
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the Survivors Empowerment and Economic Security
Act, that would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring
that victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against
them or their efforts to take steps to address the violence and that
victims who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic.
Sincerely,
Jenny Rowh Fairchild.
______
Family Violence Prevention Center,
Orange County, NC,
April 16, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: The staff of the Family Violence
Prevention Center of Orange County is writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the Security and Financial Empowerment Act, that
would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring that victims
do not lose their jobs because of the violence against them or their
efforts to take steps to address the violence and that victims who must
leave their jobs because of the violence can receive unemployment
insurance benefits.
We frequently work with victims of domestic violence who are
extremely concerned about losing their jobs due to domestic violence.
Some of our victims are forced to drop protective orders and/or miss
criminal court dates because they fear they will lose their jobs. Many
victims we work with are terrified to go to work because they are
afraid that their abuser will assault and harass them at their work
place. These victims need to know that unemployment benefits are
available so that they have the economic independence they need to stay
separated from their abusers.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing us to share our thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us
at 919-929-3872
Sincerely,
Genevieve King,
Court Services Coordinator,
Christine Rafter,
Volunteer Services Coordinator,
Donna Kay Smith,
Interim Executive Director,
Caroline Wells Pence,
Support Group Facilitator.
______
April 16, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
Senator Bernie Sanders,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray, Isakson, and Sanders: I am writing to urge
you to pass legislation, such as the Security and Financial Empowerment
Act, that would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring
that victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against
them or their efforts to take steps to address the violence and that
victims who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
Vermont in 2005 passed the Domestic and Sexual Violence Survivors
Employment Transition Fund, which provides temporary economic support
for survivors who are forced to leave work as a result of the violence
they are experiencing. That initiative has been vitally important for
the few survivors who have needed it, and has not had a significant
financial impact on the State's general fund. Supporters such as this
one can be an important component of survivors' efforts to seek
physical and economic safety.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 802-388-1318.
Sincerely,
Sarah Nash.
______
April 17, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation such as the Security and Financial Empowerment Act that
would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring that victims
do not lose their jobs because of the violence against them or their
efforts to take steps to address the violence. Any such legislation
should further ensure that victims who must leave their jobs because of
the violence can receive unemployment insurance benefits, a measure in
effect in more than 26 States and the District of Columbia.
The D.C. Employment Justice Center (EJC) is a nonprofit
organization with a mission to protect, secure, and promote workplace
justice in the District of Columbia. Since opening its doors in 2000,
the EJC has strived to ensure the rights of frequently unprotected and
vulnerable populations, in particular working with minority workers,
domestic violence victims, immigrant workers, and other similarly
vulnerable populations through our legal services, advocacy, and
education work. In just 6 years, the EJC has assisted nearly 6,000
workers, recovered over $3 million in back wages and damages for EJC
clients, achieved many legislative victories, educated thousands of
workers about their rights on the job, and built a vibrant community
organizing program. Several of our legislative reforms have focused on
the intersection of domestic violence and employment, including a law
that went into effect in 2004 that requires the District to allow
domestic violence victims to access unemployment compensation if they
lose their jobs as a result of the violence.
The EJC provides a weekly Workers Rights Clinic where individuals
who meet the income guidelines can go to gain free legal advice from
volunteer attorneys. Often, we meet women who have been terminated from
their job because they needed to take a day off to get necessary
medical help, to go to a court hearing, or to change their place of
residence to ensure their safety. If legislation such as the Security
and Financial Empowerment Act became law, these women would not have to
choose between their safety and their job.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
were forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs--and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security. It also clearly
affects the greater community as well.
New York City has long recognized domestic violence as a workplace
issue. It has been a leader in ensuring that victims of domestic and
sexual violence can maintain stable employment while they take steps to
end the violence in their lives. In 2001, New York City was the first
jurisdiction in the country to adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting
employment discrimination against victims of domestic violence (Local
Law 1 of 2001). In 2003, the city expanded these protections to require
employers to make reasonable accommodations--such as permitting time
off or a flexible schedule--for victims of domestic or sexual violence
(Local Law 75 of 2003). We are not aware of any complaints from
employers alleging employee misuse of this law, and we know that it has
helped working women (and men) take essential steps to separate from an
abusive or violent relationship.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed have made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jessica Goshow,
Legal and Policy Associate,
DC Employment Justice Center.
______
April 19, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety--Letter
Submitted for the Record
Dear Senators: I am writing to urge you to pass legislation, such
as the Security and Financial Empowerment Act, that would promote the
economic security of victims by ensuring that victims do not lose their
jobs because of the violence against them or their efforts to take
steps to address the violence and that victims who must leave their
jobs because of the violence can receive unemployment insurance
benefits.
All too often, we receive calls from victims who are worried that
they will lose their jobs if they miss work to go to court for a
protective order or whose ex-boyfriend/ex-spouse kept harassing her at
work location. There has also been occasion where the victim has had to
quit their job to escape the violence. They need unemployment insurance
benefits so that they have the economic independence they need to stay
separated from their abusers.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of the sexual assault survivors lost their
jobs or were forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of
intimate partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--
the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
New York City has long recognized domestic violence as a workplace
issue and it has been a leader in ensuring that victims of domestic and
sexual violence can maintain stable employment while they take steps to
end the violence in their lives. In 2001, New York City was the first
jurisdiction in the country to adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting
employment discrimination against victims of domestic violence (Local
Law 1 of 2001). In 2003, the city expanded these protections to require
employers to make reasonable accommodations--such as permitting time
off or a flexible schedule--for victims of domestic or sexual violence
(Local Law 75 of 2003). Our office has received no complaints from
employers alleging employee misuse of this law, and we know that it has
helped working women (and men) take essential steps to separate from an
abusive or violent relationship.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 718-479-1106 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Anne Holland-McCauley,
Secretary-Treasurer, CWA Local 1106.
______
Liz Claiborne Inc.,
April 20, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray, Isakson, and Clinton: I wanted to commend you
for addressing the issue of domestic violence in the workplace. As
proven by the tragic shootings earlier this month at The University of
Washington in Seattle and at the Omni Hotel in Atlanta, this is a
critical issue that needs immediate attention.
All too often, victims are entirely dependent on their abuser for
food and shelter for themselves and their families. I therefore urge
Congress to pass the Survivors' Empowerment and Economic Security Act.
Victims of domestic violence need to take time off from work to appear
in court, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning,
without the threat of losing their job.
This legislation from Congress is crucial but very little will be
accomplished without the support of the private sector. Unfortunately,
many companies do not consider domestic violence to be a workplace
problem and are reluctant to interfere in what they consider a personal
issue. There are nearly 100 corporations and non-profit organizations,
which are implementing domestic violence policies, including such
diverse companies as Verizon Wireless, American Express, Target,
Eastman Kodak and Allstate. But obviously much more action needs to be
taken.
Liz Claiborne Inc. has developed a comprehensive program that could
easily be replicated and used as a model for other businesses.
Our domestic violence workplace agenda includes a Domestic Violence
Response Team that operates on a corporate level to initiate policies
and on an operations level to handle specific threat assessments and
procedures. Our human resources, security and legal departments work
together with managers and employees to introduce policies to help
victims and prevent abuse. When a victim requires help, human resources
and security are contacted, a security assessment is conducted and the
team provides a safety plan which can include screening telephone
calls, relocating an employee's work place to a more secure area, and
allowing time off so that the employee can seek counseling, housing or
legal action.
We have implemented internal training programs for employees,
managers and executives so they know what to do if they suspect an
employee is in danger from an intimate partner. These trainings never
include a counseling role, rather we always suggest reaching out to the
National Domestic Violence Hotline, local resources or an Employee
Assistance Program to provide adequate assistance and support.
Internal communications focusing on the issue is also an important
part of our policy. We know that new employees need to be informed and
policies need to be communicated on an ongoing basis to reinforce and
remind them that the support, safety procedures and outside counseling
services are always available.
Domestic violence is not a personal issue or a workplace issue, it
is really a national issue. These recent tragedies should be a catalyst
for Congress and employers across the country to act now.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic.
Sincerely,
Jane Randel,
Vice President, Corporate Communications.
______
Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence,
Albany, New York 12205,
April 23, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: SEES Act/Hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and
Workplace Safety
Employees are at significant risk from intimate partner abuse and
homicide in the workplace. A recent article in the American Journal of
Industrial Medicine found that although occupational homicides had
declined approximately 6 percent per year from 1993-2002, homicides
involving a personal relationship between the worker and the offender
actually declined significantly less than overall workplace homicides,
and declined the least of the four homicide types studied.\1\ New York
and other States have taken steps to address this problem, but Federal
legislation is needed to ensure consistent and significant protection
to all victims in all workplaces. As the recent incident in the CNN
Mall in Atlanta demonstrates, when domestic violence spills over into
the workplace, it affects us all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Trends in Workplace Homicides in the U.S., 1993-2002: A
Decade of Decline'' Scott A. Hendricks, E. Lynn Jenkins, Kristi R.
Anderson; American Journal of Industrial Medicine, March 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1995, over a decade ago, the NYS Legislature noted that a
growing number of studies were identifying a ``myriad of issues'' that
domestic violence victims encountered in the workplace. In response,
the Legislature and Governor directed the NYS Department of Labor to
issue a report on the impact of domestic violence on the workplace,
with particular attention to individuals who lost employment due to
domestic violence.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chapter 527 of the laws of 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Report to the Legislature on Employees Separated from Employment
Due to Domestic Violence,'' released in 1996, cited a survey by the NYS
Department of Social Services, which found that ``of clients receiving
domestic violence services, 59.9 percent were found to have left a job
at some time in their lives due to battering.'' The report also
outlined concerns of both victims and employers that still ring true
today. The victims' concerns included worries about the ramifications
of disclosing their victimization to their employer; lack of
confidentiality and safety; absence of job site or employee services;
lack of flexible work/leave options, fear of job loss and, at times,
actual termination. Employers worried about victims' diminished
productivity, lost work time, turnover and increased health care costs.
The report recommended solutions that encouraged collaboration among
unions, employers, employees, government and advocates. After this
report was issued, New York State enacted legislation that established
unemployment insurance eligibility for domestic violence victims who
voluntarily separated from employment as a result of domestic abuse.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chapter of 268 of the Laws of 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOL report's recommendations still make sense: employees and
employers should partner on this issue, because their interests are in
fact aligned. The solution to both sets of concerns is responsive and
appropriate economic security for victims: if victims can safely
disclose their situation to their employers, they can obtain the
services they need to stay safe, preventing future harm and the need
for medical attention, and ensuring their continued ability to perform
their jobs.
In 1997, NYS enacted legislation directing the NYS Office for the
Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV) to develop a model policy for
employers.\4\ OPDV collaborated with the NYS Department of Labor to
develop the policy and alert employers to the availability of policy
information and resource materials (posters, tent cards and employer
handbooks). Almost 500,000 letters were mailed out, generating over
20,000 responses from businesses requesting materials. Employer
handbooks and materials were also mailed to all Chambers of Commerce in
the State. In 2006, New York added to its package of protections
legislation to address safety in the workplace.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Chapter 368 of the Laws of 1997.
\5\ Chapter 82 of the Laws of 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2005 survey of 1,200 employees, the Corporate Alliance to End
Partner Violence found that 21 percent of respondents identified
themselves as victims of intimate partner violence (research conducted
by Group SJR). Of the self-identified victims, 21 percent had lost
their jobs. In addition, while victims generally reported modest
availability of services (12-23 percent for information and referral,
counseling, security, etc.), only 8 percent indicated their employers
provided ``flexible leave and other benefits.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CAEPV Special Edition Newsletter 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many victims, their ability to separate from an abusive
relationship is inextricable from their own economic independence. No
employee should have to choose between their job and their personal
safety. There are many resources available to assist employers in
developing policies and services that support victims and increase
their physical safety--such as OPDV's model policy and technical
assistance. However, without concrete protections, such as leave,
protection from job termination and access to unemployment benefits,
victims may not feel they have any realistic opportunity to get safe.
Though OPDV is not a direct service agency, we receive inquiries
from distraught victims searching for help, trying to find out what
options they have when they fear that their jobs might be at risk. In
one current case, our staff is working with a victim who has had to
appear in court twice a week for the past 3 weeks. Her court
appearances involved violations of an order of protection, as well as a
custody battle with her abuser (level 2 sex offender). This victim
should not have to worry about losing her job while she takes care of
these essential issues. Similar scenarios, and countless others, are
repeated in courts and communities across the State.
The NYS Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a coalition of the
State's licensed domestic violence programs and shelters, has
identified employment protection issues as their top priority. Numerous
national domestic violence policy and advocacy organizations have
called for immediate action on these issues. The Survivors' Empowerment
and Economic Security Act, critical to the survival of victims and
their families, will also result in long-term benefits for employers.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Survivors'
Empowerment and Economic Security Act.
Sincerely,
Amy Barasch, Esq.,
Executive Director.
______
April 23, 2007.
Senator Edward Kennedy, Chair,
Senator Michael Enzi, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington DC., 20510.
Re: Domestic Violence In the Workplace--Senate HELP Subcommittee
Hearing April 17, 2007
Dear Senators: I am writing to help give you an understanding as to
how legislation, such as the Survivors' Empowerment and Economic
Security Act (S. 1136), would greatly assist victims of domestic
violence with respect to the workplace. I have been a practicing family
law attorney for 15 years. I have spent the last 7 years working on a
VAWA grant through the Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Although Wyoming does not have a great population, unfortunately,
we do have many victims of domestic violence. Data from the National
Violence Center, based upon FBI data received from our State's Division
of Criminal Investigation, shows that Wyoming is tied with New Mexico
as the highest number of women killed by someone they knew. In 2007, we
have had two men murdered in Natrona County each related to family
violence.
I average helping approximately two victims per week with
protection orders. At least one victim a month is worried about losing
their job because they have to take off work to file the petition and
then, usually in the same week, take another day off to attend the
hearing. Additionally, abusers will call victims at their workplace and
violate court orders. The employers then retaliate against the worker.
I personally have known several victims who have lost their jobs due to
abusive actions by their spouse or intimate partner. I see this happen
several times a year in my county.
There is already a huge economic disparity between female workers
and male workers. Again, Wyoming was the highest in the Nation in the
wage gap disparity. We are booming in our economy now and bringing in
workers from other States. With that boom has been an increase in
domestic violence in the counties experiencing the boom.
We desperately need laws that assist victims to becoming
economically stable. Wyoming lacks State laws that prohibit the abuser
from having a firearm while the protection order is in effect. That is
a big issue in our State (the right to have guns) and thankfully, we
have the Federal laws that protect our victims. Our State is one of six
States that does not fund any civil legal assistance to victims, and
again Federal VAWA is the only way victims of domestic violence receive
help. Without the Federal laws, victims in Wyoming would be forced to
stay with their abusers for economic reasons.
The Wyoming Supreme Court has specifically ruled that alimony is
not to be given, but rather the spouse should receive a greater portion
of the marital estate. Unfortunately, our State child support
enforcement office has taken a position that orders for child support
issued in protection orders by our circuit courts cannot be enforced
through their agency!!!! Thus, if the abuser does not pay child
support, they will not seek to force him to pay. Nor are they willing
to issue Income Withholding Orders.
Having a Federal law that employers in this State would have to
follow that would allow the victims to keep their jobs if they go to
court to seek a protection order, protect them from being fired due to
the domestic violence, and ensure that they are able to receive
unemployment compensation would be a wonderful step in giving them the
economic security and safeguards they need to escape this abuse. As I
previously stated, I see at least one victim a month who loses a job
due to the acts of domestic violence. Ironically, it is the bigger
employers (rather than the mom & pop operations) who are the worst.
Thank you for your time and attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline K. Brown,
Attorney and Counselor at Law.
______
Texas Council on Family Violence,
April 24, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety--Letter
Submitted for the Record
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the Survivors' Empowerment and Economic Security
Act, that would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring
that victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against
them or their efforts to take steps to address the violence and that
victims who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
The Texas Council on Family Violence (TCFV) is a statewide
coalition working to end family violence through partnerships, advocacy
and direct services for women, children and men. TCFV has over 650
members. Membership is composed of family violence service providers,
supportive organizations, survivors of domestic violence, businesses
and professionals, communities of faith and other concerned
individuals.
Texas currently offers no job protected leave for victims of family
violence who need to address the immediate safety concerns of their
families. If a victim must miss a day of work to answer to a subpoena
as part of a criminal prosecution or to apply for a protective order to
keep an abuser away from home and work, she risks termination. Without
job protected leave, victims are forced to choose between their safety
and their family's economic stability.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (512) 794-1133.
Sincerely,
Sheryl Cates,
Chief Executive Officer,
Texas Council on Family Violence,
National Domestic Violence Hotline.
______
New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence,
Concord, NH 03302-0353,
April 24, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace? Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the Survivors Empowerment and Economic Security
Act, that would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring
that victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against
them or their efforts to take steps to address the violence and that
victims who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
The New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence is
a coalition of independent crisis centers across the State working to
support victims/survivors of sexual violence, domestic violence, and
stalking in their local communities. Each individual center is
committed to providing appropriate, quality services that meet the
needs of victims/survivors in their own communities. As a group, the
independent crisis centers across the State are committed to providing
direct services within a victim-based model of advocacy, which honors
victims'/survivors' experiences as a basis of constructing appropriate
services. This model includes working with victims/survivors to provide
information and support that empowers them to make decisions that are
in their own best interests. These services and the service provision
model have developed from grassroots movements born from the idea that
violence against women is a systemic and pervasive problem. Sexual
violence, domestic violence and stalking include a range of behaviors,
some of which are illegal, but all of which degrade and dehumanize
victims/survivors. All services provided by each local crisis center
are confidential and free of charge.
NHCADSV recognizes that violence and oppression are connected, and
promotes social change by holding societal systems accountable for
their responses to domestic and sexual violence, and through the
empowerment of victims.
The Coalition supports its member programs by providing community
education, coordination, training, resources sharing, and advocacy for
legislative changes that affect victim/survivors of sexual violence,
domestic violence and stalking.
New Hampshire has long been a national leader in our response to
domestic violence. In May 2000, New Hampshire recognized these concerns
and accepted an invitation by the Family Violence Prevention Fund to
join the Corporate Citizenship Initiative (CCI), a nationwide effort
designed to address domestic violence in the workplace. To spread
awareness of the Initiative, a newly established CCI Steering
Committee, along with Governor Jeanne Shaheen, hosted a kickoff meeting
for 100 business and community leaders from around the State. The
Initiative's momentum propelled significant social change for New
Hampshire's public business sector; a Domestic Violence in the
Workplace Policy was drafted and implemented, and hundreds of State
employees, including managers, employee assistance professionals, and
human resource professionals, received training on successful
strategies to help assist affected employees.
Today, the Corporate Citizenship Initiative has emerged as the
Domestic Violence in the Workplace Initiative, part of the Governor's
Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and is reforming in order to
share its message with the private business sector. In 2004, one of our
area crisis centers for domestic and sexual violence, New Beginnings,
served 1,138 individuals. The New Hampshire Initiative aims to increase
employers' awareness of domestic violence as a serious workplace issue
and to give them the tools they need to address it. Through this
project we can build upon existing successes by linking business,
governmental, labor, and victim advocate leadership throughout the
State and country.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity. Such violence has a devastating impact on women's
physical health, mental health, and financial security.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take steps to protect
themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (603) 224-8893 ext. 309 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Gruber,
Technical Assistance Specialist.
______
Northwest Women's Law Center,
Seattle, Washington 98101-1818,
April 24, 2007.
Senator Patty Murray, Chair,
Senator Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
HELP Committee, Employment and Workplace Subcommittee,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Re: ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace'' Hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: I am writing to urge you to pass
legislation, such as the Survivors' Empowerment and Economic Security
Act, that would promote the economic security of victims by ensuring
that victims do not lose their jobs because of the violence against
them or their efforts to take steps to address the violence, and that
victims who must leave their jobs because of the violence can receive
unemployment insurance benefits.
The Northwest Women's Law Center, founded in 1978 to advance
women's legal rights, conducts broad-based advocacy throughout the
Pacific Northwest. Law Center staff and volunteers work on virtually
any issue that affects women, recognizing that women's lives, issues
and concerns are complicated and interrelated, and that we must
consider issues that affect women of all ages, backgrounds, and
perspectives to truly advance women's legal rights. The Law Center's
core issues include economic justice; reproductive freedom; family law;
health care and insurance; violence against women; lesbian and gay
rights; civil rights; discrimination in employment, education and
athletics; public benefits; affirmative action; criminal law and
prisoners' rights; and issues of abuse. The Law Center's programs
encompass one of the largest geographic areas in the country, working
in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. Our integrated
approach to achieving our mission combines three key strategies: impact
litigation, legislative advocacy and self help.
We frequently receive calls from victims who have lost their jobs
when they have taken time to protect themselves from domestic violence.
We are currently litigating a case and awaiting a decision from the
Washington Supreme Court on this very issue (Danny v. Laidlaw,
Washington State Supreme Court Cause No. 78421-3). In this case, Ms.
Danny had been employed by Laidlaw for more than 6 years, during which
time she had worked her way up through the ranks to a supervisory
position. Throughout her employment, she experienced ongoing domestic
abuse from her husband. Initially, she did not disclose this abuse to
Laidlaw, but in the fall of 2003 requested time off so that she could
move herself and her five minor children to a shelter. Laidlaw declined
her request. Soon thereafter, Ms. Danny's husband beat their 13-year-
old son so badly that he required hospitalization. Ms. Danny again
requested a reasonable period of time off to move her family. Laidlaw
reluctantly agreed. When Ms. Danny returned to work, however, she was
promptly demoted and a few months later fired. We are hopeful that the
Washington Supreme Court will positively address this issue for Ms.
Danny and other Washingtonians. Survivors of domestic violence would
also benefit from legislation such as the Survivors' Empowerment and
Economic Security Act to ensure that they are not punished for trying
to protect themselves and their families from the bad acts of their
abusers.
National studies confirm that economic security is one of the most
important factors in whether victims are able to separate effectively
from an abuser--and that unfortunately, many victims lose their jobs
because of the violence against them. The General Accounting Office has
found that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of domestic violence victims report
that they have lost a job due, at least in part, to domestic violence.
In addition, almost half of sexual assault survivors lost their jobs or
were forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8,000,000 days of paid work each year--the
equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs and 5,600,000 days of household
productivity nationwide. Such violence has a devastating impact on
women's physical health, mental health, and financial security.
This year the Northwest Women's Law Center, together with several
of its allies, proposed legislation to the Washington State Legislature
that would allow victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and
stalking to take a reasonable amount of time off from work to obtain
social and medical services, appear in court, and deal with the
traumatic effects of these crimes. Although this bill did not pass the
Legislature this year, it will be considered again next year during the
second half of Washington's 2007-2009 biennium.
The Violence Against Women Act and other legislation that Congress
has passed has made an enormous difference for victims by creating
emergency shelter services and improving the response of the criminal
and civil justice systems to domestic and sexual violence. However, too
many victims are afraid to access those services because they are
worried that if they miss work, they will lose their jobs. Please pass
legislation that ensures that victims can take the necessary steps to
protect themselves without jeopardizing their employment and economic
security.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on this
topic. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at [email protected] or 206-682-9552, ext. 107.
Sincerely,
Molly Lawrence,
Interim Legal & Legislative Counsel.
______
American Bar Association,
Washington, DC. 20005,
April 16, 2007.
Hon. Patty Murray, Chair,
Hon. Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Employment & Workplace Safety,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Dear Chair Murray and Senator Isakson: On behalf of the American
Bar Association, I am submitting this written statement for tomorrow's
hearing, ``Too Much, Too Long? Domestic Violence in the Workplace,''
that outlines the Association's views on this important issue. The ABA
would appreciate inclusion of this statement in the hearing record.
Sincerely,
Denise A. Cardman,
Acting Director.
______