Friday, November 14, 2008 is an important date for all women and civil rights plaintiffs accross America - and the world..
Stalking in the workplace is not uncommon. 1 in 4 women are stalked in their lifetimes - women's rights must be protected!
This case will impact our future as well as the future of our children for years to come. We need change and we need it now!
For millions of victims and civil rights plaintiffs we are hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will not fail the citizen who has done everything right...
The question for this week is..Will the U.S. Supreme Court review this landmark case that will set precedent for women stalked in the workplace?
If a woman can be stalked in her workplace, and fired for asking her employer to take reasonable steps to keep him out of the workplace, they will be forced to choose between their safety and their livelihood....this sounds like a movie trailer but this is actually happening right now in workplaces across the nation!
Thanks to Attorney Dawn V. Martin and to the many individuals and groups who have signed on in support of Martin v. Howard U.. - thanks to Attorney Martin and to those that have supported her over the years there is hope for change that all of us can believe in!
Please continue to blog, post comments and to write letters to the editors in your area to help get the word out regarding this case!
One person can make a difference! Thank you Attorney Dawn Martin for fighting for justice as it is not easy.
####
PRESS RELEASE: November 8, 2008
Contact: Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin e-mail: dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com
(202) 408-7040; (703) 642-0207 website: www.dvmartinlaw.com
National Women’s Organizations Ask Supreme Court to Reverse Decision
Holding that a Woman Can be Fired for being Stalked in her Workplace
Washington, D.C. – Martin v. Howard University and Alice Gresham Bullock, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08-204. As a law professor at Howard University, Dawn Martin was stalked by a delusional, homeless, serial stalker of African-American female professors. The stalker, Leonard Harrison, was searching for the physical embodiment of his "fantasy" wife -- a fictional female character, Geneva Crenshaw, in a book, And We are not Saved, written by Prof. Derrick Bell.
Instead of following its own security procedures to ban the stalker from campus, Howard respondedto Prof. Martin’s requests for protection by refusing to renew her teaching contract. She sued Howard for sexual harassment/hostile work environment and retaliation. Martin is the first case to present the issue of "gender profiling" in the employment context -- or the "working while female" factor. The application of “gender profiling” to sexual harassment cases will also set precedent for
racial, ethnic and religious profiling harassment cases.
On Friday, November 14, 2008, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether it will hear Martin v. Howard University on the merits. Ms. Martin filed a Petition for Certiorari, asking the Court to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in her own case, based on sexual harassment/hostile work environment and retaliation. See Ms. Martin’s Petition for Certiorari, Howard’s Brief in Opposition, Ms. Martin's Reply Brief and the Amicus Curiae Brief
(friend of the Court) filed by The National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), supporting Ms. Martin. See
http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.html. Additional Amici include: 1) Peace at Work; 2) The Arizona Coalition against Domestic Violence; 3) The Iowa Coalition against Domestic Violence;4) Survivors in Action; 5) The Weaker Vessel; 6) After the Trauma; and 7) The California Protective Parents’ Association. Roberta Y. Wright, Esq., represents the Amici Curaie.
For information on Howard's continued lack of security on campus while campus crime, including sexual assault, increases, see http://alexisamoore.blogspot.com (comments posted) and http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=7525274. For Howard's own report of crime on its campus, see
http://www.howard.edu/services/campuspolice/Statistics/default.htm and
http://www.howard.edu/services/campuspolice/documents/ANNUALREPORT20062Bedit..pdf.
In 1999, the federal district court set precedent in Martin by adopting the EEOC Regulation 29 CFR 1604.11(e), holding that an employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to stop it. Judge Hogan identified the jury questions as: 1) whether Harrison’s harassment was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment;
and 2) whether Howard took reasonable steps to end it. The jury agreed with Prof.Martin that Harrison’s harassment did create a “hostile work environment” for her and that Howard did not take reasonable steps to end it; yet the verdict was for Howard. With insufficient legal instruction fromthe judge, the confused jurors found that the harassment was not based on sex -- meaning that Prof.
2
Martin’s complaints were not “protected activity” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. There was therefore no statute to protect her against any retaliatory act that Howard took against her for being a stalking victim. If not reversed, this decision leaves a woman with absolutely no remedy for being stalked in her workplace or being fired in retaliation for complaining about it. Martin highlights the
need for federal legislation expressly protecting stalking victims from retaliation by their employers.
The precedent set by this Court will determine how employers and educational institutions will respond to stalking and other types of workplace and campus violence – particularly when it is directed against women. If a woman can be stalked in her workplace, and fired for asking her employer to take reasonable steps to keep him out of the workplace, they will be forced to choose
between their safety and their livelihood.
The trial judge held that “groping” and “touching” are “typical” indicia of sexual harassment cases and that since Harrison did not touch Prof. Martin, the jury had reason to find that she was not sexually harassed. The precedent set by this decision arguably requires that a woman be assaulted in order to establish that she was sexually harassed in her workplace. The court also held that because,
on one occasion seven years earlier, Harrison threatened Prof Bell, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Harrison did not harass Prof. Martin on the basis of her gender; however, the legal definition of “stalking” requires repeated acts of harassment directed toward the same victim.
Harrison contacted Prof. Bell on only one occasion, and then only to solicit his assistance in identifying the next woman he would stalk -- the “model” for “Geneva Crenshaw.” Ms. Martin said, “Howard’s argument is like saying that John Hinckley did not sexually harass Jodie Foster when he stalked her because he also attempted to kill President Reagan. The fact that a sexually harassing stalker may also have committed a violent act against a man in his lifetime does not negate the fact
that he sexually harassed a woman in another setting.”
Howard repeatedly changed and contradicted its own stated reasons for Prof. Martin’s non-renewal. At trial, former Appointments Committee Chairperson, Isaiah Leggett, now Montgomery County Maryland Executive, resorted to a football analogy, comparing Martin to an aging “veteran” football player. Howard’s counsel told the jurors that the “team” decided to go with the younger “rookie quarterback”-- even though she had “less experience” than Prof. Martin (then age 40), because
“that rookie” might be the team’s “franchise player one day.” Howard never explained how playing football is like teaching law school or addressed the fact that age discrimination is also illegal.
Martin also presents issues regarding actionable retaliation under Title VII. Under the D.C. Circuit Court decision, an employer may cancel advertised vacancies to avoid hiring a person that it wants to reject from a job. Under this ruling, an employer may simply “pull down” a “Help Wanted” sign to avoid hiring an applicant with prior EEO activity or because of his/her race, gender, or other
protected group membership. Ms. Martin also asks the Court to define the circumstances under which a court can order Title VII plaintiffs to pay the litigation costs of the defendants.
NOW recently ran a campaign protesting the 11th Circuit’s assessment of costs against the plaintiff in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, after she lost her sex discrimination case at the Supreme Court. Such assessments unfairly punish plaintiffs who file civil rights claims, in good faith, in the public
interest. Absent reversal, Martin will have a deterrent effect on not only sex discrimination suits, but also lawsuits alleging discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, disability
and age.
All civil rights groups should be concerned about this precedent.
4 comments:
This comment is addressed to those individuals that cannot immediately see the injustice of the case and the significant ramifications if the Supreme Court does not address the underlying issue.
I believe that everyone can agree from a legal perspective, this matter should be heard by the Supreme Court because of confusion and inconsistency between the 1999 federal district court precedent set by Ms. Martin and the jury verdict (the federal district court adopted the EEOC Regulation 29 CFR 1604.11(e), holding that an employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to stop it. The jury held that Harrison’s harassment was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment, and Howard University failed to take reasonable steps to end it; yet the jury verdict was for Howard University). This inconsistent verdict must have been the result of confusing jury instruction.
The inconsistent verdict, alone, is sufficient for the Supreme Court to hear the case. Furthermore, when one combines the inconsistent verdict with the improper lower court rulings, it compels the Supreme Court to allow Ms. Martin to present her arguments.
It is important for everyone to understand the significance and future impact of this case on similarly situated victims.
There is no excuse for a University to neglect its security procedures, especially in this day and age, with violent incidents perpetrated by disturbed individuals punctuating the news! Howard just lucked out in that far more serious consequences did not occur in this case - no thanks to their negligence!
Of course, they did eventually avoid further disruption by the stalker - by removing his victim through dismissal from her job!
No sane person can see this as either a just or desirable outcome or “solution” to the problem.
It is sad that a University like Howard, with a fine reputation over the years, should commit such a shameful action, violating both the right to a safe workplace of Professor Martin, and her civil rights under the law.
I wonder how knowledge of this disgusting lack of concern for campus safety will be regarded by other female professors - or students - considering a Howard teaching position or education? Personally, I would think more than twice before exposing myself to such a lack of concern - or adherence to its own security procedures.
By the way, I’m not sure it has been reported - is this deranged individual still loose and casting about for a new and unwilling “wife”?
The ridiculousness of the allegation that stalking in the mad quest for a “wife” is “not associated with gender” boggles the mind.
The unfairness of penalizing Professor Martin, the victim of a crime, with dismissal from her position is so clear that it amazes me that the legal battle continues.
And if they should win the case (God forbid!), and the next - or even the same - sociopath becomes more deadly, what in the world will Howard gain?
I pray that the Supreme Court will see the importance of firmly establishing that employers may not fire anyone because they are being stalked or harrassed or threatened - and that they are required to take every possible step to provide a secure workplace for all, especially female employees.
Alexis, thank you so much for your TREMENDOUS support for my efforts in my case, Martin v. Howard Univ. and Alice Gresham Bullock, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 08-204. I wanted to update your readers on its status. On November 17, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to review my case, but that's not the last word on it. On December 12, 2008, I filed a Petition for Rehearing, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 44, asking the Court to reconsider, in light of its pending review of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, another case similarly alleging sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), joined by other women's advocacy and anti-violence groups, filed an Amicus Curiae (friend of the Court) Brief supporting my original Petition, but the Court denied the Amici’s motion to late file it, so their arguments were not considered. I have petitioned the Court to consider their arguments and also to reconsider, in light of its pending review of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, another case similarly alleging sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. See http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.html.
I filed my case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment that is “sexual in nature” or based on gender. I argued that: 1) since 78% of stalking victims are women, stalking constitutes harassment on the basis of gender; 2) when the stalker uses “gender specific” language and criteria to select his victim, the stalking is harassment based on gender; and 3) where a stalker pursues a woman to make her his “wife,” the harassment is stalking “sexual in nature.” I am asking the Court to apply Title VII to protect women from workplace stalking and from employer retaliation for reporting stalking. Women who are doing nothing more than “working while female” should not have to choose between their jobs and their safety.
In 1999, I set precedent in federal district court, for the D.C. Circuit, in Martin by adopting the EEOC Regulation 29 CFR 1604.11(e), holding that an employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to end it. Martin v. Howard University and Alice Gresham Bullock, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516, 1999 WL 1295339, 81 FEP Cases 964 (BNA), 15 IER Cases 1587 (D.D.C. 1999). Judge Hogan identified the jury questions as: 1) whether Harrison’s harassment was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment; and 2) whether Howard took reasonable steps to end it. The jury agreed with me that Harrison’s harassment did create a “hostile work environment” for me and that Howard did not take reasonable steps to end it; yet the verdict was for Howard. With insufficient legal instruction from the judge, the confused jurors found that the harassment was not based on sex – and therefore, that my complaints were not “protected activity” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Many people have asked me how the jury could possibly have concluded that a man who pursued me to be his “wife” did not pursue me based on my gender – after all, he would not have pursued me to be his “wife” – defined as a “married woman” – if I were a male professor at Howard. He also would not have “profiled” me as “Geneva Crenshaw” if I were male, since “Geneva” is a female character. So, this issue was supposed to be the threshold, “no-brainer” that Judge Hogan had already resolved, as a matter of law, based on the undisputed facts, in his 1999 decision. Judge Hogan did not allow us to question the jury after the trial, but I believe that the determining factor was that Howard repeatedly told the jury that my claim must be defeated because I entitled her memos to then Law School Dean Alice Gresham Bullock “Security Problem on Campus” rather than “Sexual Harassment.” The case law specifically holds that a plaintiff does not need to have used the words “sexual harassment” to invoke Title VII. (I actually did initially use that term, but, as I explained at trial, after the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department characterized Harrison as a “stalker,” that is the term that I used to describe him, since the word “stalking” is, by definition, repeated and serious harassment. I asked Judge Hogan to instruct the jury that it is not necessary to use the precise words “sexual harassment” to invoke Title VII protection, using his own words from his 999 decision, but he flatly refused to provide it. Numerous courts have recognized that stalking is one of the most egregious forms of sexual harassment. Judge Hogan also refused to provide the jury with the D.C. stalking statute, which defines “stalking” as repeated harassment. Without the proper legal framework for analyzing harassment based on sex, jurors were confused into accepting Howard University’s argument that the stalker’s harassment was not sexual in nature or based on sex and that my complaints did not constitute “protected activity.”
I believe that the Court should consider my case along with Crawford. Both Ms. Crawford and I lost their jobs shortly after reporting the harassment to our respective employers. Both of us deprived of the opportunity to prove that we lost their jobs due to retaliation for reporting the harassment. In both Crawford and Martin, the respective Circuit Courts held that we did not engage in “protected activity” because of how we reported the sexual harassment to our employers. The Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford would control the outcome of Martin. If Martin is considered as a companion case to Crawford, or supplements Crawford, the Supreme Court would provide lower courts with a more comprehensive definition of “protected activity,” whether the harasser is an employee or a non-employee in the workplace.
As you well know, January is National Stalking Awareness Month -- so it is particularly appropriate that, on January 9, 2009, the Supreme Court will consider reviewing a workplace stalking case. Coincidentally, it is also during Stalking Awareness Month that Sky Radio will be broadcasting an interview with me about the case on American Airlines, from December 16, 2008 through January 31, 2009, as one of the women highlighted in its series entitled “Salute to Women in Leadership,” featured in Time Magazine. I am also currently featured as one of "American’s Premier Lawyers,” in “The Law Business Insider which includes another radio interview discussing the case.
In an recent interview with Barbara Walters, Paula Abdul directed public attention to the issue of workplace stalking, as a result of the recent suicide of a woman stalking her. Ms. Abdul alleged that her employer, American Idol, allowed the stalker on the show -- her workplace --for "entertainment value." A videotaped audition shows another contestant singing a song he had written about his desire to "stalk" Ms. Abdul. This is only the most recent publicised example of workplace stalking that is simply not taken seriously. These incidents also highlight the fact that there is no federal statute that expressly protects stalking victims against employer retaliation for complaining about stalking -- or that obligates employers to take reasonable steps to keep known stalkers out of the workplace. Thank you, Alexis, for all you to to help women survive and stand strong!
Every woman in America should be demanding that this case be heard - and that Dawn Martin achieves the justice she deserves. It is not only about Dawn, however - we are all equally vulnerable to sick individuals that stalk defenseless women.
I have not been stalked - but I've on a number of occasions been terrified by a threatening or mentally unbalanced male with whom I found myself alone. How much worse to be in that situation every minute of every day!
There is no excuse for not protecting women from this kind of harassment, certainly none for allowing it to threaten not just their freedom of movement, privacy, personal safety, but their jobs as well!
Yes, if the Supreme Court does not do the right thing, we should hound Congress until they do.
Blessings,
Liberty G
Post a Comment