Following up on the last post, I wanted to share this incredibly moving poetry performance by a young man who was standing up for a woman on the bus. Apparently this piece was a part of the 2013 National Poetry Slam in Boston. There's not much to say about it, other than that it is beautiful. Please watch the video at this link:
7 Cowardly Words From A Totally Sexist Stranger Sparked This Courageous Response - Upworthy
Sunday, October 27, 2013
More and More Rape Survivors are Choosing to Go Public
Here's an interesting new approach being taken by increasing numbers of young people these days who survive a sexual assault. Being a survivor has long been considered a major taboo or stigma due to the shame, humiliation, and embarrassment that survivors may feel in coming forward. And then of course, there are the real, actual punishments inflicted upon survivors when they do come forward: everything from re-victimization by law enforcement, the court system, educational institutions, blame from friends and family who struggle to make sense of what happened (and in some countries being stoned to death or burned alive!), direct retaliation by the perpetrators, friends or family of the perpetrators, or the public, and, most of all, blame from yourself as the survivor.
On top of all that, there are the more subtle, more cerebral, considerations surrounding the overwhelming fear about the details of your story becoming public information. The details of the event are of course very personal and very humiliating. Why would you want everyone to know those things about you? Why would you want everyone who ever sees you or meets you for the rest of your life to associate you with such atrocities? With such vulnerability? To see those images of you in their minds? They have no right to see that; no none does. Why would you want to identify yourself in that way to other people? To be inextricably intertwined with that story, so that it forever becomes a part of your identity in others' minds? Why tell people those things, and in so doing, perhaps make yourself that much more vulnerable than you already are, which is pretty damned vulnerable?
Maybe part of the fear comes from a fear a re-attack. If people know you are damaged in this way, then what if they use that information to take advantage of you again? After all, some people are evil, and those people do and will take advantage. That, if nothing else, is what you have learned from your awful, dreadful experience. Right?
Indeed, there is so much to consider in deciding whether to tell anyone at all (let alone everyone), if so, who, when, and how much to tell, and what will happen to you, your identity, your life, and to the lives of others, as a result of coming forward.
But as the thinking here (in this article below) goes, it is only in silence that the perpetrators continue to win. Again and again and again. They are guaranteed through your silence that they will continue to live their lives without any real consequences or repercussions, and they will (in most cases) be guaranteed the opportunity to reoffend over and over again, continuing to ruin the lives of the vulnerable and everyone around them. Maybe, just maybe, by finally putting aside the shame and the secrecy, in the name of privacy, we as a society can truly understand the depth and the gravity of what you have been through, how it has affected you, how it has affected everyone else in your life, and what we as a society can and should DO about it. Only then can we all truly understand the importance of accountability and community support. Maybe your story will not be enough to send your rapist(s) to prison for life, or to prevent him (or her, or them) from hurting someone else, but with your story, at least there's a chance. Without it, there's nothing but privacy.
Easier said than done.
On the other hand, the whole idea of rape shield laws and a victim's right of privacy was to help survivors maintain their dignity and avoid public scrutiny and condemnation. I could certainly see that point of view, too. After all you've been through, why should you be punished or humiliated by putting yourself out there like that? On the other hand, are you, at some point, doing a disservice to the public by not sharing this information? Yes, these are difficult decisions indeed.
There is no right or wrong answer. It always depends on your individual situation and what you know and feel in your heart is the right thing to do. But this article was moving and powerful and inspiring and raised some very good points to consider. I think this courageous young lady, Daisy Coleman, like the hundreds of other survivors who have chosen to go public, has some good things to say. Part of the new dynamic with today's young adults is that social media has the ability to quickly and powerfully transform social consciousness in ways that were not available to the young adults of yesterday. For better or for worse, privacy is being eroded, sometimes by choice, sometimes not, but one upside is that people seem to care more about these issues than they did before. And that (hopefully) is a good thing for women today.
Why Rape Victims Are Giving Up Their Right to Privacy - nymag.com
On top of all that, there are the more subtle, more cerebral, considerations surrounding the overwhelming fear about the details of your story becoming public information. The details of the event are of course very personal and very humiliating. Why would you want everyone to know those things about you? Why would you want everyone who ever sees you or meets you for the rest of your life to associate you with such atrocities? With such vulnerability? To see those images of you in their minds? They have no right to see that; no none does. Why would you want to identify yourself in that way to other people? To be inextricably intertwined with that story, so that it forever becomes a part of your identity in others' minds? Why tell people those things, and in so doing, perhaps make yourself that much more vulnerable than you already are, which is pretty damned vulnerable?
Maybe part of the fear comes from a fear a re-attack. If people know you are damaged in this way, then what if they use that information to take advantage of you again? After all, some people are evil, and those people do and will take advantage. That, if nothing else, is what you have learned from your awful, dreadful experience. Right?
Indeed, there is so much to consider in deciding whether to tell anyone at all (let alone everyone), if so, who, when, and how much to tell, and what will happen to you, your identity, your life, and to the lives of others, as a result of coming forward.
But as the thinking here (in this article below) goes, it is only in silence that the perpetrators continue to win. Again and again and again. They are guaranteed through your silence that they will continue to live their lives without any real consequences or repercussions, and they will (in most cases) be guaranteed the opportunity to reoffend over and over again, continuing to ruin the lives of the vulnerable and everyone around them. Maybe, just maybe, by finally putting aside the shame and the secrecy, in the name of privacy, we as a society can truly understand the depth and the gravity of what you have been through, how it has affected you, how it has affected everyone else in your life, and what we as a society can and should DO about it. Only then can we all truly understand the importance of accountability and community support. Maybe your story will not be enough to send your rapist(s) to prison for life, or to prevent him (or her, or them) from hurting someone else, but with your story, at least there's a chance. Without it, there's nothing but privacy.
Easier said than done.
On the other hand, the whole idea of rape shield laws and a victim's right of privacy was to help survivors maintain their dignity and avoid public scrutiny and condemnation. I could certainly see that point of view, too. After all you've been through, why should you be punished or humiliated by putting yourself out there like that? On the other hand, are you, at some point, doing a disservice to the public by not sharing this information? Yes, these are difficult decisions indeed.
There is no right or wrong answer. It always depends on your individual situation and what you know and feel in your heart is the right thing to do. But this article was moving and powerful and inspiring and raised some very good points to consider. I think this courageous young lady, Daisy Coleman, like the hundreds of other survivors who have chosen to go public, has some good things to say. Part of the new dynamic with today's young adults is that social media has the ability to quickly and powerfully transform social consciousness in ways that were not available to the young adults of yesterday. For better or for worse, privacy is being eroded, sometimes by choice, sometimes not, but one upside is that people seem to care more about these issues than they did before. And that (hopefully) is a good thing for women today.
Why Rape Victims Are Giving Up Their Right to Privacy - nymag.com
On the flip side, there is also the dreadful possibility that photos or videos of the actual assault will be released to the public:
This is NOT, I repeat, this is NOT, the same as thing as the survivor making a conscious, informed decision about whether to tell her (or his) story. Only YOU as the survivor should have the power to decide if, when, who, and how much to tell. But this related issue also touches on privacy and victims' rights when it comes to sexual assault, so I thought it was worth including. And it does raise a larger question common to both issues: Does putting sexual assault more into the public limelight, and the public media, increase awareness of the problem and support for survivors, or does it merely increase insensitivity to violence, as well as public condemnation and threats of violence toward the survivor? I suppose it all depends on how the information is conveyed.
Southwest Virginia Community Health System Settles Sexual Harassment Suit
Southwest Virginia Community Health System (SVCHS) in Saltville, VA has settled a sexual harassment suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a female receptionist at the Troutdale, VA clinic. The receptionist alleged that she was sexually harassed by a male patient at the clinic and that the company failed to take action to stop the harassment after she complained about it.
Southwest Virginia Community Health System to Pay $30,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit - EEOC Press Release
Southwest Virginia Community Health System to Pay $30,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit - EEOC Press Release
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Settles Sex Discrimination Suit
A female border protection agent in upstate Maine, who worked at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Coburn Gore facility near the Canadian border, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for sex discrimination after suffering years of bullying at work based on her gender. This woman's charming male supervisor allegedly made numerous comments to her about how a woman's place is in the kitchen where she'd better have dinner "hot and ready." She also made allegations of incidents of physical harassment in addition to the ongoing verbal harassment, and she claimed she was eventually terminated from her job on trumped up charges.
Well, lucky for her boss, she had a lawsuit "hot and ready" for him! And now Customs has settled the case for $285,000. Unfortunately, the nasty boss still works there, seemingly with no real consequences or repercussions (an all too common occurrence), and she is now working as a store clerk. Hopefully this money will help her get back on her feet and back into law enforcement where she wants to be.
Maine Border Protection Agent Wins Six-Figure Discrimination Settlement - mpbn.net
Well, lucky for her boss, she had a lawsuit "hot and ready" for him! And now Customs has settled the case for $285,000. Unfortunately, the nasty boss still works there, seemingly with no real consequences or repercussions (an all too common occurrence), and she is now working as a store clerk. Hopefully this money will help her get back on her feet and back into law enforcement where she wants to be.
Maine Border Protection Agent Wins Six-Figure Discrimination Settlement - mpbn.net
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Former Highest-Ranking Female Executive at Booz Allen Hamilton Settles Sex Discrimination Suit
At one time, Molly Finn was the highest-ranking female executive at large defense contracting company Booz Allen Hamilton. This is a company where only about 20% of the partners are female. Ms. Finn, who began working at Booz in 1986, claims that the higher she got up in the ranks, the more discrimination she experienced, because of what she and others call a glass ceiling, which seeks to get rid of women before they advance any further. (We wouldn't want them taking over the company, aahhh!) Ms. Finn says that another executive at the company told her to "stop saying 'pro-woman, feminist things'" if she wanted to keep her job. Eventually, Booz fired her in 2010. She filed suit in 2011 and has now settled the suit. Naturally, Booz has admitted no wrongdoing, but a female spokeswoman for the company did point out that, "The higher you go in the firm . . . the risk is higher." The risk of what exactly? The risk of a discriminatory termination, maybe? Hm, cryptic words indeed from a company woman.
Another female executive of Booz, Margo Fitzpatrick, who began working at Booz in 1999, was also fired in 2010 and also filed suit in 2011 for the same reasons. Her suit is ongoing.
Booz Allen Hamilton Settles Lawsuit with Former High-Ranking Female Executive - The Washington Post
Another female executive of Booz, Margo Fitzpatrick, who began working at Booz in 1999, was also fired in 2010 and also filed suit in 2011 for the same reasons. Her suit is ongoing.
Booz Allen Hamilton Settles Lawsuit with Former High-Ranking Female Executive - The Washington Post
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal and Revives Case Against Family Dollar Stores
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has given the pay discrimination class action against Family Dollar Stores, Inc. a second chance. Fifty-one female store managers of Family Dollar brought suit in federal court in Alabama against Family Dollar, claiming they were paid less than male store managers for doing the same work. Family Dollar then got the case transferred to a different court in North Carolina. Family Dollar then filed a motion for judgment against the Plaintiffs, arguing that the Plaintiffs could not meet the requirements for class action certification under the federal rules.
During this time, another major class action for gender discrimination was going on, the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case. Dukes v. Wal-Mart was a class action sex discrimination case brought on behalf of 1.5 MILLION female employees of Wal-Mart. At the time, that case had been reversed in favor of the Plaintiffs by the Ninth Circuit on the class action certification issue, but Wal-Mart took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for . . . ahem . . . further consideration . . . .
Meanwhile, in the Family Dollar case, the trial court in North Carolina originally denied Family Dollar's motion for judgment against the Plaintiffs. HOWEVER, it appears that Family Dollar succeeded in getting the case transferred to yet another different judge who would . . . ahem . . . maybe see the case differently. And indeed the new judge did. That is because, while the case was being stalled and moved around to different courts and different judges (it appears here that Family Dollar's attorneys may have been stalling for time and awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Wal-Mart case), the Supreme Court reversed that Ninth Circuit's decision in Wal-Mart and threw out the Plaintiff's class action claims.
The Court in Wal-Mart held that the Plaintiffs could not meet the commonality requirement for class action certification where they were all from different districts and the decisions that were allegedly discriminatory were made by different district managers. In other words, as relevant to Family Dollar, if one manager decides to pay you less because you're a woman, and a different manager decides to pay somebody else less because she is a woman, your claim does not have enough in common with the other woman's claim, even though you are working for the same company and have the same claims, because there are different decision makers involved, so you cannot bring the claims together in the same law suit (or at least not as a class action).
Well, the trial court in the Family Dollar case cited the new Wal-Mart decision when it threw out the Plaintiffs' claims by granting Family Dollar's motion for judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their Complaint, thereby axing their entire case. This was despite the fact that the Wal-Mart decision essentially added new and additional requirements to what must be included in the Plaintiffs' original complaint, but the Plaintiffs were not allowed to correct their original Complaint to account for those new requirements. The OTHER Catch-22 of course, was the fact that the Plaintiffs in Family Dollar were alleging that it was the centralized corporate policies of Family Dollar that led to the pay discrimination (the same policies in every district), yet they were never given the chance to pursue that theory or those allegations. The ultimate Catch-22 with these cases (and with all the new and additional pleadings requirements being erected by the courts in recent years, the overall point of which, imho, is just to make it more difficult for individuals to sue big corporations), is that one cannot prove one's theories in the absence of discovery during litigation (the process by which the parties obtain information from the other side to prove their respective theories of the case), yet they are never given the chance to engage in any discovery which they would need to prove their case, because their claims are axed at the outset, based on the fact that they have not put enough established information (a.k.a PROOF that they don't yet have) IN THEIR COMPLAINTS! Argh.
So, on the basis of Wal-Mart, the trial court in Family Dollar finally axed the Plaintiffs' claims.
BUT THEN, in came the Fourth Circuit, which REVERSED the trial court's denial of the Plaintiffs' request to amend their Complaint. As the Fourth Circuit observed, even if lower level managers are making different subjective and discriminatory decisions, they are not the ones setting the policies for the entire corporation, so if the policies themselves are discriminatory, then that equates to commonality for class action purposes. And, as the Court also noted, the Plaintiffs were alleging that higher level managers were also making discriminatory decisions that affected multiple districts and plaintiffs. Again, commonality. The court used these and other facts to distinguish the Wal-Mart case from the Family Dollar case. Simply put, the Plaintiffs should at least get the CHANCE to make the allegations they need to make to satisfy the Wal-Mart class action requirements (which, imho, are now essentially new and additional requirements which are NOT set forth in the federal class action rule), because giving them that chance is "necessary to ensure meaningful review."
The Court also shot down Family Dollar's arguments that allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint would be prejudicial to Family Dollar. The Court pointed out that Family Dollar cannot turn around and claim prejudice now when Family Dollar was the one prolonging the litigation all along. Bam. Eat it and like it, Fortune 500 friends!
So now the Plaintiffs can amend their complaint and revive the class action lawsuit. Thank you, Fourth Circuit! Here is a link the the Fourth Circuit's opinion:
And for point-and-counterpoint purposes, here is a pro-corporate rant about how horrible this decision was:
Supreme Disregard in Scott v. Family Dollar - The Wall Street Journal
Now, we can probably expect Family Dollar to try to take it up with the Supreme Court. . . .
During this time, another major class action for gender discrimination was going on, the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case. Dukes v. Wal-Mart was a class action sex discrimination case brought on behalf of 1.5 MILLION female employees of Wal-Mart. At the time, that case had been reversed in favor of the Plaintiffs by the Ninth Circuit on the class action certification issue, but Wal-Mart took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for . . . ahem . . . further consideration . . . .
Meanwhile, in the Family Dollar case, the trial court in North Carolina originally denied Family Dollar's motion for judgment against the Plaintiffs. HOWEVER, it appears that Family Dollar succeeded in getting the case transferred to yet another different judge who would . . . ahem . . . maybe see the case differently. And indeed the new judge did. That is because, while the case was being stalled and moved around to different courts and different judges (it appears here that Family Dollar's attorneys may have been stalling for time and awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Wal-Mart case), the Supreme Court reversed that Ninth Circuit's decision in Wal-Mart and threw out the Plaintiff's class action claims.
The Court in Wal-Mart held that the Plaintiffs could not meet the commonality requirement for class action certification where they were all from different districts and the decisions that were allegedly discriminatory were made by different district managers. In other words, as relevant to Family Dollar, if one manager decides to pay you less because you're a woman, and a different manager decides to pay somebody else less because she is a woman, your claim does not have enough in common with the other woman's claim, even though you are working for the same company and have the same claims, because there are different decision makers involved, so you cannot bring the claims together in the same law suit (or at least not as a class action).
Well, the trial court in the Family Dollar case cited the new Wal-Mart decision when it threw out the Plaintiffs' claims by granting Family Dollar's motion for judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their Complaint, thereby axing their entire case. This was despite the fact that the Wal-Mart decision essentially added new and additional requirements to what must be included in the Plaintiffs' original complaint, but the Plaintiffs were not allowed to correct their original Complaint to account for those new requirements. The OTHER Catch-22 of course, was the fact that the Plaintiffs in Family Dollar were alleging that it was the centralized corporate policies of Family Dollar that led to the pay discrimination (the same policies in every district), yet they were never given the chance to pursue that theory or those allegations. The ultimate Catch-22 with these cases (and with all the new and additional pleadings requirements being erected by the courts in recent years, the overall point of which, imho, is just to make it more difficult for individuals to sue big corporations), is that one cannot prove one's theories in the absence of discovery during litigation (the process by which the parties obtain information from the other side to prove their respective theories of the case), yet they are never given the chance to engage in any discovery which they would need to prove their case, because their claims are axed at the outset, based on the fact that they have not put enough established information (a.k.a PROOF that they don't yet have) IN THEIR COMPLAINTS! Argh.
So, on the basis of Wal-Mart, the trial court in Family Dollar finally axed the Plaintiffs' claims.
BUT THEN, in came the Fourth Circuit, which REVERSED the trial court's denial of the Plaintiffs' request to amend their Complaint. As the Fourth Circuit observed, even if lower level managers are making different subjective and discriminatory decisions, they are not the ones setting the policies for the entire corporation, so if the policies themselves are discriminatory, then that equates to commonality for class action purposes. And, as the Court also noted, the Plaintiffs were alleging that higher level managers were also making discriminatory decisions that affected multiple districts and plaintiffs. Again, commonality. The court used these and other facts to distinguish the Wal-Mart case from the Family Dollar case. Simply put, the Plaintiffs should at least get the CHANCE to make the allegations they need to make to satisfy the Wal-Mart class action requirements (which, imho, are now essentially new and additional requirements which are NOT set forth in the federal class action rule), because giving them that chance is "necessary to ensure meaningful review."
The Court also shot down Family Dollar's arguments that allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint would be prejudicial to Family Dollar. The Court pointed out that Family Dollar cannot turn around and claim prejudice now when Family Dollar was the one prolonging the litigation all along. Bam. Eat it and like it, Fortune 500 friends!
So now the Plaintiffs can amend their complaint and revive the class action lawsuit. Thank you, Fourth Circuit! Here is a link the the Fourth Circuit's opinion:
And for point-and-counterpoint purposes, here is a pro-corporate rant about how horrible this decision was:
Supreme Disregard in Scott v. Family Dollar - The Wall Street Journal
Now, we can probably expect Family Dollar to try to take it up with the Supreme Court. . . .
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Ex-Mayor of San Diego Bob Filner Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges in Sexual Harassment Scandal
Bob Filner has now pleaded guilty to criminal false imprisonment and battery charges in connection with his extensive and egregious (and now apparently admitted) sexual harassment of numerous City of San Diego employees. At least he is "manning up," as they say in sexist terms.
It is unfortunate for Democrats that this happened with the first Democratic mayor in San Diego in twenty years--and within nine months of him taking office. Unfortunately, when an office is this political, and there had been a lot of bipartisan animosity brewing in this office in recent years, this kind of thing, in some ways, gives all Democrats a bad rap. Some democrats have written this off as a shameless political smear campaign, but it's clear by this point that the charges are substantiated. Maybe another democrat will step up who is NOT so pervy!
Lessons from Ex-San Diego Mayor Filner's Sex Harassment Scandal - L.A. Times
It is unfortunate for Democrats that this happened with the first Democratic mayor in San Diego in twenty years--and within nine months of him taking office. Unfortunately, when an office is this political, and there had been a lot of bipartisan animosity brewing in this office in recent years, this kind of thing, in some ways, gives all Democrats a bad rap. Some democrats have written this off as a shameless political smear campaign, but it's clear by this point that the charges are substantiated. Maybe another democrat will step up who is NOT so pervy!
Lessons from Ex-San Diego Mayor Filner's Sex Harassment Scandal - L.A. Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)