Redefining the State\u27s Response to Domestic Violence: Past Victories and future Challenges

What role should the state play in the fight against domestic violence? Although most activists in the early domestic abuse movement viewed government institutions with a robust dose of suspicion, over time they began to look to the state for substantial assistance. During this period-the late sixties and seventies-increased hope for a positive governmental role appeared to be well-founded. The civil rights, feminist, and labor movements had pushed the federal government into expanding civil liberty guarantees and economic protections. Laws were enacted prohibiting sex- and race-based discrimination, health care got a strong boost through the creation of Medicaid and Medicare, and workplace safety guarantees were expanded. And in the seventies and eighties, on the domestic violence front, state legislatures enacted civil protection order statutes that were the first laws specifically designed to protect victims of intimate abuse

Fighting Domestic Violence in the Nation’s Capital

Every year, in the District of Columbia alone, the Metropolitan Police Department receives more than 18,000 calls for help from victims of domestic violence, and more than 2,500 battered women bring legal actions requesting protection from their abusers. Thousands of other cases go unreported, either because the victims are too afraid of their batterers to report the violence, or because they do not know how to obtain relief to which they are entitled

Can a \u27Dumb Ass Woman\u27 Achieve Equality in the Workplace? Running the Gauntlet of Hostile Environment Harassing Speech

Sandra Bundy may have guessed that her new job with the District of Columbia Department of Corrections would be a challenge. What she may not have expected was that she would have to meet the challenge under very different conditions than those faced by her male coworkers. Ms. Bundy\u27s work was continually interrupted by one of her supervisors, who kept calling her into his office and forcing her to listen to his theories about how women ride horses to obtain sexual gratification. He repeatedly asked Ms. Bundy to come home with him in order to view his collection of pictures and books on this topic. Another supervisor repeatedly propositioned her, asking her to come with him to a motel or on a trip to the Bahamas. None of Ms. Bundy\u27s male counterparts, in contrast, had to listen to their boss\u27s sexual fantasies and proposals. When Ms. Bundy tried to remove this gender-based obstacle to her job performance by reporting it to a third supervisor and pleading for help, he only exacerbated the problem, telling her that any man in his right mind would want to rape you, and asking her to have sex with him. Ms. Bundy successfully sued the Department of Corrections for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, the federal statute outlawing workplace discrimination. The implicit holding of the Bundy case-that speech alone can create a discriminatory hostile work environment-went unquestioned for many years. Recently, however, defense attorneys have challenged the constitutionality of this principle, arguing that a prohibition on discriminatory workplace expression violates harassers\u27 First Amendment rights

Discounting Credibility: Doubting the Stories of Women Survivors of Sexual Harassment

For decades, federal and state laws have prohibited sexual harassment on the job; despite this fact, extraordinarily high rates of gender-based workplace harassment still permeate virtually every sector of the American workforce. Public awareness of the seriousness and scope of the problem increased astronomically in the wake of the #MeToo movement, as women began to publicly share countless stories of harassment and abuse. In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace published an important study analyzing a wide range of factors contributing to this phenomenon. But the study devotes only limited attention to a factor that goes straight to the heart of the problem: our reflexive inclination to discount the credibility of women, especially when those women are recounting experiences of abuse perpetrated by more powerful men. We will not succeed in ending gender-based workplace discrimination until we can understand and resist this tendency and begin to appropriately credit survivors’ stories. How does gender-based credibility discounting operate? First, those charged with responding to workplace harassment--managers, supervisors, union representatives, human resource officers, and judges—improperly discount as implausible women’s stories of harassment, due to a failure to understand either the psychological trauma caused by abusive treatment or the practical realities that constrain women’s options in its aftermath. Second, gatekeepers unjustly discount women’s personal trustworthiness, based on their demeanor (as affected by the trauma they often have suffered); on negative cultural stereotypes about women’s motives for seeking redress for harms; and on our deep-rooted cultural belief that women as a group are inherently less than fully trustworthy. The impact of such unjust and discriminatory treatment of women survivors of workplace harassment is exacerbated by the larger “credibility economy”—the credibility discounts imposed on many women-victims can only be fully understood in the context of the credibility inflations afforded to many male harassers. Moreover, discounting women’s credibility results in a particular and virulent set of harms, which can be measured as both an additional psychic injury to survivors, and as an institutional betrayal that echoes the harm initially inflicted by harassers themselves. It is time—long past time--to adopt practical, concrete reforms to combat the widespread, automatic tendency to discount women and the stories they tell. We must embark on a path toward allowing women who share their experiences of male abuses of workplace power to trust the responsiveness of their employers, judges, and our larger society

Free Speech at Work: Verbal Harassment as Discriminatory (Mis)treatment

In his reply to my article on workplace harassment law and freedom of speech, Professor Volokh does not respond to my most important critiques of his earlier work. For example, he fails to grapple with the true complexity of the problem by focusing exclusively on one side of this conflict of rights-the burden that the law imposes on workplace expression. Equal attention must be paid to the other side: the harm inflicted by discriminatory speech on employees of a single gender. As I describe in detail in my original piece, these harms may include: an adverse effect on the quantity and quality of a woman\u27s work; emotional and physical stress-related problems such as fear, anxiety, depression, humiliation, nausea, fatigue, and headaches; and costs to the government of over $130 million a year due to decreased worker productivity, sick leave awards, and replacement of employees who leave their jobs because of sexual harassment

Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences

In recent months, we’ve seen an unprecedented wave of testimonials about the serious harms women all too frequently endure. The #MeToo moment, the #WhyIStayed campaign, and the Larry Nassar sentencing hearings have raised public awareness not only about workplace harassment, domestic violence, and sexual abuse, but also about how routinely women survivors face a Gaslight-style gauntlet of doubt, disbelief, and outright dismissal of their stories. This pattern is particularly disturbing in the justice system, where women face a legal twilight zone: laws meant to protect them and deter further abuse often fail to achieve their purpose, because women telling stories of abuse by their male partners are simply not believed. To fully grasp the nature of this new moment in gendered power relations—and to cement the significant gains won by these public campaigns—we need to take a full, considered look at when, how, and why the justice system and other key social institutions discount women’s credibility. We use the lens of intimate partner violence to examine the ways in which women’s credibility is discounted in a range of legal and social service system settings. First, judges and others improperly discount as implausible women’s stories of abuse, based on a failure to understand both the symptoms arising from neurological and psychological trauma, and the practical constraints on survivors’ lives. Second, gatekeepers unjustly discount women’s personal trustworthiness, based on both inaccurate interpretations of survivors’ courtroom demeanor and negative cultural stereotypes about women and their motivations for seeking assistance. Moreover, even when a woman manages to overcome all the initial modes of institutional skepticism that minimize her account of abuse, she often finds that the systems designed to furnish her with help and protection dismiss the importance of her experiences. Instead, all too often, the arbiters of justice and social welfare adopt and enforce legal and social policies and practices with little regard for how they perpetuate patterns of abuse. Two distinct harms arise from this pervasive pattern of credibility discounting and experiential dismissal. First, the discrediting of survivors constitutes its own psychic injury—an institutional betrayal that echoes the psychological abuse women suffer at the hands of individual perpetrators. Second, the pronounced, nearly instinctive penchant for devaluing women’s testimony is so deeply embedded within survivors’ experience that it becomes a potent, independent obstacle to their efforts to obtain safety and justice. The reflexive discounting of women’s stories of domestic violence finds analogs among the kindred diminutions and dismissals that harm so many other women who resist the abusive exercise of male power, from survivors of workplace harassment to victims of sexual assault on and off campus. For these women, too, credibility discounts both deepen the harm they experience and create yet another impediment to healing and justice. Concrete, systematic reforms are needed to eradicate these unjust, gender-based credibility discounts and experiential dismissals, and to enable women subjected to male abuses of power at long last to trust the responsiveness of the justice system

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES: RETHINKING THE ROLES OF PROSECUTORS, JUDGES, AND THE COURT SYSTEM

Despite over two decades of reform, fundamental failures persist in the justice system\u27s response to domestic violence. Society now widely accepts elimination of intrafamily abuse as a crucial goal, and it has been illegal in most states since the late nineteenth century. But the problem remains one of epidemic proportions. As documented in Part I of this Article, battering by husbands, ex-husbands, or lovers is the single largest cause of injury to women in the United States, and accounts for approximately thirty percent of all murders of women. Physical aggression occurs in at least one out of four marriages, and comparable rates exist among couples who are living together, engaged, or dating.\u27 Domestic violence is also a major contributing factor to other social ills such as child abuse and neglect, female alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, attempted suicide, and homelessness

Beyond the RCT: Integrating Rigor and Relevance to Evaluate the Outcomes of Domestic Violence Programs

Programs for domestic violence (DV) victims and their families have grown exponentially over the last four decades. The evidence demonstrating the extent of their effectiveness, however, often has been criticized as stemming from studies lacking scientific rigor. A core reason for this critique is the widespread belief that credible evidence can derive only from research grounded in randomized control trials (RCTs). Although the RCT method has its strengths, we argue that it is rarely an optimal—or even a possible—approach for evaluating multifaceted DV programs. This article reviews the reasons that RCT is a poor fit for such programs and argues that a more inclusive conceptualization of credible evidence is critical to expanding our knowledge base about how DV programs affect survivors’ safety and well-being

Transforming Aggressive Prosecution Policies: Prioritizing Victims’ Long-Term Safety in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases

Until fairly recently, prosecutors\u27 offices around the country ignored domestic violence cases, failing to press charges in the vast majority of situations and dropping charges prior to conviction in many others. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the battered women\u27s movement made significant efforts to improve the criminal justice system\u27s response. One way that this effort has met with substantial success is that many prosecutors\u27 offices now have adopted aggressive no-drop policies for domestic violence cases. In these jurisdictions, cases proceed regardless of the victim\u27s preferences about prosecution, even if she recants her original story and testifies for the defense