Safe Leave Laws Gain Momentum At State Level

By Amanda Ottaway/Law 360

While a new bill in Congress that would provide paid leave for workers who’ve experienced domestic violence or sexual assault may be unlikely to pass this go-round, states and cities have already enacted paid safe leave policies that require employers’ attention, experts said.

States With Paid Safe Leave for Survivors of Violence
As Congress mulls a bill that would require paid safe leave nationwide for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, many states have already codified it.
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Source: A Better Balance, April 2024


The SAFE for Survivors Act was introduced Sept. 19, ahead of Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, by U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., and Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis. It would require 10 paid days of leave and 40 days total of job-protected leave for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault. Though experts acknowledged the bill would have a tough road toward passage in a contentious election year, they said it’s likely to get people talking and raise awareness both of the issues survivors face in the workplace and the rights they already have in many states.

“I think it’s a topic that is important to discuss, and I think that having this come up as a piece of federal legislation for discussion gets the conversation going on something that can otherwise be not talked about as much as it should,” said Dan Schwartz, a partner at Shipman & Goodwin LLP who represents employers. “So if it’s a small, modest step to ensuring that victims of domestic violence can get more assistance and protection from their employers, it seems like it’s worthy of the discussion.”

Minor Adjustment with a Big Impact

Schwartz practices in Connecticut, which has a paid safe leave requirement. It’s one of many states that have already picked up the baton: According to worker advocacy group A Better Balance, 15 states and the District of Columbia, plus 13 cities and two counties, have passed paid sick time laws that include a safe leave requirement as of April.

The federal bill would also require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to help employees who are survivors of violence, as well as bar discrimination against them. Workers can use the time to seek safety following an instance of domestic violence, report the violence to authorities, attend a court date or receive medical care. Some states additionally include sexual assault and stalking as qualifying acts of violence covered by these laws.

“The reality is that when someone’s going through a trauma like this, psychologically being able to focus on anything else is really tough, right? So the ability to not have to go to work, but not have to lose your job, is really important,” said worker-side lawyer Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini.

The statistics that underpin SAFE for Survivors Act are sobering: One in four U.S. women and one in seven men experience intimate partner violence at some point in their lives, and one in four women say they have been raped. Nearly half of both women and men experience “psychological aggression” by an intimate partner, according to the bill and the federal lawmakers who introduced it.

Experts on both the worker-advocate and management sides said a federal standard enshrining paid leave protections for survivors of such violence makes sense. Schwartz noted that multistate employers tend to have a hard time when state laws are passed on a patchwork basis.

The federal bill would also require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to help employees who are survivors of violence, as well as bar discrimination against them. Schwartz said compliance with Connecticut’s law hasn’t been a “dramatic shift” for employers, largely because most don’t tend to come across these kinds of issues. That’s likely in part because of the stigma around domestic violence, he said.

“I do think that when the issue has come up, employers may not be aware, necessarily, of the protections that are out there. So I think it’s a learning curve more than anything else,” he said, adding, “It’s not particularly onerous because the protections are fairly modest in nature.”

Employers benefit from being able to keep somebody connected to their job as they seek safety and deal with the aftermath of domestic or sexual violence, said Jared Make, a vice president at A Better Balance, which endorsed the bill. Having to hire and train a replacement employee takes time and money, he pointed out.

“There’s also a reality that employees who experience domestic violence or sexual assault often are already taking time off, and this is really just meeting a demand and allowing what, increasingly, is a basic right to paid leave to be used for this purpose as well,” he said.

‘Sky Has Not Fallen’ in States With Paid Leave

States have had protections on the books for domestic violence survivors for some time that allow them to take job-protected, unpaid leave. But in the last decade or so, paid leave is catching on as a requirement, Make said. In some places, like New York, it’s bundled as a “paid sick and safe leave”
requirement.

The other states with paid safe leave laws on the books are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, according to ABB. Most of them also allow the leave to be used to take care of a family member or loved one experiencing this kind of violence, Make said, another key feature.

“Having evidence of how the growing number of state and local paid safe leave protections are working has only increased the conversation federally, and I think brings a lot of momentum into this year’s introduction,” Make said.

“What we’ve just seen in practice is it’s working well,” he added. “The sky has not fallen in the states that have paid leave laws on the books.”

Kane practices in New York, whose paid sick and safe leave law requires employers to provide up to 56 hours per year of paid leave. A federal law would allow workers nationwide “to then take that beat that they need to — not fix the situation, because that’s not necessarily going to give them that time — but to at least address their needs, their immediate needs in that moment.”

Paid family and medical leave programs in a handful of states also provide more extended time off, Make noted. These laws in places like Colorado, New Jersey, Connecticut and Oregon cover everything from bonding with a new child to, increasingly, recovering from domestic violence and sexual assault, he said.

Kane said more time makes sense.

“It makes sense if you think about it — if somebody’s trying to get out of a horrible situation, or they’re in the middle of a crisis, a day or two’s not going to cut it,” she said.

Chipping Away at Stigma

Schwartz said he works with employers sporadically on how to handle a situation where a worker might be experiencing domestic violence of some kind. While it tends to not come up often, that’s not necessarily because it’s not happening, he said.

“I think part of that is the sort of stigma that still gets attached to domestic violence,” he said, adding, “It is swept under the rug, unfortunately, and employees feel very timid about asking for the benefits that they’re entitled to under the law.”

“It will typically come up, not necessarily with an employee asking for it, but an employer who is conscious about what is happening with a particular employee and offering that extra hand,” he said.

For example, human resources or the employee’s manager might notice that she’s running late to work a lot or that her spouse keeps calling the office.
In that case, the employer could approach the employee and remind them that if they need help, there are certain benefits available to them, including sick and safe time.

“But again, that’s still far too rare in the workplace,” Schwartz said.

And it’s a tricky line for employers too — they can’t force their employee to do anything or make any assumptions about what might be happening.

“A manager can say, ‘Look, my understanding is, you’ve been out. Is there anything we need to know? There are job protections for certain leave requirements,'” he said.

That kind of conversation could go many different ways, Schwartz acknowledged; it could cause employees to open up or shut down.

Another consideration for employers is that documentation requirements — what proof employers can ask for of a worker’s need for the time off — also vary under these laws.

ABB’s Make said the organization works closely with coalitions of survivor advocates in order to help ensure workers can invoke their rights to leave while maintaining some level of discretion with their employer.

“Almost every law, when documentation can be required by an employer, they can’t require an employee to go into detail. So there are important parameters that I think need to be established,” he said.

Make also emphasized the importance of ensuring these kinds of benefits consistently. The workers who already most lack access to paid leave are people in low-wage jobs, especially workers of color and LGBTQ workers.

“Domestic violence and sexual assault can happen to anybody, but there are clear disparities in who has access to the supports at work and the ability to take time off,” he said. “And so you really see those realities collide.”

–Editing by Aaron Pelc and Emma Brauer.

Read the article from Law360 here.

Marilyn Manson’s Ex-Assistant Wins Appeal, Can Sue for ‘Horrific’ Sexual Harassment and Assault 

By Nancy Dillon/ Rolling Stone

“This is a great victory for all survivors as it provides a clear path for issues of repressed memories,” Ashley Walters’ lawyer says.

THE FORMER ASSISTANT who claims Marilyn Manson sexually assaulted her, whipped her and threw her against a wall during a drug-induced rage won a critical appeal ruling Wednesday that revives her previously dismissed lawsuit against the shock rocker.

Ashley Walters initially sued Manson, whose legal name is Brian Warner, with claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination in May 2021. She argued that while the alleged abuse took place during a “horrific” year of employment that ended in 2011, the typical two-year statute of limitations didn’t apply because she had suppressed her memories until 2020. She said the “delayed discovery” rule, which postpones the starting clock for statutes of limitations in cases where victims bury painful memories, had extended her window to file. She further alleged Warner used threatening behavior to ensure her silence.

A trial court judge considered her argument but ultimately tossed her case in May 2022, ruling she “failed to plead facts to invoke the delayed discovery rule.” Walters appealed, and a tribunal with California’s Second Appellate District sided with her Wednesday, reversing the lower court ruling and sending the case back to the judge for trial.

“Walters’s allegations of delayed discovery were sufficient to withstand demurrer, and we reverse,” the judges wrote in their ruling. They noted that while Warner’s defense team argued her allegations were “too memorable and happened too many times for her to have remembered none of it,” the court wasn’t supposed to concern itself with her ability to prove her claims at this stage of her case, only that she asserted them properly.

“This is a great victory for all survivors as it provides a clear path for issues of repressed memories and delayed discovery in these types of cases. I think the court is very firm in articulating a very clear decision as to why survivors have repressed memories and why that should be relevant when they come forward later in life to bring those claims,” Walters’s lawyer, James Vagnini, tells Rolling Stone. He noted that Warner’s camp also was ordered to pay the appellate costs as well. “We think that sends a message,” he says. Warner’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In court filings, Walters alleged Warner forced her hand into his underwear, whipped her, threw dishes at her, pushed her into a wall, broke down doors to get to her, charged at her and forced her to stay awake for 48 hours straight, one time requiring her to stand on a chair for 12 hours.

Warner, 54, has denied Walters’ allegations and similar claims of abuse from more than a dozen women. In September, he reached a private settlement with a Jane Doe accuser who alleged he brutally raped her in 2011. Doe further claimed Warner deprived her of food and sleep during their abusive dating relationship and that he threatened to “bash her head in” if she reported him. That deal followed after Warner reached a separate settlement with Game of Thrones star Esmé Bianco in January. Bianco had alleged Warner raped and battered her.

Former accuser Ashley Morgan Smithline let her lawsuit end in default in January and formally recanted her allegations against Warner. A second Jane Doe sued Warner in January for sexual assault.

Read the article from Rolling Stone here.

Q&A: Attorney Sara Wyn Kane on Tough Sexual Assault Cases and New York’s Lookback Window

By Sara Hammel/The Landing

As one of Delta Captain Andrea Ratfield’s attorneys, Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP is familiar with the specific and unique way airlines operate when it comes to sexual assault and harassment cases.

Her bio highlights her vast experience and professional accolades and explains, “Sara has devoted over twenty (20) years of her legal career fighting for her clients’ Civil Rights and against all varieties of employment discrimination (race, gender, age, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, and religion), sexual harassment/hostile work environment claims, wage and hour disputes and qui tams/whistleblower claims.”

A big thank you to Sara for giving her time to answer my questions and help victims of assault (all emphasis mine):

Q: I’ve seen a bunch of cases in the New York papers in the past year, including some high-profile lawsuits, taking advantage of the lookback window that ends very soon. (For example, a woman just filed a lawsuit against Bill Cosby alleging he drugged and raped her in the 1970s; she’s also suing the organizations her lawyer says “not only provided a platform for Mr. Cosby to showcase his fame and fortune to lure in women, but then put their own profits over the safety of their female guests by turning a blind eye to Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual assaults on women”).

A: We have received many calls from individuals looking to assert their rights under the statute. We currently represent a woman against a well-known radio personality/author. She was allegedly assaulted many many years ago and had been prohibited from bringing her claims due to the statute of limitations. She is relieved to have an avenue by which to attempt to pursue them now. 

Q: What are some of the challenges in finding evidence and making a case for assaults that could be in the distant past, such as gathering old police reports and talking to witnesses? Should these potential roadblocks deter anyone from seeking legal advice about their assaults?

A: Certainly you have identified some of the potential obstacles to pursing older cases. Often, however, when someone has been the victim of an assault, they may have discussed it with a friend, family member, counselor and/or written in a journal—some type of contemporaneous confirmation of what transpired. Also, if someone does have the strength and courage to come forward many years later, it is likely that what took place is ingrained in their memories.

These cases are generally difficult regardless of whether they are brought soon thereafter or years later, but that does not mean it is not worth the effort. If nothing else, we strongly believe that the likelihood of success should NEVER deter anyone from seeking legal advice. Learning what your rights are is only a benefit, never detrimental. Being armed with knowledge is empowering—even if you choose not to act on it, we always encourage people to reach out and learn what options you may or may not have and to garner a better understanding of your legal rights.

Read the full Q&A from The Landing here.

Rape Trauma Syndrome and Common Rape Myths

{5 minutes to read}  In January, former Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein faced trial in New York Supreme Court. Weinstein, who has been accused of sexual assault and harassment by at least 80 women in the past few years, faced several charges including rape, sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, and predatory sexual assault. Ultimately, the jury returned a guilty verdict on two charges — criminal sex act in the first degree and rape in the third degree. Weinstein was acquitted of predatory sexual assault and first degree rape. Currently awaiting sentencing, he faces a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of 25 years.

As a central part of their strategy, Weinstein’s defense team argued that several of his accusers continued to remain in contact with him well after their alleged attacks. The defense pointed to “friendly communications” between Weinstein and the women, business meetings, continued employment, and even trips. This tactic was an effort to discredit the victims, and convince the jury that his encounters with his accusers were, in fact, consensual sexual relationships. However, expert testimony from psychiatrists in the field can shed light into the complex coping mechanisms of sexual assault victims that counter such a strategy.

There are many commonly believed notions regarding the behaviors of rape and sexual assault victims following an attack. However, the truth is that the reactions of victims can manifest in ways which often seem atypical to those looking from the outside in. These presupposed “rape myths” perpetuate false beliefs, namely that victims distance themselves from their attackers following an assault, and that victims report the attack to law enforcement officials. Expert testimony can be used to educate the jury on rape trauma syndrome and common rape myths.

Rape trauma syndrome (RTS) is a post-traumatic stress disorder — specifically related to sexual assault — that is accompanied by certain physical or psychological responses. Most victims of rape and sexual assault experience some form of RTS. Courts have regularly held that properly admitted expert testimony can be used to provide an explanation for victim behavior which is inconsistent with a claim of rape. Expert testimony on RTS can help the jury in resolving frequent misconceptions that often stem from social attitudes regarding sexual assault, consent, and culpability.

Reporting the Attack

In the Weinstein case, the prosecution called on Dr. Barbara Ziv, a forensic psychiatrist, to testify on rape myths and explain the complexities of rape trauma to the jury. Dr. Ziv testified that it is “very rare” for victims to immediately disclose incidents of assault to those around them and even less common for victims to report the assault to law enforcement, especially when they have been assaulted by someone they actually know. 

Similar to Dr. Ziv, experts in the field explain that it is common for victims to decide not to report attacks to the police in an effort to move past their experience. Survivors tend to feel re-victimized by the criminal justice system and decide to cope in other ways. 

Additionally, statistics show that reporting is far less likely when a victim has an established relationship with the offender — whether they are intimate partners, former intimate partners, friends, or acquaintances. 

Reasons victims decide not to report incidents of sexual assault include: 

•Shame,

•Fear of a lack of evidence,

•Belief the attack was a personal matter, and

•Uncertainty of the offender’s intent.

Distancing From the Attacker

Dr. Ziv also provided testimony on victims distancing themselves from their attackers — another classic rape myth. In response to their assault, a victim may decide to continue their relationship with the offender in an effort to regain control after an attack. Victims may also try to convince themselves an encounter was consensual by maintaining the status quo with their offender. This form of deflection helps victims to cope with the serious trauma they suffered at the hand of their offender and is their attempt to maintain normalcy.

In the Weinstein case, Dr. Ziv explained that the reasons for continuing communication with an offender can be complex. A victim may be fearful of losing out on job opportunities and ruining their reputation, and decide to put their experience “in a box.” These fears, coupled with threats from their offender, lead victims to deny their experiences and stay involved with offenders even after being assaulted.

James A. Vagnini
Partner
email: [email protected]