[Senate Hearing 107-591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-591
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE: THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM AND
WHAT GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS ARE DOING ABOUT IT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE, FOCUSING ON
COORDINATED COMMUNITY RESPONSE PARTNERSHIPS WITH EMPLOYERS, TO EDUCATE
THEM ABOUT DANGERS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND STALKING,
AND ASSIST THEM IN ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
__________
JULY 25, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
81-045 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
TOM HARKIN, Iowa BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Townsend Lange McNitt, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
Thursday, July 25, 2002
Page
Wellstone, Hon. Paul D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Minnesota...................................................... 1
Stuart, Diane, Director, Violence Against Women Office, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC... 3
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 6
Evsich, Kathy, Vice President, Women Against Domestic Violence;
Sidney Harman, Executive Chairman, Harman International
Industries, Inc.; and Kathy Rodgers, President, NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund, Washington, DC..................... 17
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Diane Stuart................................................. 30
Liz Clairborne............................................... 33
Kathy Rodgers................................................ 34
(iii)
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE: THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM AND
WHAT GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS ARE DOING ABOUT IT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Wellstone,
presiding.
Present: Senators Wellstone, Dodd, and Murray.
Opening Statement of Senator Wellstone
Senator Wellstone. [presiding]. I want to call the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to order.
I want to thank the chairman of this committee, Senator
Kennedy, for agreeing to hold this most important hearing
today. The issue of violence against women in the workplace and
the economic security of battered women is something that I and
Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy and others have worked on
for a very long time.
I am honored to have such distinguished witnesses who can
discuss better than I the extraordinary implications that
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking have on
families and on women's ability to be economically independent
through work.
We are here today to better understand how violence
intersects with and impacts women's ability to work and thus
support themselves so they may provide permanent safety for
themselves and their children.
It is quite obvious that the impact of domestic and sexual
violence extends far beyond the moment the abuse occurs. It
strikes at the heart of victims and their families' self-
sufficiency. Too often women are forced to choose between
protecting themselves from abuse and keeping a roof over their
head. This is a choice that no mother should have to make.
Nor should any person face the double tragedy of first
being abused and then losing a job, health insurance, or any
other means of self-sufficiency because they were abused.
Economic independence is a clear reason why people who are
in abusive relationships may return to abusers or may not even
be able to leave abusive situations in the first place. Abusers
will go to great lengths to sabotage their partners' ability to
have a job or get an education so that their partners will
remain dependent on them.
If we want battered women and victims of sexual violence to
be able to escape the dangerous and often life-threatening
situations in which they are trapped, they need the economic
means to do so. Yet victims of domestic and sexual violence
face very serious challenges to self-sufficiency every day.
The link between domestic and sexual violence and poverty
is clear. As many as 50 percent of domestic violence victims
have lost a job due at least in part to domestic violence, and
almost 50 percent of sexual assault survivors have lost their
jobs or were forced to quit in the aftermath of assault.
More than half of women on welfare have been victims of
domestic violence. There is also a clear link between domestic
violence and reduced worker and corporate productivity. The
Bureau of National Affairs has estimated that domestic violence
costs employers between $3 and $5 billion in lost time and
productivity every year. Ninety-four percent of corporate
security and safety directors at companies nationwide rank
domestic violence as a high security concern.
Homicide is the leading cause of death of women in the
workplace. This hearing will address the things that Government
and business can and should do to respond to this cycle of
violence and dependence.
In the fight against violence against women, and after the
passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, addressing
the economic security of battered women and sexual assault and
stalking victims, and the negative impact of this violence on
business, is the next most crucial and critical step in ending
the violence that plagues too many homes and too many families.
I know that through the excellent work of the Violence
Against Women Office, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund,
and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, and through the
dedication and leadership of companies like Harman
International, 3M, and U.S. Bank in Minnesota, to name just a
few, State and corporate responses are getting better and
better. But obviously, we have far more to do.
This hearing is a start to a conversation here in the
Congress that will acknowledge the great work of so many who
have already done so much, but also and most important, will
lead to productive changes on the Federal, State, and local
workplace level so that no woman will ever have to face a
situation like Ms. Evsich and like so many people do every day,
where they are forced to trade their families' personal safety
for their economic livelihood.
I am pleased to introduce Diane Stuart. Ms. Stuart has
served as director of the Violence Against Women Office at the
U.S. Department of Justice since her appointment by President
Bush in October of 2001.
My colleagues may remember the strong support Ms. Stuart
garnered from domestic violence organizations at the time of
her nomination. This is a tribute to her lifelong commitment--
lifelong commitment--to this most important issue.
Prior to her appointment to the administration, Ms. Stuart
was State coordinator for the Utah Domestic Violence Cabinet
Council, serving in that capacity since 1996. Prior to that,
she worked as a domestic violence victim advocacy specialist in
the Division of Child and Family Services for the State of
Utah. From 1989 to 1984, Ms. Stuart was director of the
Battered Women's Shelter and Rape Crisis Center in Logan, UT.
So for the record, colleagues, we can see that Ms. Stuart
is well-qualified on many, many levels to address this issue.
Before you begin, Ms. Stuart, I want to thank you for your
enthusiasm in testifying. It shows me that your office and the
administration take the issue very seriously, and as I said to
you earlier, I am joined by Jill Morningstar, who does so much
of our staff work, and my wife Sheila sends her apologies to
you and others. This is her work and what she so believes in,
and she went back to Minnesota to represent me today at a
number of gatherings, but she sends her best to you.
Ms. Stuart, thank you.
STATEMENT OF DIANE STUART, DIRECTOR, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
OFFICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Stuart. Thank you, Senator.
It is certainly my pleasure to be here and to be able to
speak on, as you say, this very, very critical issue.
Violence against women articulated in the workplace may
differ from other types of workplace violence due to the
victim's intimate relationship with the offender. The reality
is that victims of domestic violence and stalking often find
little safety from their abusers even in the workplace.
However, if employers take the responsibility to put
appropriate protections in place, the workplace can be a safe
place for women who experience these horrifying crimes.
The Violence Against Women Office administers financial and
technical assistance to communities around the country that are
creating programs, policies and practices aimed at ending
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking wherever it may
occur. Our mission is to provide Federal leadership in
developing the Nation's capacity to reduce violence against
women, to administer justice, and to strengthen services for
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Office of
Justice Programs reports that an average of 1.7 million violent
incidents occur in the workplace each year. That is
staggering--1.7 million violent incidents. For women, homicide
is the leading cause of death on the job, and 20 percent of
those murders were perpetrated by a woman's partner.
Let me just take a moment to give you a real life example.
In Grand Junction, CO, Sarah Miller Anderson--and I say that
with a little bit of reverence--Sarah Miller Anderson was in
the process of leaving her husband Chad. After a violent
argument where Chad tried to suffocate her, Sarah filed a
temporary restraining order, a temporary protective order. A
few weeks later, Chad showed up briefly at her workplace where
she worked as a checker. And I think it is interesting to note
that he probably--probably--violated that protective order in
doing so. They spoke for a moment, and he left.
Sarah did not call the police, but she called her father
and asked him to come to the store. Before he could get there,
Chad returned to the store and gunned down his wife, two
bystanders, and himself.
That just illustrates what you were speaking of just a
moment ago.
As I mentioned earlier, domestic violence has unique
characteristics that differentiate it from other forms of
violence in the workplace. Domestic violence is a pattern of
assaults and controlling behavior perpetrated by an intimate
partner which can be physical, psychological, and/or financial.
It spills into the workplace because it is an easy place for
the abuser to find the victim. In many cases, the abuser is
threatened by the fact that the victim is working outside of
the home and may feel intense jealousy and rage that her
attentions are directed elsewhere.
For many victims of domestic violence, the workplace may be
the only place where they are not under the watchful eye of the
abuser. It may be the one place where the victim is free to
seek assistance without fear of retribution.
To their credit, as you mentioned, many employers have
trained supervisors, employees, and support personnel on the
dynamics of domestic violence and the appropriate responses to
violent situations as they enter the workplace. When effective
training occurs, coworkers and supervisors are prepared to
assist the employee to deal with her abusive and often violent
situation as it impacts her work environment. That is far and
beyond whether the violence actually comes to the workplace. It
impacts her work environment if she has violence in the home
and whatever she is doing.
The Violence Against Women Office is addressing the issue
of violence against women in the workplace in collaboration
with other Federal agencies, and I would like to give you five
examples.
First, the National Institute of Justice, another agency of
the Office of Justice Programs, together with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in the Department of Health and
Human Services, found through a survey that the most common
activity engaged in by stalkers included standing outside the
victim's place of work. The survey also found that stalking
victims go to extraordinary lengths to keep themselves safe,
including switching jobs so that stalkers cannot find them.
Second, again with the Office of Justice Programs, is the
Office of Victims of Crime, which has worked with the Family
Violence Prevention Fund that you mentioned a few moments ago,
to establish the National Workplace Resource Center on Domestic
Violence. It is this project that serves as a clearinghouse of
information on national and local responses to domestic
violence as a workplace issue.
Third, the Office of Victims of Crime has also produced an
award-winning video entitled, ``Domestic Violence: The
Workplace Response.'' This is a marvelous video that outlines
steps that workplaces can take to help employees who are in
abusive relationships, and I highly, highly recommend it.
Fourth, you may be aware that the Department of Health and
Human Services' Administration for Children and Families
provides funding through the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act to support the Domestic Violence Resource Network,
which has a series of components. One component is the Health
Resource Center. This Center reports that 94 percent of
corporate security directors rank domestic violence as a high-
security problem at their company. Seventy-one percent of human
resource and security personnel surveyed had an incident of
domestic violence occurring on the company property.
Fifth and finally, the Department of Justice and the
Department of Health and Human Services, as you are aware, in
one of the most effective collaborations I have ever worked
with, guided the National Advisory Council on Violence Against
Women to develop the web-based Toolkit to End Violence Against
Women. The chapter on workplace violence in this Toolkit
discusses promoting safety in the workplace and presents a
number of recommendations that businesses and communities can
consider. Those recommendations include the development of
policies, which is critical, prevention strategies, referrals
to service providers, and public awareness of the issue.
In response to concerns about workplace violence, the
United States Office of Personnel Management developed
``Responding to Domestic Violence,'' where Federal employees
can find help, as well as a shorter pamphlet that has been made
available to all Federal employees in the Nation. And I have to
tell you that that pamphlet sat on my desk in Utah for a
lengthy period of time and was the prototype I used to create a
similar pamphlet in Utah.
The response document, the guidance document, is considered
one of the best of its kind in the Nation, guiding supervisors
through an array of management tools that can be used to assist
Federal employees in abusive relationships. And I suspect that
that also has been used as a model for other policies and other
businesses and State governments.
The Violence Against Women Office is working to further
efforts such as this. In 2001, in order to enable even small
businesses to assist employees threatened by violence, we
provided funding support to the Family Violence Prevention Fund
to develop State leadership teams of businesses, victim
services, and law enforcement to create models of
multidisciplinary response to domestic violence in the
workplace.
And as you know, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000
requires the Department of Justice to develop a report to
Congress on violence against women in the workplace. Our office
is in the process of writing this report and has engaged the
Family Violence Prevention Fund to help us fulfill this
mandate. The report will describe the results of a national
survey developed to assist employees and employers in
appropriate responses relating to victims of domestic violence,
stalking, and sexual assault. The report will also analyze the
effects of these crimes on small, medium, and large businesses
as well as provide a bibliography of current resources
available--so very, very critical. We hope that this report
will make a significant contribution to the understanding of
the issue of violence against women in the workplace.
Through these and other initiatives, the Department of
Justice is working with its colleagues in the private and
public sectors to better understand and address the problem of
violence against women specifically in the workplace.
From our work on this issue, we have learned that it is
only through a coordinated community response that we can be
successful in our efforts to end violence against women.
Working in partnerships with employers, we can help educate
about the dangers of domestic violence, sexual assault and
stalking, and assist with establishing effective policies and
programs.
Violence against women in the workplace is a criminal
justice issue, a health issue, and an economic issue. If we are
to make any headway in eliminating its threat, the public and
private sectors must all work in collaboration. Women's lives
depend on it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stuart may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Ms. Stuart.
Before we go to questions--and I have one for you about
family and medical leave and whether it could apply to women in
these circumstances, and the author of that bill is here--I
just wanted to first of all defer to my colleague, Senator Dodd
from Connecticut.
Some members, including the chairman of the committee, are
in a Judiciary Committee hearing right now on homeland defense,
and that is why they are not here; but it does not surprise me
that Senator Dodd is here, because I do not know of anybody in
the Senate who has worked more on children and family issues
than Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd, thank you for being here.
Opening Statement of Senator Dodd
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am grateful to our witnesses for being here, and I do not
want to delay your proceedings, but I do want to thank you for
leading on this. This is a tremendously important issue, and
you have a very good group of panelists coming up on Panel 2 as
well.
This is a tremendously important issue, and I thank you for
raising it and bringing it up. It is a sad truth that this kind
of violence affects the lives of far too many women in our
society. The numbers bear that out. According to some studies,
the incidence of domestic violence approaches one in every four
women over the course of their lifetime. These are stunning
numbers. I do not think that that is said often enough. It is
an enormously troubling statistic that we must find some
resources to combat, I think.
Of course, you, Mr. Chairman, have said for years during
your entire service here--I do not know of a time when you have
not been involved in this issue--you have considered it one of
the most important. So I thank you for your leadership on this,
going back to your first days here--and I know even before you
arrived here, but during your tenure in the Senate, this has
been tremendously important to you.
For this reason, by the way, I am proud to be a cosponsor
of the legislation on the Violence Against Women Act, which
many of my colleagues have joined, and I continue to support
the provisions of that bill to build on the success of the
original bill that we introduced.
It is also important to recognize that when a woman is
abused, the abuse does not stay at home. We therefore cannot
fight this battle on only one front. Domestic violence is often
seen as a personal issue, a private issue, and certainly the
right of privacy of any victim should always be respected.
However, the suffering endured at home often follows a woman
into her place of employment, tainting and violating the
environment that should be a safe haven from the violence at
home, so compromising the workplace security of her coworkers
and interfering with her ability to hold a job and perform her
duties with confidence and peace of mind.
So when domestic violence crops up in the workplace, it
becomes a concern for all of us. The issue of whether we can
incorporate some of this in the Family and Medical Leave Act--I
appreciate your referencing that specifically--is an idea worth
exploring as to how we might accommodate it.
I would ask unanimous consent that some additional remarks
be included in the record, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the
panelists and look forward to some questions.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Senator Dodd.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Dodd
Good Morning. I would like to thank our Chairman today,
Senator Wellstone, for convening this hearing on the powerful
topic of domestic violence against women, and its effects in
the workplace. It is my pleasure to be here today, and I would
like to welcome all of our witnesses to the Committee and thank
them as well for coming here today to give us their testimony
on an issue that is both compelling and of vital importance.
Mr. Chairman, it is a sad truth that violence affects the
lives of too many women in our society. According to some
studies, the incidence of domestic violence approaches one in
every four women over the course of their lifetime; an
enormously troubling statistic that we must find the resources
to combat. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the victims of domestic
violence and other forms of violence against women face a
unique form of terror at the hands of their attackers, and we
need to move aggressively to ensure that these women do not
continue to live in fear. For this reason I was proud to be a
cosponsor with many of my colleagues of the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA), and I continue to support provisions that
build on the success of the original bill.
It is also important that we recognize that when a woman is
abused, the abuse does not stay in the home, and we therefore
cannot fight this battle on only one front. Domestic violence
is often seen as a personal issue, a private issue, and
certainly the right to privacy of any victim should always be
respected. However, the suffering endured at home often follows
a woman to her place of employment, tainting and violating an
environment that should be a safe haven from the violence at
home, compromising the workplace security of her coworkers, and
interfering with her ability to hold a job and perform her
duties with confidence and peace of mind. When domestic
violence creeps into the workplace, Mr. Chairman, it becomes a
concern for all of us. Indeed, according to the American
Institute on Domestic Violence. 94 percent of company security
directors surveyed ranked domestic violence as a ``high
workplace security risk.''
In addition, not only is the security of the workplace
jeopardized, but the economic impact for employers in terms of
productivity slow-downs, absenteeism, and enormous health care
costs is unacceptable. Companies are losing an estimated $3 to
$5 billion each year to domestic violence, and many have begun
to institute specific domestic and workplace violence
initiatives to help deal with this growing problem.
I therefore hope that today's hearing will not only shed
much needed light on the deeply troubling problem of workplace
violence, and the effect this abuse has on women's health and
well-being, but will also suggest some possibilities for
actions that we may take to help address and confront these
problems.
With that, I yield, and I look forward to today's
testimony.
Senator Wellstone. Let me start, Ms. Stuart--before you
arrived, Senator Dodd, I was thanking Ms. Stuart for her work.
When we talked with her about this hearing, she had absolutely
no hesitation about being here. She has just an unbelievable
background, with tremendous support around the country. So you
are the right person, Ms. Stuart, and we really appreciate you
being here, and I know that Bonnie Campbell is pleased to see
you in this position as well; she was such a strong advocate.
You talked about the Toolkit and described that, and then,
the OVC video and other programs such as the State leadership
teams. Do they include recommendations to allow women--I guess
this goes right to Chris' point--to take leave from work to
address domestic violence needs such as, for example, the need
to appear in court or to find shelter or counseling or to go to
a lawyer or to get medical care without penalty?
Ms. Stuart. That is an excellent point. That is the kind of
thing that they want those groups, those teams, to consider. It
is issues such as that--to see how it fits into the environment
of that particular company--is that something that that company
can consider; how would it work; what are the steps they would
go through. So that would certainly be one of the conditions
that would be on the table for that team to consider as they
look at the entire picture of all the protections that can be
offered to a victim of domestic violence--you bet.
Senator Wellstone. I would really urge you--and again, this
is not a hearing today on legislation, and I am not trying to
pin you down on yes or no answers--but I do think this is an
area that is really well worth exploring, because right now,
Chris, there is not this kind of coverage, but again, it
certainly fits in. Unfortunately, this is the experience for
too many women, and now she needs to go to court or needs to go
and get some help or needs to go to a doctor, needs to go to
see a lawyer, needs to go to see an advocate, and it seems to
me that, if so, she should not have to run the risk of losing
her job, and it would be nice to provide that kind of
protection. We know that unfortunately this is a huge issue in
many families, so I hope that you will consider this in your
work.
Would you agree--and I guess I am interested in what would
be your recommendations--that one of the things that we have to
do is work to ensure that companies do not fire someone just
because they are victims of violence? Would you agree with
that, and what would be some of the recommendations that you
would make about what we need to do?
Ms. Stuart. That really gets directly to the point of
awareness, because as companies learn about the issue of
domestic violence--or before they learn--they make assumptions
about what a victim can do and cannot do. That is why it is so
critical that policies be put together--and before policies can
be put together, they have to learn--again, it goes back to the
coordinated community response--they have to reach out to the
experts in the community, those in the State coalitions, for
example, or those State administrators in the key programs
throughout the State that are dealing with this so that they
can go ahead and learn these things.
An example might be in the State of Utah--and forgive me
for going back, but that is where my experience is coming
from--there was a two-pronged program going on. One was
established by our attorney general and was called ``Safe at
Home,'' by which teams were put together all over the State and
went into businesses at noontime and gave an hour presentation.
It was really just to raise awareness. The first 15 minutes was
a video, and they showed that video which showed the dynamics
of violence between intimate partners. Then, there was a law
enforcement officer or a lawyer who talked about the legal
issues, and there was a shelter provider who talked about the
resources. There were different individuals from that community
surrounding that business who would be resources for that
business to come in and talk about their part in the whole
program, and then a period of questions and answers. It was all
done in an hour, all as a brown bag lunch, and it was a great
way to raise awareness so that employers could begin to
understand that there are unique differences for these folks.
And then, how they could respond to them would be the second
phase and putting together policies.
Senator Wellstone. I appreciate that, because the question
that I am really asking--and Dr. Harman represents a very
progressive company, and I can think of others in Minnesota and
around the country--but what I am interested in is what about
the hundreds of thousands of women who work for companies that
right now do not want to help. In other words, the really
horrible situation that I have been made aware of more than
once is that it is not her fault, and this guy wants the power
over her--he does not want her to be working, and he does not
want her to be independent--and he comes to the workplace and
is very threatening and so on, and the employer says to her,
``We cannot have this; this is bad for the employees' morale,''
and he fires her.
Are you saying that you think the answer to this is just
the education, or are there other things that we need? Given
your position, what are some of the things you think we can do
to provide these women with more support and more protection?
Are you just emphasizing the education approach, or do you see
other things?
Ms. Stuart. You have to emphasize education, because that
is a critical component. But it is the networking back and
forth, and the education comes at all kinds different levels.
My mind goes to the community organizational groups who speak
out as a group that this is an inappropriate thing to do, that
to fire someone because they are a victim of domestic violence
would be an inappropriate action. So the different
organizations within the communities take a stand. That goes
back to the networking with the coalitions and that kind of
thing, as new and creative ways of dealing with that for that
particular community.
What I think, Senator, is that what may work in one
community may differ from what may work in another. Certainly a
large organization like a large corporation can put together
rules and conditions because they are educated, so the policy
would say that an individual be released because of someone
else's crime upon them. Those are the kinds of policies that
companies need to create.
But smaller businesses need guidance from the larger
businesses and need the support of the larger community to pull
it off, to make it work.
Senator Wellstone. We have been joined by Senator Murray,
who has been unbelievable in her commitment to these issues.
Since I am chairing the committee, and I will be here the whole
time, and Senator Dodd and Senator Murray might not be able to
stay for the whole time, I will end my questions with one final
question and then, if it is okay, Senator Dodd, will turn to
Senator Murray, and then you can make a statement as well as
ask some quick questions of Ms. Stuart.
Rather than put it in the form of a question, I will just
make two points for your consideration. One--and again, this is
not about the legislation--but the Victims Economic Security
and Safety Act, I would just on the record ask you to take a
close look at that, and where we agree, we agree, where we do
not agree, we do not agree, but we would like to work with the
administration on that, and I make that appeal to you.
The second appeal I would like to make--which could lead to
an hour's exchange of views, which we will not do--is just for
you to really--and I do not mean this in a gratuitous way, and
you have probably already done it--but to really look very
carefully at the link between domestic violence and poverty
and, moreover, the link between domestic violence and welfare
as it affects this welfare reform bill. I would really urge you
to do so, because right now, in terms of what I have seen come
over from the House, I do not think there is anywhere near the
adequate protection there needs to be.
One thing you do not want to do is put a woman in a
position where she has no other choice but to stay in a home
where she should not be and her kids should not be. So you have
got to be pretty careful about all of this and take into
account the very special circumstances of the lives of women
and children who have been through this.
I do not see that in that bill, and I would like for you
to--and you do not have to answer now--but please take this
into account and be a voice in helping to shape the
administration's viewpoint. That would be much appreciated.
Ms. Stuart. We certainly will review it.
Senator Wellstone. And we will hear from Dr. Harman, but I
want to note, just in case the Congresswoman has to leave, that
we have been joined by Congresswoman Jane Harman. I was saying
earlier, Congresswoman, that a number of our colleagues
including the chair of this committee are now in the Judiciary
Committee on the homeland defense bill. But we thank you for
being here. We have all seen you on television and in the
discussions, and you have done a great job, and we thank you.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Wellstone. Senator Dodd?
Senator Dodd. I will defer to Senator Murray. I know she is
chairing the Appropriations Committee.
Senator Wellstone. Fine.
Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Senator Dodd wants to make sure I do not
lose track of his State.
Senator Dodd. I want to make sure our projects are included
in the appropriations bill.
Senator Wellstone. I say get back to Appropriations.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you, Senator Dodd. It is a busy day on my Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, but I did want to come to this
hearing, first of all to thank Senator Wellstone for his
tremendous advocacy on behalf of battered women and his work on
VAWA and his work on the Victims Economic Security and Safety
Act. He and his wife Sheila are really leaders in the country
in making sure the rest of us do not forget people who are
often forgotten and behind closed doors. And I thank Senator
Dodd as well for his compassion and his work on this issue.
We have a lot of work ahead of us, certainly, and I found
the statistics in your prepared statement, which I had a chance
to look at, to be pretty chilling. You noted that almost 10 of
every 1,000 women in our American work force have experienced
violence in the workplace, including incidence of murder, rape,
and aggravated assault, and that workplace homicide is the
third leading cause of job-related deaths. For women, homicide
is the leading cause of death on the job. I think that is
fairly startling and something that we should all recognize,
and I think it shows why it is so critical that we eliminate
the economic barriers that are facing many abused women and why
I believe that women who have to leave their jobs should be
allowed access to unemployment compensation and should be
allowed to use the Family and Medical Leave Act to seek help
and care, and it is why I worked with my colleague, Senator
Wellstone, in 1996 to implement the family violence option
during the welfare bill.
Your testimony provides a number of steps that the
administration is taking to protect women in the workplace.
Frankly, I am very concerned about the foundations of these
programs in the Violence Against Women Act, because they have
been level-funded by the administration. Despite the new
authorization that we enacted in 2000, the President has not
proposed the authorization funding levels for these programs. I
know we all recognize the needs in homeland security and
defense, and I do not think any of us will argue with that, but
I do not think we can forget the women and children in their
homes today, where ``homeland security'' has a terribly
different meaning.
As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am
going to continue to work for full funding, and I just wanted
to give you an opportunity to comment about how or if this
administration is going to get funding for these important
programs.
Ms. Stuart. It is so complex, isn't it, and there is so
much, as you have stated, to do. I think it is a tremendous
challenge for this administration and for our office to be able
to utilize the funding that we do have in the most effective
way. That is my challenge. As I look at the funding level that
I have and I look at the job that I am trying to do, we are
trying to do it in the most effective way.
Are we looking at what we need to look at? Are we putting
funding into the correct places to accomplish what we want and
to accomplish all of those elements that you spoke of, because
of the complexity of it, and one relates to another, and back
and forth. It certainly is a challenge.
I can tell you that we are committed, this administration
is committed, to working our way through all of the intricacies
of how it affects women, that we are trying to reach out and be
creative, step out of the box, if you will. We have done a
marvelous job since the Violence Against Women Act came into
effect in 1984, an absolutely marvelous job. I know that from
being in a community and in a State, working in a shelter and
seeing the effect that it has on those individuals, those who
do not have choices and do not have resources. We have done a
tremendous amount.
There is much, much more to do, and our emphasis is to go
back and look at what are we asking States and communities to
do, what are we asking agencies to do; is it the right thing.
So we are in a constant review of all of those issues and
mandates so that we can, as you are indicating be much more
effective than we are now.
The end goal, Senator, I think is to build the capacity of
each individual community so that that community can respond
appropriately, whatever that means, whether it is through the
criminal justice system, whether it is through the health care
system, or whether it is through the workplace and the
financial systems, to educate banks, to educate any commerce
level, any business anywhere, on appropriate responses. And
again, this goes back to the awareness thing, being able to
make people understand what is going on.
So often, we think, ``That would not happen to me; I would
not let that happen to me,'' and because of that element, and
because of our personal involvement, it makes it really, really
difficult. But I think that we have made giant steps, and our
intention is to continue to make giant steps.
Senator Murray. Well, I would urge you to remind the
administration that fully funding these programs is absolutely
critical, especially at a time when many of our communities and
our States are looking at depleted budgets, and the economy has
slowed, and we know that that has an impact on violence in both
the workplace and at home. When people are having a hard time
economically, it adds to the pressures at home that contribute
to some of this, and at the same time, those States and
communities do not have the resources today to really support
the facilities that they need. We need some leadership at the
Federal level to fully fund. So I really hope you will push
that within this administration.
Thank you so much, Senator Wellstone. Again, I do have a
committee that I am putting together today, but I really
appreciate all the witnesses who are here and all the people
who speak out on behalf of victims of domestic violence both in
the workplace and at home. We have got to keep talking.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Stuart. We do, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Senator Murray, for dropping
by. We know we have your appropriations work, and we thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Murray
Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you for your efforts and
leadership in putting this hearing together. It has always been
a pleasure working with you to address the devastating impact
of domestic violence.
I believe our legislation--the Victims Economic Security
and Safety Act--is an important piece of legislation that
addresses the serious economic barriers that often trap women
and children in violence homes and relationships.
VESSA takes the next step in addressing the impact of
violence against women.
The landmark 1994 Violence Against Women Act--and the
reauthorization legislation enacted in 2000--provide the
foundation for a national strategy to end the violence.
VAWA provides significant resources and assistance to state
and local communities in providing an immediate response--
including funding for law enforcement and shelter assistance.
Without any doubt, VAWA has been successful.
Our greatest challenge will be working to ensure full
funding for the important programs and assistance provided in
VAWA.
Now that we've dealt with the immediate safety and public
health threats, we must now look for the long term solutions
that will address the economic barriers that force women to
stay in violence situations or end up on welfare.
Today's hearing is part of our effort to begin the process
of addressing economic issues.
We must provide greater job protections for those women who
are victimized in the work place or who must flee their jobs in
order to escape an abuser.
We must ensure that women can seek protection orders or
medical assistance without fear of losing their jobs.
We must also help employers, large and small, understand
the need to provide a safe work place for all employees.
I find it unacceptable that a woman who must leave her job
to relocate with her husband can receive unemployment benefits,
but a woman forced to flee her job because of any abusive
spouse is denied these benefits.
Fortunately, 18 states--including my own state of
Washington--have enacted laws providing the same access for
abused women.
In reviewing the written testimony of today's witnesses,
it's clear that violence against women in the work place is a
real threat, and it has cost too many women their lives.
I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and for
their efforts on behalf of battered women.
Your testimony will be useful to us as we continue to work
at enacting greater economic safety and protection for battered
and abused women.
Senator Dodd?
Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman, you have covered a lot of it,
but let me just ask you if I can, Ms. Stuart--and I first of
all admire what you are doing, and I appreciate what has been
done in Utah.
My in-laws are all from Utah. Out there, of course, it is
such a strong Democratic State. [Laughter.] Often when I go out
there, they call me ``the third Senator from Utah,'' and I tell
them, ``Those 10 Democrats out there deserve representation.''
[Laughter.] My in-laws tolerate me.
I appreciate what has been done out there, though. There is
a real effort.
Ms. Stuart. On many fronts.
Senator Dodd. Yes, there really has been, and I admire
that. A lot of this can and needs to be done at a local level.
We think we need some real emphasis at the national level as
well, and we believe we can add some real emphasis to this
effort. And the numbers speak so loudly. It needs a lot of
cooperation, or it is not going to be done.
I think it is admirable what the State of Utah is doing and
what other States are trying, but we have seen what can happen
in other areas. For example, hate crimes--if we had left the
hate crimes issue exclusively to local jurisdictions, I do not
think we would be anywhere near where we are today in raising
the profile of these issues. And unfortunately, domestic
violence issues, because there is this patina of privacy--that
this is our business, and what goes on in our house is none of
your business--had we tolerated those views regarding children,
had we tolerated those views regarding hate crimes and so
forth, think of where we would be today. And we have sort of
skipped over the issue of violence against women.
So we have got to get beyond that if we can. This is no
longer acceptable by anybody. It should not be acceptable by
anyone.
So what we are trying to figure out is how best we can
provide assistance to victims on the Federal level. We can
start here and set some real examples at the Federal level.
Workplace violence is unique compared to other forms of
violence. We need to get some better ideas on how employers can
tailor their security systems. I will be very interested in
talking to my good friend, Sid Harman--and I want to welcome
Jane here as well; it is a delight to have you over here with
us on the Senate side--to get some ideas on helping at the
Federal level and how we can help employers who want help, or
how can we set some standards here that will at least require
some minimum standards to be met by employers that will at
least heighten the possibility of security for people, because
unfortunately, we are not encountering people who see this as a
priority, and they do not like the idea.
I know that when we did the Family and Medical Leave Act,
it has been proven to be valuable, and many employers today
think it poses little or no problems for them; yet to hear the
testimony that we went through here for 7 years, before it was
signed into law, you would have thought we were loading them up
with an incredible amount of burden, when in fact many will
argue today that it has actually increased productivity,
reduced problems of absenteeism and the like, and it has
created a far better relationship between employers and
employees because of the sensitivities of knowing that when a
child is sick, or a parent or a spouse, where that employee
must be, we are not forcing them to make those decisions or, as
many witnesses talked about, even lie, saying ``I had a flat
tire'' or ``The plumber did not show up on time.'' That was
more understandable than saying their child was sick, because
it was unacceptable to admit the you might have a child who was
sick in terms of why you could not be at work.
That is sort of what is happening here with this issue, and
we have got to get beyond that, and that takes national
leadership to get through it.
So I am anxious to hear what you think can be done--what
can you do, what can the Attorney General do, what should the
President be doing, what should he be saying about this issue.
Ms. Stuart. I think there are several levels. I think that
whatever we are doing, whatever it is, and speaking out, the
leadership that you have and the things that you have done are
just fantastic.
The second level is getting people to hear about it,
getting people to know, and even when we create laws, getting
entities to understand what the law is and what the response
should be--this Toolkit with the recommendations that we have
in regard to how to deal with these issues--the information is
there, but how many know about it?
So part of the leadership that I think you are talking
about is doing these things, whether they be laws, whether they
be policies as we have done, or whether it be a Toolkit with
the recommendations. Those are all wonderful, but the next step
is how do you get that information to those who are doing the
work in the field; how do you get that information to families;
how do you get that information to those who have the greatest
need so that they in fact do have the choices that they should
have, informed choices. That is our concurrent challenge--it is
not only to create these wonderful things that we do, but it is
also to get the information down, because so often it trickles
down, and those who could use the information, those who could
implement the laws, those who would be in a position of power
to do that, many do not even know about it. So it is doing what
you are doing, which is so commendable, speaking out and
saying--and that is part of my job, too, is to speak out and
let people know what is available and where to get it, in as
many different ways that we can. There are those who are
technologically savvy. There are those who only get their
utility bill, and maybe they will read what goes in the utility
bill. There are those who come from marginal communities, from
Asian communities, from Hispanic communities, black
communities, whatever the community may be, and their source of
information to know what is available may not be adequate; they
may not know that. So that is another challenge that we have is
to help those different communities reach out to what is really
going on over here.
So I see it as a multilevel thing that all of us--I really
firmly believe, Senator, in this coordinated community response
method, because when I said that we cannot do it alone, none of
us can do it alone. Those of us in Federal Government, those in
State government, those in the private sector--we all need to
do our part so it will work.
Senator Dodd. Yes, I appreciate that. But obviously, it is
so helpful--in addition to the enactment of legislation, which
is critical in providing the resources, but also the bully
pulpit. It is one thing for us here--and I appreciate that--but
if the Attorney General or the President started talking about
this, it would make a difference, and candidly, we have not
heard much, and that is unfortunate.
So I am asking you to go back, if you will, and urge the
Attorney General to speak out on this and to have him urge the
President to find a venue and a forum where, with CEOs and
other people, they could talk about this. In addition to us
passing laws, which we are going to try to do, and providing
resources, national leadership that would devote as much
attention to this as they have to some other issues could make
a huge difference.
So we would ask you to carry that back, if you would.
Ms. Stuart. Thank you.
Senator Wellstone. Ms. Stuart, we really appreciate your
being here today, and we appreciate what you are trying to do.
I would just join Senator Dodd in urging you to get others in
the administration to show the same commitment.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Stuart. Thank you, Senator, and may I echo your
colleagues in thanking you for all of your work on this issue.
It is critical, and I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Senator Wellstone. That is very gracious of you. Thank you.
We have a superb panel as our second panel.
Please come up, and I will introduce each of you. And
seeing Dr. Harman here, let me also ask unanimous consent--of
myself, I guess--to include in the record testimony from Liz
Claiborne, a company that has a superb record and wants to go
on record with its strong support for the direction that we are
going in here.
[The prepared statement of Liz Claiborne may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Wellstone. Kathy Evsich is a mother of two from
North Carolina. She is the vice president of Women Against
Domestic Violence, an organization that increases awareness of
domestic violence. I had the honor to hear her speak last year,
and I have not forgotten the power of her story and the
incredible strengthen that she has shown in facing the personal
situation that she has had to deal with.
Nobody makes a more compelling argument to address this
issue than Kathy. I know that her testimony will provide an
excellent context for me and my colleagues to better understand
the crucial trap that too many women face when they and their
children are in danger, trying to desperately maintain some
independence from their batterer.
Kathy's heroic survival of domestic violence is
inspirational, and I thank her for joining us today.
Dr. Sidney Harman, welcome. I want to thank you for being
here today and thank you for your superb leadership which
everybody agrees on.
Dr. Sidney Harman is executive director of Harman
International, a company which he founded in 1952, originally
with another name. Harman International is a Fortune 500
company that is a leader in the electronics industry. In
addition to his extraordinary success in business, Dr. Harman
has an outstanding record in public service and philanthropy.
He served as deputy Secretary of Commerce from 1977 to 1978. He
founded and is an active member of the Program on Technology,
Public Policy, and Human Development at The Kennedy School of
Government, and he is chairman of the program committee on the
board of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.
Dr. Harman also comes to us as a prolific writer on issues
related to productivity and quality of working life.
Dr. Harman, we do not have time to list all of your
accomplishments and honors, but will just say thank you for
being here.
Kathy Rodgers is president of the NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund. Her leadership--and Sheila and I have done so
much work with you all--in bringing the issue of violence
against women in the workplace and domestic violence in general
to the forefront has been extraordinary. NOW Legal Defense
chairs the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence Against Women, which includes over 2,000 national,
State, and local organizations. NOW Legal Defense has also
provided much-needed advice and support to all Members of
Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, dealing with the
Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and reauthorization in the
year 2000.
The organization, and Geoff Boehm in particular, have
worked tirelessly with us in enabling us to draft the Victims
Economic Security and Safety bill, which is a bill that I have
introduced with Senator Murray that will address a lot of the
issues that we are talking about today.
We thank you for being here as well.
Kathy Evsich, we will start with you.
STATEMENTS OF KATHY EVSICH, VICE PRESIDENT, WOMEN AGAINST
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; SIDNEY HARMAN, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, HARMAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; AND KATHY RODGERS, PRESIDENT,
NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Evsich. Senator, thank you for inviting me here today.
I, like many millions of women in this country, have been a
victim of domestic violence. I also, like millions of other
women in this country, desperately needed the economic security
of a steady job if I had any hope of getting my children and me
out of a violent relationship.
I had been employed as a hostess/waitress at a family-owned
restaurant. I loved this job for a very simple but important
reason--it allowed me to start stashing away the money I knew I
would need to get away from my abuser.
It was not long before my abuser found my stash of money.
He knew that this money was my escape plan and so demanded that
I quit my job. I begged him to let me work, knowing this was
the key to getting away from him and protecting my children.
It was shortly after he found my get-away money that the
harassing phone calls started at my job at the restaurant. My
abuser would call many times during the course of a shift and
demand that I ``Come home right now.'' When I told him that I
could not come home right then, he would use tactics that would
get me crying on the job, trying to make me look bad. Somehow I
would pull myself together to finish my shift.
He would even leave my children at home alone, park outside
the restaurant, and watch me through the windows. He would call
me at work and ask my why I hadn't come home yet. Then he
started coming into the restaurant and demanding that I leave
work right then and come home with him--even though he knew I
could not just leave my job like that.
My life was in danger at this point, and I knew it. Now I
needed this job more than ever, and my abuser knew that too. On
July 3, 1999, my abuser called and demanded to speak to the
owner of the restaurant. My abuser threatened the owner. I
understood my boss was concerned about his safety, but I still
wonder why he did not call the police and get a restraining
order against my abuser. I was not the threat; it was my abuser
who was the threat. But I was the one who paid the price.
When I was fired, that left me solely financially dependent
on my abuser. Everything we owned was in his name. He even said
that he would call the police and report the car stolen if I
left with it.
My whole world was crushed at this point. How was I going
to be able to get away from him now? I had no money, and I had
no job. Since I had been employed full-time at the restaurant
and had worked for several years prior to that, I went down and
applied for benefits at the unemployment office. I thought at
least this would be a little something coming in to get me back
on my feet. I was refused unemployment not once, but twice.
After I got fired, my abuser refused to let me go back to
work for several months. I was not allowed to talk to anyone
unless he was present, and I could not go anywhere unless he
knew exactly where I was going and when I was coming back. He
would also call me all the time on my cell phone just to check
up on me.
I needed another job. I had to get out of my prison. In
September 1999, I diligently started looking for another job
and finally found one at the credit union. The hired me knowing
my story and why I needed this job so badly. I was completely
honest about my situation.
The first day on the job, my abuser began driving by the
credit union and blowing the horn of his car. On the second
day, he started driving through the parking lot, parking
outside the window where he could watch me, just like he had
done when I worked at the restaurant. He was scaring not just
me, but my coworkers, too.
I was not due in the office again until 9 a.m. the next
morning. My abuser knew that and so started calling the credit
union at 8:30 a.m., asking my boss where I was and why I was
not at work. When I arrived at work, I was called into the
office and told that I no longer had a job with them because of
my abuser's behavior. They said that I was a good worker and
fast learner, but they could not tolerate what he was doing. It
was only my third and last day on the job.
The police said there was nothing they could do about it
without a restraining order, but I could not get a restraining
order because my abuser and I were still living together, and
without my job, I could not afford to move out.
Without a job, I was stuck. Without a job or other means to
support my children, I did not know how I was ever going to get
away from this monster. If there had been workplace protections
for victims of domestic violence, I might have been able to
keep my job, a job that I needed desperately if I was ever
going to escape. Also, my employer would have known better how
to assist me rather than punishing me for something that was
out of my control. At the very least, unemployment insurance
would have given me the chance to get out and get help.
There is more to my story. My husband left the house, and I
used that opportunity to file for a restraining order. I got a
job as a gift shop cashier. Two weeks later, he came back,
smashing the window in our house. I was scared to death.
My court date for the restraining order was still a few
days away, but when it was granted, the judge told me that I
was the one who had to leave the house. But at least this time,
I had a job and could find a place for my kids and me.
About a month later, on November 10, 1999, my abuser
attacked me. He tried to murder me, and I was seriously
wounded. I was lucky that my abuser was eventually put in
prison. Unfortunately, many women still live in their abusive
relationships.
A steady job is critical for women like me. It is the only
sure way we can get the economic security that we need to get
ourselves out of an abusive situation.
Once again, I want to thank you for inviting me to come and
share my story with you.
Senator Wellstone. And what a story. We rarely hear more
powerful testimony--rarely. Thank you so much. Thank you for
being here.
Dr. Harman?
Mr. Harman. Senator, if I had no better reason to be here
today listening to Ms. Evsich, it would have been reason quite
enough. And for that matter, since we are each of us talking
about courage of one sort or another, I can simply not restrain
my wish to speak of yours and to tell you how inspiring your
personal approach to life is. So I am honored to be with you,
Senator.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you.
Mr. Harman. I am Sidney Harman. I am executive chairman of
Harman International, a worldwide company with over 10,000
employees and annual revenues of nearly $2 billion.
If one thinks domestic violence only affects home life and
is not an issue in the workplace, that person is very wrong.
Domestic violence does not stay at home when an abused employee
goes to work.
My company, like many others, has been adversely affected
by domestic violence, and we have chosen to do something about
it.
On May 29, 2001, Teresa Duran, a woman 56 years of age and
a beloved 24-year employee at Harman, was viciously murdered by
her ex-husband as she returned home from work. That incident
moved me to create a company domestic violence program that
informs all of our employees about the dynamics, the realities,
and the consequences of domestic violence.
With the assistance of the Family Violence Prevention Fund,
we developed a program which heightens awareness of domestic
violence and its effects in the workplace, provides guidance
for employees and, equally important, for managers, and creates
a safe workplace environment.
A key part of our program has been mandatory training of
managers and employees in all of our domestic divisions.
Training is comprised of an education component, which provides
information about violence, posters, safety cards, brochures,
so that employees have the information available when they most
need it; support, which often takes the form of an
understanding performance appraisal which factors in their
domestic circumstances; an atmosphere which encourages
employees to seek assistance if needed; and trained staff who
do not offer advice but make active referrals to appropriate
local community resources, those appropriate community
resources, possessed of domestic violence expertise.
Because women are the targets of abuse in an astonishing 85
percent of all reported intimate partner violence, I focus my
comments today on women, although we should understand that men
can be victims of abuse, and women can also be abusive.
Domestic violence is flat out unacceptable, and there is no
excuse for violence whether it takes place in the home or in
the office. It is up to all of us--legislators, educators,
community and business leaders--it is up to everyone to take
the necessary steps to protect women from abuse. Domestic
violence has a dramatic impact on the children who witness it,
in some cases continuing the cycle of violence into the next
generation. Our children are our future; what affects them
affects us all.
As the executive chairman of a successful, ethical,
multibillion-dollar company, I am not responsible only for the
numbers; I am also responsible for all the people I work with.
If one of our employees is abused at home, that is my business,
and my company has a responsibility to do what it can to give
her the support she needs to be safe.
At Harman, we are committed to treating employees who are
victims of domestic violence fairly, and we will not make
negative employment decisions, including recruiting, hiring,
promotion, discipline or termination of employees, based on
knowledge or perception that an employee is a victim of
domestic violence.
We are also responsible for making sure that our workplace
is safe for everyone. At Harman, we will not tolerate acts or
threats of domestic violence or violence against any employee
while on Harman property or while conducting our business. Any
employee who threatens, harasses, or abuses someone at the
workplace or from the workplace while conducting Harman
business is subject to corrective or disciplinary action,
including termination of employment.
We have looked at the strengths and weaknesses of our
internal security systems and developed site-specific plans to
address risky situations while taking steps to protect the
victim's confidentiality and freedom of personal decision and
action. We recognize the need to be flexible and, where
possible, will consider relocation and, in appropriate
situations, approve and even encourage time off to get an order
of protection or to file a police report.
The company will not take action against an employee for
taking that approved time. We also have internal emergency
funds and other financial support available.
Earlier, I mentioned Terry Duran, who left two children
behind and made us take a hard look at whether we were doing
enough, whether we were protecting our employees as well as we
should. Since we began our domestic violence program, numerous
employees in all divisions of our company around the country
have come forward and spoken about their domestic violence
situations at home. They have told us that were it not for the
training, they would not have been comfortable talking about
their situations or asking for help. And help, they have
received. In one instance, a potentially life-threatening
situation was defused, and in several others, referrals were
made to local agencies for ongoing support.
We know firsthand that domestic violence can have a
devastating impact on the workplace. We also know that it is in
the interest of all employers to provide support--not
obstacles--to employees threatened by domestic violence.
Business is in a unique position to deal with the dirty secret
of domestic violence, and it is my hope that other business
leaders around the country will join us in that effort.
Senator Wellstone. Dr. Harman, thank you.
I want to ask you, Ms. Rodgers, and all here--I think you
of all people will understand this--two doors down, there has
been a stalling tactic on the convention to end discrimination
against women, and they need one vote for a quorum. I would
like to suspend this committee meeting for about 3 minutes. I
will be right back, but I want to be that vote, if that is all
right. [Applause.]
[Recess.]
Senator Wellstone. I apologize, Ms. Rodgers, and I
apologize to all of you.
Please proceed, Ms. Rodgers, with your testimony.
Ms. Rodgers. Please, Senator, there is no need to
apologize. We thank you.
I thank you for having me here and for your leadership on
this issue and so many others, which has been absolutely
critical to making progress on these issues. I think that your
very short break just now is more evidence of your commitment
to these important issues. So we thank you.
I am Kathy Rodgers, president of NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund, which is the oldest and largest legal advocacy
organization devoted to achieving women's equality.
Two of our goals are to bring an end to violence against
women and to eliminate barriers to women's economic security.
So to these ends, we chair the National Task Force to end
Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women; we provide legal
assistance and information to thousands of domestic violence
survivors through our Employment Rights for Survivors of Abuse
Project; we have partnered with companies of all sizes,
including Fortune 500 companies, to develop best practices and
to deal with the effects of violence against women; and we have
authored a popular corporate handbook, ``Creating Solutions,
Creating Change,'' which I have here and have appended to our
testimony.
Now Legal Defense also played a leadership role in the
passage of the Violence Against Women Act and its
reauthorization, and the pending Victims Economic Security and
Safety Act, VESSA.
So what is the scope of this problem? In a word, it is
huge. Annually, almost 3 million people are victimized by
intimate partners. Over one million women are stalked, and up
to 400,000 people are raped. In each year between 1992 and
1996, more than 2 million Americans were victims of a violent
crime in the workplace. As many as 56 percent of battered women
were harassed at work by their batterers. Violence against
women is a workplace issue, plain and simple.
Senator Wellstone. Ms. Rodgers, can I interrupt you again?
I am looking behind you, and I can read the Congresswoman's
face.
Congresswoman Harman, while you are here, please join me up
here, because you are following all the testimony anyway.
Please join us up here--please--and when you need to leave, you
can leave.
Ms. Harman. I need to leave in 5 minutes.
Senator Wellstone. All right, but I was watching, and as
Ms. Rodgers was speaking, the Congresswoman was nodding her
head, and I thought, ``She ought to be up here.''
Ms. Harman. Senator, I thank you. Another time.
Senator Wellstone. All right.
Mr. Harman. Since you have interrupted, Senator, may I
thank you. You spoke of the fact that Congresswoman Harman is
seen by you frequently on television. I have been reduced to
watching the tube in order to get a view of her, so it was a
very special benefit to me that you arranged to have her come
here so I could see her, literally and pleasurably, this
morning. [Laughter.]
Senator Wellstone. Ms. Rodgers, please continue.
Ms. Rodgers. Usually, Representative Harman is ahead of,
not behind, me.
So as I was saying, there is some light in this picture,
because much of this violence and its effects are preventable,
and there are many low- or indeed even no-cost changes which
employers can make to help protect victims.
But when we suggest talking to her employer, a victim's
first response is often: ``I am afraid to. I will lose my
job.'' And this, as we have just heard, is a very real fear.
One-quarter to one-half of victims lose a job due to domestic
violence. Almost 50 percent of sexual assault survivors lose
their jobs or are forced to quit. And outside of New York
City--the only place that prohibits employment discrimination
against victims of domestic violence--we cannot assure an
employee that she can keep the job that gives her the means to
escape the violent relationship.
Losing a job has forced many survivors to rely on welfare.
As many as 70 percent of women on welfare report having been a
victim of intimate violence.
Several studies, including one that we did, found that
batterers sabotage their victims' efforts to move from welfare
to work by destroying clothing, by inflicting visible injuries,
by reneging on promises to provide child care, or keeping their
victims up late before exams or before a job interview. Kathy
Evsich has just made this compellingly real for all of us.
But sound corporate and Government policies can help
survivors keep their jobs and stay off of welfare. And forward-
thinking companies like Harman International understand the
impact of violence on their employees. It undeniably affects
the bottom line.
Domestic violence alone costs employers $3 to $5 billion a
year in missed days of work and lost productivity. Losing
valuable employees generates substantial hiring and training
costs. Some employers, commendably, are adopting positive
policies. But employers that penalize victims must be directed
to end such discrimination.
Eighteen States have passed laws providing unemployment
insurance to employees who leave their jobs due to domestic
violence. This is vital, but it helps victims after they lose
their jobs. Three States--only three--California, Maine, and
Colorado--target preventing job loss by providing employment
leave to domestic violence victims. Maine and Colorado also
extend that leave to victims of stalking and sexual assault.
Earlier this year, Maine expanded its law to cover
employees whose children are victims. There is an interesting
lesson in this, because the Maine State Chamber of Commerce
recalled that they had ``expressed concerns about'' the
original bill, but they supported the amendment, because they
found the law to be ``relatively unburdensome to the
workplace,'' and they heard no complaints or concerns about its
implementation.
So we think that there are at least five specific solutions
to address the critical issues. The first two--the availability
of leave and protection from discrimination--will help a victim
keep her job. The third is eligibility for unemployment
insurance in the event that nonetheless she must leave her job,
perhaps to escape her abuser.
Fourth, she should be protected from discriminatory health
insurance coverage, which all too often leaves out victims of
violence.
Finally, we think that employers should be encouraged to do
the right thing and take appropriate actions, and they could be
with tax credits for the cost of anti-violence efforts.
So NOW Legal Defense urges Congress to consider workplace
violence protection policies like those that we have talked
about, like those that are included in VESSA. This would be an
important step forward in dealing comprehensively with the
national issue of domestic and sexual violence and a rare
opportunity for a real win-win for employees and employers, for
our economy, and for our society.
Thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rodgers may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Ms. Rodgers.
I wanted to say to you that on the provisions of the
legislation that you outline, our strategy is to have--and each
of you have been so helpful in this regard--a formal committee
hearing, have the testimony, and then--I do not know if in the
time we have left this session--but now we can move this to the
floor, and we intend to do so maybe next session, but we intend
to do it.
I think this is the next real area to go into, along with
really paying special attention to children who witness the
violence and the impact this has on kids and how to provide
help there.
I will start with you, Kathy, if that is okay. When you
were going through this nightmare, was there anyplace at all
that you felt you could turn, if I could ask such a personal
question?
Ms. Evsich. No. I did not realize that there were agencies
where I could go for help. Nobody had pointed that out to me.
The only thing I knew was my job, to get the money that I
needed to get an apartment and to be able to take my children
out of the home.
Senator Wellstone. What kinds of things do you think your
employers could have done to protect you that they did not do
that would have helped you to keep your job?
Ms. Evsich. I think they could have gotten a restraining
order to keep him off the business property. They could have
gotten the police involved. The job was only 2 minutes from the
police department, and the police are in there constantly,
eating. They could have gotten help from the local police
department to keep him off the property and prevent him from
calling.
Senator Wellstone. If I could ask you what prevented them
from doing this--was it just their attitude about it--why not,
if I can ask?
Ms. Evsich. I do not think they wanted to become involved;
it was my problem, and they did not want to make it their
problem.
Senator Wellstone. And they viewed it as sort of your own
making, too--in other words, it was your problem, and you
really were a part of the cause of the problem, or----
Ms. Evsich. No, I do not think they thought that I was the
cause of the problem.
Senator Wellstone. They just thought that it was kind of
unpleasant and ugly, and they wanted to be away from it. Is
that what you are saying?
Ms. Evsich. Right. They did not want the violence being
brought into their workplace.
Senator Wellstone. What was the reason the employment
agency gave you for denying you your benefits?
Ms. Evsich. Because I was fired from my job; I was not laid
off. And you cannot get unemployment benefits for being fired.
I tried to appeal it, but they denied that as well.
Senator Wellstone. That is one of the things that Ms.
Rodgers is referring to that we would like to cover in the
legislation.
For the record, if you do not mind, what do you consider to
be the most important lesson that you have learned from your
experience that you want to the Senate to be aware of, if you
had to just summarize--because you are here to help other
people. So what would you say as, ``Senator, ultimately, this
is the most important thing you all need to know''?
Ms. Evsich. That workplaces need to know and understand the
dynamics of abuse; that the whole aim of an abuser is to make
the victim solely dependent upon them so they cannot leave.
Businesses have to realize that a victim is working so that
she can get out of the home; she needs that financial
insurance, security, whatever you want to call it, to make
herself free from her situation. She cannot buy clothes for her
children, she cannot buy food for her children, or put a roof
over their heads if she does not have the money to do it.
Businesses need to understand that, that victims are not
working for the pleasure of working.
Senator Wellstone. So part of the issue is that all too
often on the part of the abuser--and as Dr. Harman said,
sometimes it is the other way around, but most of the time, it
is women who are on the receiving end of this--part of it is
their control of power, but the other thing that you are saying
is that if we do not have a way of being economically
independent, then we are really unable to leave the home even
if we know it is very dangerous for ourselves and our children.
Ms. Evsich. Right.
Senator Wellstone. One thing I want to say to Dr. Harman
about Teresa Duran--I have special feelings for people who are
very human and show it, and you obviously care deeply about
this, and your emotion was very moving--she obviously was not
and is not a statistic to you but is someone whom you cared
deeply about.
And then, I guess if there is anything that is wonderful
about it, it is that you basically decided that in honor of
her, you were going to try to put into effect this policy that
you talked about within the company, and I think that is
wonderful.
Could you describe what it means for the women in your
workplace to know they have a place to turn to and what kind of
feedback you are getting from actually women and men who work
for the company about the policy?
Mr. Harman. Senator, if I may, there are three bits of data
that seem to me so compelling. More than three women are
assassinated in this country every day by husbands and
boyfriends. In a 1998 study, more than 30 percent of the women
respondents indicated that at some point in their lives, they
had in fact been the victims of aggressive, violent behavior by
a husband or boyfriend, and over 74 percent of those incidents
occurred at the workplace.
One does not have to be a brain surgeon or a Senator to
recognize that that is compelling evidence that something is
wrong. And the very fact that so few people are aware of it
prompted me in my testimony to speak of it as a ``dirty little
secret''--well, it is a very large dirty secret.
The response in our company has been surprising. It is a
response shared by male and female employees alike. In the
first place, and perhaps most meaningful to me, I have time and
again been told by employees that they are proud of the
company. And they do not personalize it with me; they see it as
an expression of a company that cares.
Senator Wellstone. And you have heard from as many men as
women on this?
Mr. Harman. Yes--many more female workers than male
workers, not surprisingly; more male managers, supervisors--but
male and female alike.
The fact that the company cares is really meaningful to
them. That sense that there is a place important in their lives
that protects them is, I think, fundamental and a fundamental
responsibility of any employer. In my judgment, no employer is
free to feel that it is a 9 to 5 engagement. He is part of the
community, the company is part of the community, and the
concern must extend beyond the workplace, beyond the plant, to
the home, to the school, to the kids, to the entire community.
Senator Wellstone. Let me ask you this. We have talked
about the employees. How about for the company? What has been
the impact of this on the company?
Mr. Harman. I must put it in context. I think that any
company that has no other expression of concern for its
employees is likely to find that a program of this sort is a
dead end. It must be in the context of an overall commitment,
even a cultural point of view that says this is part of a
systemic approach to the relationship of the managers to the
managed.
If there were time, I could recite for you other
expressions of my company's activity in that respect, but I
think the fundamental needs to be identified. This, as
everything else we do that is respectful of the people who do
the work, honors the people who do the work, honors the
company. The consequences of it are such that when, 10 years
ago, there was a frightful earthquake in North Ridge, CA, where
the site of our million-square-foot plant is located--North
Ridge was at the very epicenter of the earthquake--our
employees came to reassemble that totally destroyed plant, many
of them traveling 8 or 10 hours a day, because as you may
remember, the roads were destroyed. It is a cultural
environment that this must be a piece of. When that exists,
employees nurture the company; productivity, contributions to
original thinking are rich, and the company and its
shareholders are the ultimate beneficiaries.
Senator Wellstone. Well, I quite understand why you want to
put it in the broader context, but just to stay on the
particular the topic of this committee hearing, part of what
you are also saying, I gather, Dr. Harman, is that a company
that puts into effect a policy as you have is likely to
engender high morale among especially the women in the work
force to know that they work for such a company. It seems to me
from a business point of view to be a positive, I gather.
Mr. Harman. It is without any question in my mind.
Senator Wellstone. What about other companies and other
CEOs? What is your candid assessment? Do colleagues talk about
this? Is there awareness of it? Is there much leadership on it,
or do we just have a long way to go?
Mr. Harman. No, I have little awareness of attention to it,
of interest in it, and for that matter even fundamental
awareness of it. That is true at virtually every level of the
material that I have been speaking about, and that is why I
think the context is so critical.
One does not generate the kind of concern and, if you like,
the emotional responsiveness that I was guilty of earlier, in a
vacuum. This is the consequence of a total point of view about
the workplace and about the employees, and unless that is there
in other firms, it is not likely that their chief executives or
their chairmen are going to be particularly sensitive to this
material.
Senator Wellstone. Well, sometimes, legislation can help in
that respect--although that is not the answer.
Ms. Rodgers, how well do the current laws--I will be going
tomorrow to Justin Dart's service and will be thinking about
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical
Leave Act, and Title VII--how well do they protect victims of
domestic violence in the workplace?
Ms. Rodgers. Senator, many of these existing statutes touch
on pieces of this problem, but there is none that deals with it
comprehensively, which is what would suggest taking a view
toward a piece of legislation that says this is a big enough
issue that we need to deal with all aspects of it and all of it
in one place.
For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act only deals
with people who are disabled. Not all victims of violence are
disabled and so would not be eligible under that act, plus it
does not deal with the issues of unemployment insurance or
leave policies.
The Family and Medical Leave Act is similarly limited to
people with serious health problems. It does not cover the
practical problems of needing time off to go to court or to
take care of your children's school situation or something like
that that arises out a violent situation. Again, it does not
deal with unemployment insurance, either.
Title VII, I think you can make a case, and we have in one
situation for a client out in Oregon, that firing the female
employee who was innocent rather than the male coworker who was
the abuser and causing the problem was sex discrimination where
you had the victim and the abuser both working for the same
employer.
It would be much better and much more effective if we had a
specific statement, a clear statement, that said that
discriminating against a woman because of the violence in her
life, which has nothing to do with her actions, would get to
the heart of this issue and be much more effective.
Senator Wellstone. How much would the policies of applying
the Family and Medical Leave or unemployment insurance cost the
business community?
Ms. Rodgers. We do not have exact numbers on that. The
Family and Medical Leave Act does not apply at the moment, but
we have three States that do allow such leave, and I think the
State of Maine Chamber of Commerce epiphany about this is very
powerful. It did not have a huge impact in practice.
I think the other thing that we have to think about in
terms of cost is that the time off for this kind of leave,
which does not have to be a long period of time, is an
investment in an employee. It avoids the cost of hiring a new
employee and training a new employee and keeps an employee very
loyal to the employer. It is not just a cost--it is an
investment in a good work force--not to forget the other
ancillary benefits of the way it makes other employees feel,
the morale factor that you were just talking about.
Senator Wellstone. Let me ask you one final question,
because this will probably be a very contentious issue this
September, on the whole question of TANF and welfare reform and
the notion of work, and then trying to reach a goal of maybe 70
percent of the mothers working outside the home 40 hours a
week, or 30 hours a week.
Can you spell out for us how domestic violence, and also as
it spills off to the workplace, would affect this requirement
that women work? In other words, what kinds of protections do
you need to have? If you had a situation, to be hypothetical--
and you can fill it in--where you were saying, listen, you had
better work, and if you are not working, you are sanctioned,
and you are off welfare, and yet that woman could not work at
that job because of the violence, then it would seem to me,
going back to Ms. Evsich's testimony, that in a way what you
are doing is you are now putting her in situation where, if she
is not going to receive the welfare benefits, she really is
going to have to stay with her abuser, whether it be a
boyfriend or whatever.
Talk a little bit about how this intersects and what we
need to be thinking about to provide protection here.
Ms. Rodgers. Well, the short answer to that is that
violence makes women poor and keeps women poor. It throws them
into poverty because they lose their job or economic security.
It keeps them in that situation because they cannot work. If
the TANF reauthorization does not recognize the fact that a
woman who is in a violent situation must deal with that
situation first and get herself out of it to make herself
workable, then it is just going to be the U.S. Government
punishing that woman yet again for the crimes of somebody else.
That is the U.S. Government punishing children for the crimes
of somebody else. I do not think the Government should be in
that business.
We did in the original 1996 TANF manage to get the family
violence option into the welfare reform. We had hoped it would
be mandatory, but it was an option which said that these
requirements could be waived for a temporary period to give the
woman the kind of help and support she needs so that she can
work.
What Senators need to know is that these women want to
work. They do not want to stay in this situation forever. But
we as a society need to provide some support.
The good news is that some 40-plus States have adopted
either the family violence option or something very close to
it. It has had some beneficial effects. We think that the
States that have not done that should be required to do it.
Senator Wellstone. Senator Murray and I wrote that, and we
wanted to do it that way and could not, so we are going to have
to revisit it.
I want to thank all of you, and I want to tell you--
because again, some Senators were here, and I am not making
excuses for anybody, but I do not want people to think it is
due to lack of interest, and then we had the Judiciary
Committee meeting, and a number of people, including the chair,
had to be there--it is really important to do this, because we
are not going to get this on the floor if we do not go through
this committee hearing. So your testimony helps us a lot. I do
not want anybody to think it is some sleepy meeting that is
symbolic, and nothing is going to happen. There will be follow-
through and follow-up on what you have said.
So I would like to thank all of you very much.
The committee hearing is adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Diane Stuart
Thank you, Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, and members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to speak with you about the issue of
violence against women in the workplace. As the Committee recognizes,
this is a critical issue that affects thousands of American women each
year. Violence against women in the workplace differs from other types
of workplace violence often because of the victim's intimate
relationship with the offender. Victims of domestic violence and
stalking find little safety from their abusers, even in the workplace.
However, if employers take the responsibility to put the appropriate
protections in place, the workplace can be a safe place for women who
experience these horrifying crimes.
I am Diane Stuart, the Director of the Violence Against Women
Office, a component of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the U.S.
Department of Justice. The Violence Against Women Office administers
financial and technical assistance to communities around the country
that are creating programs, policies, and practices aimed at ending
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking wherever it may occur.
Our mission is to provide federal leadership in developing the nation's
capacity to: reduce violence against women; administer justice for
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and
strengthen services for women victims of violence. The long-term goal
of our efforts is to ensure that these crimes are viewed as
unacceptable and are no longer tolerated in our society.
The Violence Against Women Office is addressing the issue of
violence against women in the workplace in collaboration with other
federal agencies. With our colleagues in the Departments of Labor and
Health and Human Services, as well as with other experts across the
country, we have begun examining this issue and how we at the federal
level can best provide assistance to employers.
OJP's Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that an average of 1.7
million violent incidents occur in the workplace each year. Eighteen
percent of all violent crimes committed in this country occur in the
workplace, and 15 percent of all violent crimes against women occur at
work. Almost 10 of every 1,000 women in our American workforce have
experienced violence in the workplace including incidents of murder,
rape, and aggravated assault. Workplace homicide is the third leading
cause of job-related deaths, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. For women, homicide is the leading cause of death on the
job, and 20 percent of those murders were perpetrated by women's
partners. Let me give you a few real-life examples:
In Aurora, Colorado, Victor Cordova turned violent after his wife
Stephanie left him. Their four-year marriage had a history of domestic
violence. He entered the cake store where she worked and shot Stephanie
and then turned the gun on himself. The couple had a 2-year-old
daughter and a 6-year-old son.
In Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Pamela Diamond was shot and
critically wounded when her husband visited her workplace. She had
lived with her abusive husband for 20 years before she decided she had
had enough. She moved out and filed a request for a protective order.
When her husband, Jimmy Dean Harris, went to the transmission shop
where she worked, an argument ensued and her boss stepped in to protect
her. The boss was shot and killed and Pamela was critically wounded.
In Grand Junction, Colorado, Sarah Miller Anderson was in the
process of leaving her husband Chad. After a violent argument where
Chad tried to suffocate her, Sarah filed a temporary restraining order.
A few weeks later, Chad showed up briefly at her workplace, the City
Market, where she worked as a checker. They spoke briefly and he left.
Sarah didn't call the police, but called her father and asked him to
come to the store. Before he could get there, Chad returned to the
store and gunned down his wife, two bystanders, and himself.
Domestic violence has unique characteristics that differentiate it
from other forms of violence in the workplace. Domestic violence is a
pattern of assaults and controlling behavior perpetrated by an intimate
partner, which can be physical, psychological, and financial.
Domestic violence spills into the workplace because it is an easy
place for the abuser to find the victim. In most cases, the abuser is
threatened by the fact that the victim is working outside of the home
and feels intense jealousy and rage that her attentions are directed
elsewhere. For many victims of domestic violence, the workplace may be
one of the only places where they are not under the watchful eye of
their abuser. It may be the one place where a victim is free to seek
assistance without fear of retribution. To their credit, many employers
have trained supervisors, employees, and support personnel on the
dynamics of domestic violence and stalking and the appropriate
responses to violent situations as they enter the workplace. When
effective training occurs, coworkers and supervisors are prepared to
assist the employee to deal with her abusive and often violent
situation as it impacts her work environment.
Statistics show that stalkers also commit a significant number of
violent acts in or around the places where their victims work. A survey
by the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Department of Health
and Human Services, found that the most common activity engaged in by
stalkers included standing outside the victims' places of work. The
survey also found that stalking victims often go to extraordinary
lengths to keep themselves safe, including switching jobs so that
stalkers cannot find them. Another issue coming to the forefront is a
new and more common form of stalking harassment via e-mail or the
Internet, so-called ``cyber-stalking.''
The survey also examined the economic costs of stalking. Twenty-six
percent of the stalking victims interviewed said their victimization
caused them to lose time from work. Seven percent said they never
returned to work at all in an effort to evade their stalkers. One
victim interviewed for the study was even fired from her job because
the stalker harassed her at work and disrupted the workplace. She
eventually had to declare bankruptcy.
Other studies show employers, as well as victims, suffer real costs
as the result of domestic violence in the workplace. A survey by the
American Management Association found that companies report that these
incidents have a negative impact on employee morale, worker
productivity, and service or product delivery. The economic effects of
domestic violence alone can be devastating for America's businesses.
According to the Bureau of National Affairs, American businesses pay an
estimated $3 to $5 billion a year in medical expenses associated with
domestic violence.
In response to concerns about workplace violence, the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management organized the Interagency Working Group on
Violence in the Workplace, which developed comprehensive approaches to
analyzing and responding to threats or incidents of violence in the
federal workplace. As a result, OPM developed Responding to Domestic
Violence: Where Federal Employees Can Find Help, a guidebook for
federal employees, as well as a shorter pamphlet that has been made
available to all federal employees in the nation.
The guidebook serves as a model to other public employers.
Considered one of the best of its kind, it provides concise up-to-date
information on domestic violence, with concrete advice for the employee
who is a victim, for friends and coworkers, and for their supervisors.
It also guides supervisors through an array of management tools that
can be used to assist federal employees in abusive relationships. In
addition, the handbook includes resources for persons in abusive
relationships, instructions for creating a safety plan, and workplace
options for increasing safety and support.
To help address violence against women, including workplace
violence, at the community level, the National Advisory Council on
Violence Against Women, in collaboration with the Departments of
Justice and Health and Human Services, developed the Web-based Toolkit
To End Violence Against Women. The Toolkit discusses promoting safety
in the workplace and presents a number of recommendations that business
and communities can consider. These recommendations include the
development of policies, prevention strategies, referrals to service
providers, and awareness of the issue.
The Toolkit also includes recommendations for what sexual assault
and domestic violence service providers can do to address violence
against women in the workplace. The recommendations include: training
for staff on the effects of workplace violence on victims; improved
client intake procedures to identify victims of workplace violence;
outreach initiatives to improve awareness among the business community;
and the development of services for victims of workplace violence in
coordination with local businesses, labor organizations, and community
groups.
A number of private companies have taken the initiative to create
model violence awareness and prevention programs for their employees.
Last month I had the opportunity to speak at an FBI Symposium on
Workplace Violence where an entire day was devoted to the issue of
domestic violence in the workplace. The Symposium was attended by a
wide audience, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors,
policymakers, victim advocates, and private industry. Several of the
presenters represented large corporations. I was amazed and inspired by
the creative approaches these companies have taken, not only to create
plans for handling violence in the workplace, but also to educate the
general public on the issue through publications, community service,
and public service announcements. And, many employers have displayed
remarkable innovation in the development of their policies and programs
related to domestic violence. Through their good work, they are not
only setting an example for other employers and creating a work
environment where employees can feel safe, they are helping to change
the business community's approach towards violence against women.
The Violence Against Women Office is working to further efforts
such as this and to enable even small businesses to assist employees
threatened by violence. In 2001, the Office provided funding support to
the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) to develop state leadership
teams of businesses, victim services, and law enforcement and to create
models of multi-disciplinary responses to domestic violence in the
workplace. FVPF is a nonprofit victims advocacy group that, for more
than 20 years, has been a leading voice on addressing the issue of
violence against women in the workplace.
Under the National Corporate Citizenship Initiative on Domestic
Violence, FVPF is helping 20 state leadership teams to develop action
plans to improve their state's workplace response to domestic violence.
The teams are examining issues such as how employers should address
employees who perpetrate domestic violence and how to reach out to
immigrant and refugee workers who are being abused. FVPF also is
helping the state leadership teams to improve workplace responses to
domestic violence in their states by convening meetings to highlight
promising practices, distributing a model policy on how employers
should address the problem of employees who are perpetrating domestic
violence, and working with the National
Center for Victims of Crime to develop a protocol on how employers
and law enforcement should work together to assist employees threatened
by domestic violence.
The Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) has also
worked with FVPF to address the problem of violence against women in
the workplace. OVC funding helped establish the National Workplace
Resource Center on Domestic Violence, an FVPF project that serves as a
clearinghouse of information on national and local responses to
domestic violence as a workplace issue.
OVC also produced an award-winning video, entitled Domestic
Violence: The Workplace Responds, that outlines steps workplaces can
take to help employees who are in abusive relationships. The OVC video
incorporates testimony from survivors of domestic violence, their
coworkers and employers, and experts about the impact of domestic
violence on the workplace. A companion training package for employers
concerned about protecting and supporting victims of domestic violence
is also available through the Family Violence Prevention Fund.
In addition, I want to make you aware that through its
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the Department of
Health and Human Services is working to address violence against women,
including workplace violence. For example, ACF provides funding through
the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act to support the Domestic
Violence Resource Network (DVRN), which provides critical expertise and
leadership for the domestic violence field. Members of the DVRN work in
partnership to ensure that domestic violence-related training and
technical assistance available throughout the country is complementary,
comprehensive, appropriate, and informed by the entire network. The
network strengthens existing support systems serving battered women,
their children, and other victims of domestic violence.
The members of the Network are: the National Resource Center on
Domestic Violence; the Battered Women's Justice Project; the Resource
Center on Child Protection and Custody; The Sacred Circle, a resource
center for Indian tribes and tribal organizations; and the Health
Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Each of these resource centers
creates partnerships with community-based domestic violence programs,
state coalitions, federal, state, and local public agencies, and others
involved in assisting victims of domestic violence. Each conducts a
variety of activities, including: technical assistance, training,
policy development, identification of model programs, development of
policies and publications, and assistance to federal, state, and tribal
agencies. The demand for technical assistance from the resource centers
has far exceeded expectations. Calls come from every state and
territory and many tribes.
Each resource center is charged with a specific domestic violence
subject area. The Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence, which is
operated by the Family Violence Prevention Fund, provides training,
technical assistance, and information on the issue of violence against
women in the workplace. The Health Resource Center reports that 94
percent of corporate security directors rank domestic violence as a
high security problem at their company and 71 percent of human
resources and security personnel surveyed had an incident of domestic
violence occurring on company property. The center provides information
on how individuals in a violent relationship can make a safety plan at
work and how companies can become involved in the issue of domestic
violence in order to insure a safe workplace for their employees.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000
requires the Department of Justice to develop a report to Congress on
violence against women in the workplace. The Violence Against Women
Office is in the process of writing this report and has engaged FVPF to
help it fulfill this mandate. The report will describe the results of a
national survey of plans, programs, and practices developed to assist
employers and employees on appropriate responses related to victims of
domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault in the workplace. The
report also will analyze the effects of these crimes on small, medium,
and large businesses, including data on productivity and performance,
and will include recommendations to assist employers and employees
affected in the workplace by incidents of domestic violence, stalking,
and sexual assault. As an additional tool for researchers and policy
makers, the report will provide Congress with an annotated bibliography
of current resources available to assist employers and employees to
develop appropriate responses to domestic violence. We hope that this
report will make a significant contribution to the understanding of the
issue of violence against women in the workplace.
Through these and other initiatives, the Department of Justice is
working with its colleagues in the private and public sector to better
understand and address the problem of violence against women in the
workplace. From our work on this issue, we have learned that it is only
through a coordinated, community response that we can be successful in
our efforts to end violence against women. Working in partnership with
employers, we can help to educate them about the dangers of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking and assist them with
establishing effective policies and programs. Employers play a unique
and vital role in helping to change attitudes and perceptions regarding
violence against women, and we must continue to be supportive in their
efforts. Violence against women in the workplace is a criminal justice
issue, a health issue, and an economic issue. If we are to make any
headway in eliminating its threat, the public and private sectors must
work in collaboration. Women's lives depend upon it.
Prepared Statement of Liz Claiborne Inc.
Liz Claiborne Inc. has been intimately involved in raising funds,
generating awareness and educating the public about domestic violence
for more than ten years in what is a true commitment to help
communities mobilize against this crime.
We do this because we believe we have a responsibility to give back
to the people who make us successful--our consumers and our employees.
And because preventing domestic violence makes sense from a business
perspective--you can't have a healthy business without healthy
consumers and healthy employees.
With more than half of the women in America working outside the
home, business leaders need to recognize that domestic violence is not
just a private family issue. It's a bottom-line issue too. It is proven
to raise absenteeism and health care costs, and it drives down
productivity, We at Liz Claiborne believe we cannot afford not to be
involved.
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. In 1994, we commissioned Roper
Starch Worldwide to probe corporate leaders on their awareness of the
domestic violence problem and sense of corporate accountability. The
one hundred companies involved were selected at random from the list of
the Fortune 1000.
57% of the business leaders polled consider domestic violence a
major social problem.
33% say domestic violence affects their balance sheet.
A startling 40% are personally aware of employees in their company
who have been affected by domestic violence.
66% agree that a company's financial performance would benefit from
addressing the issue among its employees, with nearly half identifying
loss of productivity, decreased attendance and rising health care costs
as areas where domestic violence drags down bottom line performance.
Yet for all this, only 12% of the 100 senior executives polled say
that corporations should play a major role in addressing the issue--
even though the majority either sponsored domestic violence awareness
and support programs or domestic violence counseling and assistance
programs for their employees in need. Regardless of their recognition
of and in many cases action on this issue, a striking 96% of those
asked still feel domestic violence should be addressed primarily by the
family. We are benchmarking the survey this year and arc hoping to see
that attitudes have changed.
We could not disagree more. At Liz Claiborne, we seek to create an
environment of support for our employees who may need help and to
encourage others to speak out and thereby reject relationship abuse.
To accomplish this, we have a multi-faceted internal effort that
includes an ongoing Employee Assistance Program (EAP) that provides
year-round and around the clock offsite, confidential assistance in
coping with family matters, and drug, alcohol and financial crises.
We promote both our EAP and the rational Domestic Violence hotline
numbers throughout the Company via: Inserts in paychecks, Rolodex
cards, Posters in rest rooms, E:mail messages, and Articles in the
Company newsletter.
We participate in National Domestic Violence Awareness Month by
distributing educational materials throughout the Company. We have a
Domestic Violence Task Force that includes members of Human Resources,
Legal, Security and Corporate Communications. This year we have again
partnered with Safe Horizon, a non-profit victim assistance, advocacy
and violence prevention organization in New York City, to conduct a
policy and protocol training session for our human resources and
security departments. It is our goal to repeat and extend these
sessions or ones like them for all managers and supervisors so that
they can be sensitive to and recognize signs of abuse.
We address domestic violence in our employee handbook so that Liz
Claiborne associates can see in print the options that are available to
them. Our Domestic Violence policy provides guidance for employees and
management to address the occurrence of domestic violence and its
effects in the workplace. Our Workplace Violence policy addresses the
safety and security of all our employees and defines consequences for
violation of the policy, investigation procedures and disciplinary
actions.
We educate our employees by disseminating brochures and memos that
not only provide information on domestic violence, but more importantly
outline the lengths to which our Company will go to help victims feel
safe--because we know that as critical as education, is action.
Our Security staff, which includes 45 uniformed officers, a six-
person in-house security management team, and a six-person proprietary
dispatch center, have officers on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. There is also a 24-hour confidential hotline number that is
listed on the back of every employee's ID card.
We take a number of steps to help employees who are in abusive
situations--and those around them--to feel ``safe'' in the workplace.
For example we: Assign special parking spots, Offer escorts to cars or
other points of transportation, Educate victims about the resources
available to them, Allow time off so associates can seek safety and
protection, attend court appearances, arrange for new housing or take
care of such matters, and Arrange for flexible hours and short term
leaves of absence.
The Company will also assist associates who are perpetrators of
abuse in finding appropriate Batterers' Intervention Programs.
But we do not have all the answers. We're still discovering new and
better ways to create an environment of support within the Company
itself and get our message out to an even broader audience.
From our experience we would say to any corporation, test the
waters. Companies large and small can take action. It does not cost
much to place a hotline number in a bathroom or break area--but it
could make a huge difference in the life of a victim.
Ultimately, we need to work together to create an environment that
deems domestic violence unacceptable and intolerable.
Prepared Statement of Kathy Rodgers
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. NOW Legal Defense
and Education Fund has been working for more than thirty years to
define and defend women's rights, Our major goals include helping to
bring an end to violence against women, and eliminating barriers that
deny women economic opportunities. Today's hearing is an opportunity
for me to discuss where those two goals intersect, and steps that can
be taken to move toward achieving both.
NOW Legal Defense chairs the National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence Against Women, which includes over 2,000 national,
state, and local organizations. NOW Legal Defense also provides legal
assistance and information to thousands of domestic violence survivors
through our ``Employment Rights for Survivors of Abuse'' project. In
that vein, we have also worked with corporations across the country,
including Liz Claiborne, American Express, Colgate-Palmolive, Polaroid,
and others, to develop best practices for a companies in their efforts
to deal with the effects of violence against women in their workplaces.
NOW Legal Defense has also authored a popular handbook, ``Creating
Solutions--Creating Change,'' which demonstrates the impact of violence
in the lives of working women and provides guidance and solutions to
corporations and others who work to address these issues.
NOW Legal Defense is also proud to have participated in the
crafting and in leading support for the Violence Against Women Act of
1994, its reauthorization in 2000, and the pending Victims' Economic
Security and Safety Act (VESSA, [S. 1249, H.R. 2670]), which will
address some of the terribly difficult work situations that survivors
of domestic and sexual violence face.
PREVALENCE OF DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Let me begin by briefly describing the scope of the problem. Since
Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, domestic and
sexual violence has been reduced, but it is still a problem of epidemic
proportions. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, ``the rate of
intimate partner violence against women decreased 21 percent from 1993
to 1998,'' but intimate partners continue to commit violent crimes at
the rate of 937,490 annually against women and 144,620 against men.
Another Department of Justice report estimates that 2,800,000 people
are victimized by intimate partners annually. Over one million women
and over 370,000 men are stalked annually in the United States, and
260,000 to 400,000 people are victims of rape annually.
Twenty-five percent of women surveyed were raped and/or physically
assaulted in their lifetime by an intimate partner, compared with eight
percent of men. This includes women of all backgrounds: 24.8 percent of
white women, 29.1 percent of African-American women, 37.5 percent of
American Indian/Alaska Native women, and 15.0 percent of Asian/Pacific
Islander women have been raped, physically assaulted or stalked by an
intimate partner in their lifetimes. In each year between 1992 and
1996, more than two million U.S. residents were victims of a violent
crime in the workplace. About 50,500 individuals, 83 percent of whom
are women, were raped or sexually assaulted in the workplace each year
during this periods.
VIOLENCE HURTS WOMEN ON THE JOB
Domestic violence is a workplace issue, plain and simple. Violence
may enter the workplace when abusers attempt to sabotage their victims
ability to work productively by threatening, attacking, stalking, or
harassing their victims at work. Between 35 and 56 percent of battered
women in three separate studies reported that they were harassed at
work by their batterers.
Fortunately, some of this violence is preventable. There are many
low- or no-cost changes that an employer can make in the workplace that
reduce a batterer's opportunity to harass, threaten or harm an employee
during the work day. For example, in order to stop phone harassment, an
employer can change an employee's phone extension or route calls
through a receptionist. If a batterer has threatened to come to the
workplace, registering a copy of the protective order with building
security or transferring the employee to another job site or shift may
be appropriate. What will work in an individual case will differ based
on the nature and seventy of the violence involved and the type of the
employee's job and the employer's business.
But, an employer cannot take any steps--to increase safety or to
help a good employee keep her job while she is dealing with domestic or
sexual violence--unless the employer hears from the employee. The
problem is, however; when we suggest that individuals talk to their
employers to find a solution to workplace violence, victims' first
response is often, ``I am afraid to tell my employer, because I might
lose my job.'' This is a very real fear. Between one quarter and one
half of domestic violence victims surveyed in three separate studies
reported they lost a job due, in part, to domestic violence. Similarly,
almost fifty percent of sexual assault survivors lose their jobs or are
forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. More than one quarter of
stalking victims report losing time from work due to stalking and seven
percent never returned to work. Outside of New York City--the only
jurisdiction that explicitly prohibits employment discrimination
against victims of domestic violence--we cannot assure an employee that
no one can take an adverse job action against her--just for asking for
help.
We have learned through our work that all too often employers
discriminate against domestic violence victims by firing or
disciplining them, simply because they are in an abusive relationship.
We have also learned that for many survivors of domestic violence,
having a job is a key factor in successfully escaping a violent
relationship. A job provides the economic security they need to leave
their abusers. Although legislatures and executives across the country
have recognized the need to prohibit discrimination against employees
because they are victims of domestic or sexual violence, existing laws
and policies apply in narrow circumstances only (e.g., only protecting
state employees). If Congress prohibits such discrimination, and
employees throughout the country know their employers cannot
discriminate against them for disclosing that they are victims of
domestic or sexual violence, they are more likely to come forward and
talk with their employers about their situations and about how to make
the workplace safer for them and their co-workers.
The need for proactively addressing this issue is clear from the
statistics and is directly supported by the experiences we hear from
individuals about their own experiences. Let me give you a sampling of
these stories.
One woman was fired simply for asking her employer to lock the door
the day after she left her batterer. She worked at a small clothing
manufacturing facility that was not open to the public, so locking the
door would not have disrupted her employer's business. In another case,
a woman in Oregon was fired after her batterer smashed her car
headlights in the employee parking lot and told their joint employer
that he would kill her if she continued to work there. The employer
fired her, but retained her batterer despite the fact that he was the
one who was violent at work.
One client of our ``Employment Rights for Survivors of Abuse''
project, from Oregon, was fired after she obtained an order of
protection against her batterer who was a co-worker at the same office.
In several cases, women had to leave their jobs in order to get
themselves and their children safe and, because they were in one of the
thirty-two states that do not have laws stating that leaving due to
domestic violence is ``good cause,'' they needed assistance to appeal
denials of their applications for unemployment insurance.
A woman from California contacted us because her abuser, a co-
worker, transferred to her office in order to continue to harass her
while at work. When she told her supervisor, he advised her not to talk
about the abuse because, he said, it could be slander. He also
suggested that she should transfer if she was uncomfortable, because
they would not take any action on her behalf to remove her abuser from
her work site.
A woman working in New York used her available sick days to take
time off to heal from injuries inflicted by her abusive ex-boyfriend.
However, upon her return to work; her supervisor began insulting her
and teasing her about being a victim of domestic violence in front of
the other employees, and then fired her. An employee in New Jersey
asked her employer to change her phone extension because her ex-
boyfriend was harassing her, The employer denied her request and then
fired her.
Studies, as well as our experience at NOW Legal Defense, show that
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking are treated
differently than other crime victims. They are subjected to adverse
treatment, perhaps in part due to stereotypes about domestic violence
and sexual assault. We believe legislation such as VESSA is carefully
tailored to respond to a particular and documented need.
Until the current law is improved, women will continue to be forced
to decide which is worse: staying silent and putting up with harassment
and violence, or speaking up and hoping their employers do not fire
them.
ADDRESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
WILL HELP KEEP PEOPLE OFF WELFARE, AND HELP RECIPIENTS GO FROM WELFARE
TO WORK
Not surprisingly, the economic devastation following the loss of
their jobs has forced many survivors of domestic and sexual violence to
rely upon welfare. As many as 70 percent of women on welfare report
having been a victim of intimate violence at some point in their adult
lives, and as many as 30 percent report abuse within the last year. By
addressing the employment needs of victims of domestic violence,
Congress will help many survivors keep their jobs, secure their
economic independence, and stay off welfare. It's an investment with a
big payoff.
Addressing the impact of domestic and sexual violence in the
workplace is critical for women who are moving from welfare to work.
Historically, women have relied on welfare to bridge the gap when they
lose jobs due to domestic violence or leave batterers who contribute to
household expenses. Studies confirm that from fourteen percent to
thirty-two percent of welfare recipients are being abused by their
current partners. It would be a tragedy for a woman to make the
transition from welfare into a new job, only to be fired when she
speaks to her new employer about domestic violence.
Batterers often take actions intended to prevent their victims from
making the transition back into employment. In 1996, NOW Legal Defense
surveyed 25 job-training providers in New York City. The providers
reported that batterers sabotaged their victims' attempts at economic
independence by destroying clothing, inflicting visible injuries,
reneging on promises to provide child care, or keeping their victims up
late at night before critical events like exams and job interviews.
Studies conducted elsewhere confirm these findings. For example, a
study of domestic violence victims in Wisconsin who were former or
current public assistance recipients revealed a very troubling pattern:
one out of three reported that they had lost a job due to the violence.
They also reported their batterers engaged in behavior that made it
more difficult for them to work. More than half reported their
batterers threatened them to the point they were afraid to go to school
or work, and others reported their batterer refused child care at the
last minute or inflicted physical injuries. Workplace protections for
these victims are needed to enable women who have made the transition
from welfare to work to build on their achievements instead of being
pulled back by abusive partners. Congress should ensure that welfare
agencies and welfare-to-work employers support survivors, rather than
discriminate against them or otherwise hinder their ability to get and
keep permanent jobs.
STATE AND LOCAL POLICYMAKERS THROUGHOUT THE NATION ARE RECOGNIZING THE
IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING THE EFFECTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE
WORKPLACE
Across the country, there is a growing recognition of the need to
combat the effects of domestic and sexual violence on the workplace.
States, counties, and cities have enacted laws that provide assistance
to some employees who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. But,
current laws are still inadequate. To date, only New York City
prohibits employers from discriminating against domestic violence
victims.
Eighteen states have passed laws providing unemployment insurance
to employees who leave their jobs due to domestic violence.
Unemployment insurance is vital, but it only addresses the problem
after the victim loses her job.
Three states--California, Maine, and Colorado--have recognized the
importance of preventing job loss by providing employment leave to
domestic violence victims in order to go to court, go to the doctor, or
take other steps to address the violence. Maine and Colorado extend the
availability of leave to victims of stalking or sexual assault (and a
similar amendment to California's leave law has passed the Assembly and
is now before the State Senate).
Maine was the first state to pass an employment leave law for
victims of domestic and sexual violence. Since 1999, all private and
public employers in Maine have been required to grant ``reasonable and
necessary leave from work'' for employees who have been victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to ``[p]repare for and
attend court proceedings,'' ``[r]eceive medical treatment,'' or
``[o]btain necessary services to remedy a crisis caused by [the
violence].'' Earlier this year, the law was expanded to cover employees
whose child was a victim. The Maine State Chamber of Commerce wrote to
the State legislature to express support for the expansion of the leave
law. In that letter the organization stated that when the leave law was
originally introduced, ``the Maine State Chamber expressed concerns
about the bill,'' but the letter goes on to say:
Despite our original reservations the bill became law and has been
in place for the last two 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
impart on the workplace.
It is for this reason we believe it is appropriate to extent [sic]
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.
Notably, each of the state leave laws prohibits employers from
discriminating against employees who have requested or taken the
domestic violence leave provided in the law.
A few other states have prohibited employers from discriminating
against or firing domestic violence victims in certain, narrow
circumstances. New York State employees are protected by the State
Domestic Violence Policy, which states that agencies must ``[e]nsure
that personnel policies and procedures do not discriminate against
victims of domestic violence and are responsive to the needs of victims
of domestic violence.'' New York State law also prohibits employers
from discharging crime victims for taking time off to get an order of
protection. Similarly, Rhode Island prohibits employers from
discriminating against employees because they have obtained or sought a
civil order of protection. The state of Maryland prohibits state
agencies from treating their employees unfairly based solely on their
status as victims of domestic violence. These laws, however, are of no
use to the battered woman who works for a private employer. Without
similar workplace protections, she has no assurance that her employer
cannot discharge her or retaliate against her just because she is in an
abusive relationship or dares to come forward to ask for a small
adjustment in her job structure to prevent harassment by her batterer
at work.
NOW Legal Defense urges Congress to consider workplace violence
protection policies, such as those included in legislation such as
VESSA. This would be an important step forward in dealing
comprehensively with domestic and sexual violence and its effects in
the workplace.
ADDRESSING DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IS GOOD BUSINESS
Forward-thinking companies, such as Harmon International under the
visionary leadership of my fellow panelist, have realized that
addressing the effects of violence against women in their workplaces is
simply good business practice. These corporations understand that this
issue affects their most important asset--their employees--and so
undeniably affects the corporate bottom line. Domestic violence costs
employers at least $3 to $5 billion a year in missed days of work and
reduced productivity. 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.
Legislation assisting victims of domestic violence, sexual assault
and stalking to retain their employment will benefit employers as well.
Sixty-six percent of senior business executives surveyed said their
companies' financial performances would benefit by addressing the issue
of domestic violence among their employees. Maine's expansive leave law
(which applies to all private and public employers in the state) has
been found by the Maine State Chamber of Commerce to be both
``appropriate and relatively unburdensome'' to businesses. A number of
businesses have recently voluntarily adopted policies and procedures to
address the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking
among their employees. The growing realization that violence suffered
outside the workplace affects employee productivity and retention was
also reflected in a study showing that 78 percent of human resources
professionals and 94 percent of corporate security and safety directors
at companies nationwide rank domestic violence as a high security
concern.
In addition to costs associated with diminished productivity,
businesses often lose valuable employees when those employees are
victimized. 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.
CONCLUSION
Charlene's story is a fitting conclusion to this testimony.
Charlene is married to an abusive man who regularly harasses,
threatens, and hits her. One evening, he new into a rage, because she
said she was considering leaving him, and beat her particularly
brutally. She came into work the next day and explained to her
supervisor that her injuries were the result of domestic violence. Her
boss brought her to speak with someone in Human Resources who had
received training in working with employees who are victims of sexual
assault, domestic violence, or stalking. She helped Charlene contact a
local domestic violence service provider. The employer gave Charlene
the rest of the day off to meet with a counselor and figure out what
other steps to take. When she realized she would need several days off
to get a restraining order and move into a shelter, Charlene called her
boss, who agreed that she could miss two more days of work.
Before returning to work, Charlene and a counselor at the shelter
contacted her employer to discuss the safety plan they had developed.
The employer agreed to allow Charlene to vary her start and end times
by up to one hour. Then, Charlene, the employer, and the counselor
agreed that Charlene could be out of the office two afternoons per
month to attend group counseling sessions, and she could make up the
time on other days.
Was Charlene one of the lucky few who happen to work for an
understanding and accommodating employer? No, this story is fictional.
The real story is the one we began with. But Charlene's story is
possible in the near future.
Congress has the power to bring greater safety and economic
security to all victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking, as well as to their employers and their coworkers. I urge you
to consider and support meaningful workplace protections for victims of
such violence.
Availability of leave, protection from discrimination, and
eligibility for unemployment insurance can help survivors keep their
jobs, maintain their economic independence, and remain safe from future
violence. Victims of domestic or sexual violence need to know they can
go to court to get an order of protection, seek shelter, or talk to
their employers about how to make themselves and their co-workers safe,
without fear of losing their jobs.
Some employers are taking a leading role in addressing violence by
adopting policies, promoting workplace education, and developing
appropriate security and safety plans. While those employers should be
supported and encouraged, other employers that penalize or retaliate
against employees who have experienced domestic violence, sexual
assault, or stalking must be directed to end such discrimination.
For a woman to survive violence and move on with her life, she
needs more than luck and fortitude: she needs to be able to financially
support herself and get the help she needs without fearing the loss of
her job. A woman deserves a guarantee that she will not lose her job
and therefore her economic security because she needs to go to court,
take time to talk to her children's child care center about the issue,
or see a physician after she's been attacked. If she must leave her
work due to the violence, then unemployment compensation should be
available to enable her to get back into the workforce as soon as
possible. As a caring society, we cannot allow a woman who has suffered
a violent attack to be further victimized by her employer.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]