Legal Momentum Briefing Room

New Report Highlights Women's Advancements and Persistent Inequities in the United States

In 2009, President Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that the federal government provides a coordinated response to women’s issues. In honor of women’s history month, the Council, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Economics and Statistics Administration, released "Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being," a report analyzing five key issues facing women: demographic and family changes, education, employment, health, and crime and violence.

"Women in America" demonstrates that women have advanced dramatically in American society, particularly in education.  More than ever before, women, from diverse racial and ethnic groups, enroll in institutions of higher education. In 2011, there are more women than men in both undergraduate and graduate schools. Women also have higher graduation rates at all academic levels than men.
Despite this progress, female students score lower than male students in mathematics assessment tests. While science, math and technology careers are dominated by men, women comprise two-thirds of global graduates in the humanities. Gender segregation in career and technical education – the path to jobs in the skilled trades, which lead to occupations with high wages, benefits, and opportunities for professional growth – continues. Legal Momentum's Pipeline Program seeks to address this disparity, forging systemic change in educational institutions to end the long history of gender segregation in these schools and career fields, while increasing the earnings potential and future economic security of low-income women.

Today, women's advances in education do not always translate success in the workforce. The gender pay gap continues: among those working full time, women earn, on average, 80 cents for every dollar men make.

"Women in America" also addresses the impact of criminal activity in American communities. Women are disproportionately affected by certain types of crime, particularly sexual victimization and intimate partner violence.

A recent study by Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated and Forcible Rape: A National Study, found that "during the past year alone [2006], over 1 million women in the U.S. have been raped…Our estimates do not appear to support the widely held belief that rape has significantly declined in recent decades."

While sexual violence remains a persistent problem for American women, "Women in America" does note that the rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women declined by more than 50 percent between 1994 and 2008. 1994 marked the passage of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Legal Momentum was instrumental in passing VAWA and has advocated for its subsequent reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005. Since Congress passed VAWA in 1994, law enforcement and justice system officials have become increasingly involved in domestic violence cases, matters which were once perceived to be private concerns. The declining rate of intimate partner violence achieved by VAWA affects not only victims but their children as well. As "Women in America" explains, "Research demonstrates significant adverse impacts on children’s health and developmental well-being as a result of exposure to domestic violence."

"Women in America" finds that while women have achieved significant advances in education and employment, much work remains. Legal Momentum continues to confront the issues facing American women and children, from poverty to sexual violence. Learn more about Legal Momentum.

High School Cheerleader Dismissed From Squad After Refusing to Cheer for Her Rapists

In 2008, a sixteen-year-old cheerleader reported that she was raped by a basketball player at her school. The girl, known as H.S., said that she was at a party when Rakheem Bolton and a fellow athlete pushed her into a bedroom and locked the door. They proceeded to sexually assault her. Bolton was arrested, but not charged.

Instead of advocating for the victim and working to create a safe educational environment, officials at H.S.'s school encouraged her to avoid the cafeteria and homecoming so as not to raise attention to the issue. But she declined to take part in the school officials' "out of sight, out of mind" approach, and instead refused to cheer for Bolton. She sat on the sidelines while her teammates cheered "Two, four, six, eight, ten, come on, Rakheem, put it in." She was dismissed from the team for her actions. "As a team, I cheered for them as a whole. When he stepped up to the free-throw line, it didn't feel right for me to have to cheer for him after what he did to me," she said.

Bolton eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge, and H.S.'s family sued the school district for inhibiting free speech. But the suit was dismissed as "frivolous" and the family was ordered to reimburse the school's costs. A Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, "stating that a cheerleader serves as a 'mouthpiece’ for the school' and that H.S.'s refusal to cheer "constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, [she] was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily."

Now, her lawyer, Laurence Watts, is appealing the case to the Supreme Court over whether or not her refusal to cheer in fact constituted "substantial interference with the work of the school." The case also has implications for student free speech.

"All I wanted was for somebody to come forward and say, 'Yes, it happened,'" H.S. said. But it's clear that for school officials and the Court of Appeals, this was not their intention. Instead, they attempted to protect "the work of the school," which meant glossing over rape accusations, criminalizing victims, and fostering an educational environment where students are discouraged from addressing sexual assault and violence head on. 
   
In December, Legal Momentum reported on efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice to address shocking rates of sexual violence on college campuses across the U.S. In addition to direct measures by the Department, a bipartisan group of members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act), a bill that would expand and clearly define the expectations of colleges and universities in their approach towards the prevention and response to sexual assault. This aggressive approach towards combating sexual violence must be enacted throughout all educational institutions, including secondary education.

The ongoing existence of sexual assault within educational institutions is a fundamental human rights abuse that must not be tolerated. Rather than victimizing survivors of sexual assault, educational institutions must work to fight against rape culture and create safe learning environments for all students. Ensuring that students, especially women, are able to live and study free of sexual harassment, sexual violence, and fear is a critical component of any successful educational institution.

• Learn more about Legal Momentum's work on behalf of women victims of violence.

Administration, Congress Take Critical Steps Towards Combating Sexual Assualt on College Campuses

Sexual violence has long been a major problem on college campuses across the U.S. It is now finally receiving the attention it so desperately deserves. Joseph Shapiro of National Public Radio reports, “The United States Department of Education is announcing ‘voluntary resolution agreements’ with two schools that had been criticized for the way they'd handled assaults. And new legislation in Congress would expand and clarify the responsibility of colleges and universities.”

A U.S. Department of Justice funded study estimates that one out of five college women will be sexually assaulted, usually when alcohol is involved. Last winter, Shapiro, along with other journalists from the Center for Public Integrity, investigated the failure of schools and the government agency that oversees them to adequately address sexual assault on their campuses in a series called “Seeking Justice for Campus Rapes.”

The cases that prompted the investigation occurred at Eastern Michigan University and Notre Dame College of Ohio. In December 2006, 22-year-old Laura Dickinson was raped and murdered by a stranger and fellow Eastern Michigan University student after he broke into her dorm room. The convicted man had already been arrested for break-ins on campus and kicked out of school dorms, yet was allowed to remain a student. For 10 weeks, campus officials led Dickinson’s family to believe she died from natural causes.

The second incident occurred in 2006 at Notre Dame of Ohio, when two students told the dean of students that they had been sexually assaulted by the same man. It took weeks for the assaults to be reported to the police, because the dean said she was asked by the women to keep the information confidential. The dean was eventually indicted but later acquitted of failing to quickly notify law enforcement authorities.

Under the federal Clery Act, schools have an obligation to warn other students of crimes on campus. Under Title IX, schools must act swiftly and effectively to end and prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape.

In response to the series, Russlynn Ali, assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education, discussed new actions developed to address this crisis with NPR and the Center for Public Integrity. Information provided in the discussion includes:

- Eastern Michigan University and Notre Dame College of Ohio taking measures to prevent sexual assault and to investigate assaults when they do happen. The agreements between the Department and the schools also issues for officials from the Department to regularly visit the campuses to ensure progress is being made.

- Ali's department has begun two similar investigations at Ohio State University and of the West Contra Costa Unified School District, in Richmond, California. The second investigation was prompted by an alleged gang rape of a 15-year-old girl after she attended a homecoming dance.

- Offers from Ali to the University of Notre Dame in investigating a recent rape allegation by a student who later committed suicide.

Perhaps most notable is the recent move by a bipartisan group of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to introduce the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act), a bill that would expand and clearly define the expectations of colleges and universities in their approach towards the prevention and response to sexual assault. The bill’s provisions include –

- “Anytime a student reports being a victim of sexual violence — including stalking and date or domestic violence — schools are then required to explain, in writing, their rights to notify law enforcement and receive help from the school to report the incident. Schools must also tell students their rights to obtain a protective order from a local court. And the school is then obligated to help enforce those protective orders. Schools would be required to hold prevention campaigns, to help students avoid sexual violence and to know how to report it and get counseling if they become a victim.

- The bill would also require schools to start teaching what's considered one of the best approaches to prevention: something called ‘bystander education.’ The idea is to teach everyone — men and women — that they can prevent sexual assaults, and that they have a responsibility to do so. It's similar to campaigns to stop drunk driving by spotting a friend who's had too much to drink and hiding his car keys, giving him a ride or calling a taxi.”

S. Daniel Carter, director of public policy for Security on Campus, an advocacy group for ending campus violence, helped develop the bill and says it is a critical component of ending campus-based violence. Without a bill, the federal government’s approach is not sufficient to effectively address the nationwide problem. "Without a clear national framework set in statute and regulation, it's still going through one school at a time. And not making these changes across the board, which is what we really need to do if you're going to change the big picture,” he said.

Legal Momentum heralds this aggressive approach towards combating sexual violence. The ongoing existence of sexual assault, especially on college campuses, is a fundamental human rights abuse that must not be tolerated. The U.S. Department of Education’s measures and SaVE Act are critical steps towards ensuring the safety of all students.

- To read "Administration, Congress Take Steps to Address Sexual Assaults On Campus,” click here.

- To read “Seeking Justice for Campus Rapes,” click here.

- To learn more about Legal Momentum's Violence Against Women Program, which combines public policy advocacy, education, and precedent-setting litigation to expand and enforce laws aimed at preventing sexual assualt and protecting victims, click here.

 

 

Working in the Shadows: Immigrant Women Sexually Victimized on the Job

Over four million undocumented immigrant women currently live in the United States. Many of these women are employed in the U.S. food service industry, and, according to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), many of these women suffer sexual harassment and sexual violence on the job.

Injustice on Our Plates demonstrates what Legal Momentum’s Immigrant Women Program has often found in its efforts across the country: that undocumented immigrant women are forced to work for little pay in a shadow economy, exploited by their employers while remaining invisible to most Americans.

In June, Legal Momentum released Reforming America’s Immigration Laws: A Woman’s Struggle. We noted that undocumented women migrants are "vulnerable to sexual violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other gender-motivated exploitation in the workplace. Absent any fear that employees will report these actions and crimes, employers continue to take advantage of immigrant women."

Injustice on Our Plates echoes Legal Momentum’s findings in the U.S. food service industry. The SPLC interviewed 150 immigrant women working throughout the United States. The vast majority of the women the SPLC interviewed said that they suffered sexual harassment and/or sexual violence on the job. At the Agriprocessers Inc. meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa – the site of one of the largest federal immigration raids in history in May 2008 – the women workers described sexual harassment by their male supervisors as “widespread and constant.” According to the SPLC, this type of exploitation is common across the country:

In Salinas, Calif., a worker told the EEOC that farmworkers there referred to one company’s field as the field de calzon, or “field of panties,” because so many women had been raped by supervisors there. In Florida, women farmworkers dubbed fields “the green motel” for the same reason. In Iowa, women said they had encountered the problem so often that they believed it was a common practice in the United States to exchange sex for job security.

Immigrant women are the silent victims of the broken immigration system. Legal Momentum’s Immigrant Women Program advocates for comprehensive immigration reform that considers how even facially gender-neutral laws create more hardship for immigrant women. Congress must create paths to legalization that equitably value women’s work, eliminate 287(g) and/or Safe Communities Programs that often harm immigrant women crime victims, and eradicate backlogs in the family immigration system.

The women profiled in Injustice on Our Plates are the backbone of the U.S. economy, yet they live in the shadows. Comprehensive immigration reform must include provisions to ensure that these women are able to live and work free of sexual harassment, sexual violence, and fear.

Hollaback Challenges Street Harassment as Component of Gender-Based Violence, New York City Council Takes Notice

“Women don’t put up with harassment in the workplace or the home, why are they still putting up with it on the street?” That’s the question asked by Hollaback, a group confronting street harassment using technology, which is geared towards recording and sharing incidents of street harassment with others in efforts to end the pervasive practice. Now, the group has developed an i-Phone application, making responses to harassment even more accessible and quick to disseminate.  Through the website or i-Phone application, individuals are encouraged to recount their experiences, identify the location of the incident, and even share pictures of the perpetrators in efforts to help prevent more harassment and hold perpetrators accountable.

The group was created in response to the widespread phenomena of street harassment and the recognition of this act as one of the most common, yet unchallenged forms of gender-based violence. “Street harassment teaches us to be silent,” said Emily May, the executive director of Hollaback. “It teaches us to walk on. That is the very last thing we want to be teaching women and girls."

The group’s message is not just being heard by users of the website or application, but by the New York City Council Committee on Women’s Issues, who held its first hearing on street harassment last month. The committee chairwoman, Julissa Ferreras, a Democrat from Queens, has vowed to pursue all three demands by a group of activists at the hearings - a study examining street harassment, an advertising campaign, and the establishment of “harassment-free zones” around schools. “Ms. Ferreras called the hearing after visiting a high school in Elmhurst, Queens, where instead of requesting computers or supplies, female students asked her to stop the mechanics in a nearby garage from making inappropriate comments directed at them. Their stories hit close to home for the councilwoman, who grew up in the district and still remembers the ‘speed walk’ to and from school, when she would try to avoid a group of men who stood outside one particular bodega,” writes Karen Zraick in the Times piece. Ms. Ferreras, who understands the pervasiveness of street harassment, said she was even harassed on her way to the hearing.

Challenging and prosecuting street harassment is an essential component to ending all violence against women and LGBTQ individuals. As Hollaback’s website states, “Everyone has a right to feel safe and confident without being objectified. Sexual harassment is a gateway crime that creates a cultural environment that makes gender-based violence OK. There exists a clear legal framework to reproach sexual harassment and abuse in the home and at work, but when it comes to the streets—all bets are off. This gap isn’t because street harassment hurts any less, it’s because there hasn’t been a solution. Until now.”

• To read more from "Phone Apps Aim to Fight Harassment," click here.
• To learn more about Hollaback or to report your own experiences, click here.
• To learn more about Legal Momentum’s work through our Women and Violence project, click here.

Women in Non-Traditional Jobs Need Regulations and Enforcement

Today Legal Momentum hosted a roundtable discussion of tradeswomen, policy experts, and researchers to discuss the revision of federal construction regulations and strategies to increase the number and retention of women on federally-funded construction sites. Equality Works Program Manager Françoise Jacobsohn and Legal Momentum Interim President Rachael N. Pine were pleased to welcome Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) Director Patricia Shiu, Women's Bureau Director Sara Manzano-Diaz, and other representatives from the Department of Labor to the discussion.

Participants emphasized the importance of early regulations and enforcement in reducing barriers to women's employment in non-traditional jobs. Sonya Covington from Forest City Ratner Companies and Yvette Dennis from The Darman Group described their success in securing and retaining women on Forest City Ratner job sites. By writing enforcement language into their contracts from the very beginning, and hiring The Darman Group to work on-site to ensure compliance, Forest City Ratner has reached their goal of at least 10% women on their sites. Their New York Times Building construction achieved a 15% labor participation rate by women.

Sheet Metal Journeywoman Leah Rambo and Carpenter Journeywoman Vanessa Salazar discussed the issues women often face in non-traditional jobs, including sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Salazar noted that, when she inquires about certain projects, employers often tell her that a site "already has a woman" on the job, or that construction jobs are too difficult for women – despite the fact that Salazar won second place in the New York City District Council of Carpenters Golden Hammer Competition last April.

OFCCP Director Patricia Shiu described the changes that have already taken place since she took office in August 2009 and her determination to revise affirmative action provisions in construction regulations. Women's Bureau Director Sara Manzano-Diaz echoed Shiu's sentiments and noted her dedication to gathering and disseminating employment models that work for women across the country.

Legal Momentum promotes opportunity and equality for women in non-traditional job sectors, many of which are high-paying, have career tracks, and provide job security, annual leave, and other benefits. We advocate for policies that improve women's access to such jobs, support an organized constituency of tradeswomen, and work to increase girls' enrollment in high schools that prepare them for the skilled trades.

Learn more about Legal Momentum's work supporting women in non-traditional jobs.

Learn more about Legal Momentum's work supporting girls in Career and Technical Education schools. 

Sexual Abuse Within Immigration Detention Must Be Addressed Immediately

The Human Rights Watch's new report, "Detained and at Risk: Sexual Abuse and Harassment in United States Immigration Detention," demonstrates the critical need for protection from sexual abuse within immigration detention. The report details various incidents and allegations of abuse, the frequency of which is largely unknown. One of these incidents occurred in 2007, when a trafficking victim was sexually assaulted in a Florida jail with which Immigration and Customs Enforcement had a contract to rent bed space for immigration detainees.  Women detained on criminal charges who were housed in the same dormitory assaulted the victim while she was partially incapacitated by prescribed sedatives. Later, in 2008, five women detained at the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Texas were assaulted when a guard entered their rooms in the detention center infirmary. Assuring them that he was acting under the orders of a physician, the guard told the women to undress and then proceeded to touch intimate parts of their bodies.

Data collected on these type of incidents is highly erroneous, because it typically excludes detention facilities not run exclusively by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Additionally, victims face fear of reporting abuse from the very people in charge of their deportation.

In recent proposals by ICE, the agency has stated their intention to address this issue. Yet, in their report, Human Rights Watch emphasize that action must not be limited to ICE’s recommendations, but must be taken swiftly to enforce legally binding detention standards in all immigration detention facilities.

Key recommendations of the report include:

 

To the Department of Homeland Security -

• Institute legally binding detention standards applicable across all types of immigration detention facilities.
• Appoint a Prison Rape Elimination Act coordinator.
• Publish information on reported incidents of sexual assault.

To Immigration and Customs Enforcement -

• Ensure that reports of sexual abuse are thoroughly investigated.
• Improve the monitoring of compliance with detention standards by detention facilities.
• Expedite implementation of the detention standard on preventing and responding to sexual assault and abuse across all facilities holding ICE detainees.
• Require detention centers to facilitate on-site access for local community providers of support services for sexual assault survivors.
• Standardize procedures for ensuring access to appropriate relief measures for victims, including release from detention and visas to remain in the United States and assist law enforcement.
• Require detention facilities to have reasonable suspicion of infractions before conducting pat-down searches of detainees.
• Ensure that detainees are fully informed about their rights with respect to sexual assault, abuse, and harassment.

To the Department of Justice:

• Issue regulations based on the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission's recommendations without delay.
• Review the department's experience in prosecuting sexual assault and abuse in immigration detention with a view to improving procedures and prosecution rates.

To the U.S. Congress -

• Demand disclosure of ICE records related to sexual assault, abuse, and harassment in  detention.
• Pass legislation setting standards for detention conditions.

The prevalence of sexual assault crimes within the criminal justice system stands in sharp contrast to the intentions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was designed specifically to educate law enforcement as well as other professionals about sexual assault. The VAWA, which Legal Momentum helped to draft and pass, provides funds to educate medical professionals, victim advocates, law enforcement, prosecutors and judges. Our National Judicial Education Program (NJEP) is targeted at educating judges about sexual assault and we have produced an abundance of materials on understanding and addressing sexual violence. Additionally, the Immigrant Women Program specifically addresses issues facing immigrant women and their families, including wrongful detention and separation of families. The perpetration of sexual assault by officials themselves is a fundamental human rights abuse that must not be tolerated. Human Rights Watch’s recommendations are a critical step towards ensuring the safety of all individuals, regardless of their citizenship, within the detention system.

Learn more about Legal Momentum's National Judicial Education Program.

 

Learn more about Legal Momentum's Immigrant Women Program.

Read Human Rights Watch’s new report "Detained and at Risk: Sexual Abuse and Harassment in United States Immigration Detention."

Same-Sex Couples Are Covered by the Violence Against Women Act

Gay couples fall within the scope of the protections of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the Justice Department has clarified. Federal prosecutors may use the law in cases of interstate stalking and domestic violence, regardless of the victim or defendant’s sex. “The text, relevant case law and legislative history all support the conclusion” that the law’s criminal provisions “apply when the offender and the victim are the same sex,” wrote David J. Barron, the acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The office’s decision will now be used as legal guidance for federal prosecutors across the country.

Legal Momentum, along with countless other organizations, worked tirelessly to get the VAWA passed in 1994, and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. A third reauthorization should occur next year. The law made major strides towards protecting victims of violence, including making it a federal crime to cross state lines with the intent of committing domestic violence, stalking, or violating a protection order. However, in its passage, the VAWA also omitted significant components of the law that Legal Momentum had supported and helped draft. One of the vital components was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2000. The provision allowed individuals to sue their rapists in federal court based on violation of civil rights. This ruling fails to understand that rape is a sometimes a biased crime and an attack against women.  

In addition, the VAWA did not specifically address the enforcement of the law in same-sex relationships. In the midst of an ongoing, national debate over same-sex marriage, and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act which defined terms such as “marriage” and “spouse” as categories only existing between a man and woman, the applicability of VAWA to same-sex relationships became blurred. However, in the memorandum, Mr. Barron explains that the tone and gender-neutral language of the VAWA reflects Congress’ original intention for the laws to cover both heterosexual and same-sex couples. Additionally, the VAWA includes terms not included in the Defense of Marriage Act, such as “dating partner” and “intimate partner.” These terms apply equally to same-sex relationships as heterosexual ones.  “It is true that the statute is entitled the Violence Against Women Act, but other provisions of the Act make clear it applies to conduct perpetrated against male, as well as female, victims,” Mr. Barron wrote.  

Legal Momentum hails the Justice Department’s decision as a critical step towards the successful protection of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. In our work to on VAWA, Legal Momentum drafted and advocated for provisions that applied to all individuals, regardless of their gender or sexual identity. This long welcome clarification will dramatically alter countless lives, and must be disseminated and implemented swiftly and effectively. 
 
To read The New York Times’  “Gay Couples Gain Under Violence Against Women Act,” click here.

For more information on Legal Momentum’s work on the VAWA, click here.

Why Don’t More Women Sue Their Rapists?

In a recent article on Slate.com, Claire Bushey examines the practice, or lack thereof, of women who sue their rapists. She explains that ten years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a vital component of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that allowed individuals to sue their rapists in federal court based on violation of civil rights claims. In 1994, Christy Brzonkala, a student at Virginia Tech, sued two football players for raping her. She sued both the players and the school under the VAWA’s civil rights policy. Yet, in United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court ruled that “Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority by creating a federal remedy in the criminal-justice realm that usually falls to the states” and that Brzonkala’s case could only be heard by state, not federal courts.

This ruling has drastically affected the number of women suing their rapists, Bushey explains. While there has been a sharp rise in women filing lawsuits following a rape, the ruling makes it extremely difficult to obtain representation or compensation when suing a rapist. Even when the plaintiff wins (which is common), the rapists are often incapable of paying even the lawyer’s fees. In turn, few lawyers will take these types of cases. Instead, rape lawsuits generally go after third-party defendants, those who have money. These defendants are often employers, such as rent-a-cops or nursing homes, that don’t effectively screen their employees.

In contrast, the VAWA’s civil rights clause encouraged courts to award attorney’s fees to successful plantiffs, making it easier for women to obtain representation and thus sue their individual rapists. The clause also extended the statute of limitations to four years, enabling victims more time to deal with the devastating impacts of a rape and mount a case. But when the Supreme Court struck down these clauses, they did away with these measures and in turn made it increasingly difficult for women to sue their attackers.

Bushey argues that the ability to sue one’s rapist is particularly critical because of the failure of criminal courts to effectively prosecute rapists. She writes:

“Victims need the weapon of a lawsuit because the criminal courts don't always serve their interests. A 2004 study of sex crimes in Philadelphia and Kansas City, Mo., found that only half of the cases that resulted in an arrest were prosecuted. When prosecutors who doubt a victim's story are unwilling to press criminal charges, a civil suit allows the victim a different measure of justice. Juries determine guilt using a lower burden of proof; instead of deciding whether a defendant is guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ a plaintiff need only demonstrate that ‘a preponderance of the evidence’ points to guilt, making it easier for victims to prevail. Victims don't send their rapists to prison by suing them, but the damages they can win are another form of punishment. Damages can also help replace a rape victim's lost income and pay for counseling. ‘The criminal case is about paying your debt to society,’ Dion says. ‘The civil case is about [perpetrators] paying their debt to the victim.’

Along with its practical importance for victims, VAWA promised a more abstract kind of benefit that was lost when the Supreme Court struck down the relevant portion of the law. Introducing the legislation in 1990, then-Sen. Joe Biden pointed out that more than 90 percent of sex crimes are committed against women. And yet, he argued, ‘we ignore the implication: a rape or sex assault should be deemed a civil rights crimes, just as 'hate beatings' aimed at blacks or Asians are widely recognized as violations of their civil rights.’ Even when states address rape victims' practical concerns by extending the time they have to sue or encouraging courts to award attorney's fees, they don't challenge the public to rethink rape as an attack on women because they are women—in other words, as a form of discrimination.”

Indeed, in order to successfully sue rapists, the essential components of the VAWA struck down by the Supreme Court must be reinstated. Rape is a civil rights crime and a discriminatory attack against women and must be understood as such. All legislation should accurately reflect this understanding if we are to successfully work to prevent violence against women.

For Claire Bushey's article on Slate.com, click here.

Despite Major Progress, Sexism Still Remains in the American Courts

Despite the major strides to combat gender discrimination in the American legal system, sexism still persists.  In 1980, Legal Momentum created The National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts (NJEP) to “educate judges and justice system professionals about the ways gender bias can be a factor across the spectrum of civil, criminal, family and juvenile law, and how to prevent it.”  Since then, attitudes and legal procedures have progressed dramatically. The NJEP’s work was a catalyst for over 40 state and federal-lvel task forces on gender equality in the legal system and amendments to the American Bar Association’s code of judicial conduct, says NJEP director and founder Lynn Schafran.

However, despite these significant gains in gender equity, sexism remains prevalent in the legal system, particularly in sexual assault cases.  Schafran provides multiple examples of this type of sexism, such as two U.S. states in which expert witnesses are unable to testify about a rape accuser's behavior.  In turn, judges and juries are forced to rely on often preconceived sexist notions in assessing a rape victim's actions.  Serious flaws in our legal system’s protection of abuse victims were again highlighted by the recent murder of Alissa Blanton by her stalker. After being denied a protection order until a second hearing, Blanton, along with countless others, are “left legally unprotected for 14 days while their alleged perpetrator ... is given not only a heads up about their action to end the relationship, but time ... to continue the behavior that led to the victim seeking the injunction in the first place,” says Carol Wick, the Chief Executive Officer of Harbor House, a domestic violence shelter in Florida.

And even the Supreme Court’s rulings on certain cases have reflected implicit sexism.  For example, in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. that employers cannot be sued for gender or race pay discrimination if the alleged discrimination occurred over six months before legal action was taken. Indeed, “According to critics, the justices had not only thrown out a potentially far-reaching discrimination suit on what appeared to be procedural grounds, they also failed to recognize potentially legitimate reasons women may have for not immediately bringing gender discrimination to a court's attention.”

The NJEP, along with countless other women’s rights organizations, has worked tirelessly to promote full gender equality within the American legal system.  Yet despite many successful efforts to combat gender bias, aspects of sexism still remain.  We must continue to struggle to overcome gender inequity to ensure that all people receive equal justice in the American judicial system.