We wish our sisters here well in their efforts to convince the US
Supreme Court that retaliation against women speaking out against this
terrible abuse should never be permitted, and we truly hope that
governments and courts around the world will begin, finally, to protect
those who dare to tell the truth about harassment.

Here is more information about sexual violence in the workplace:

SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS EMPLOYEE'S
RETALIATION CLAIM
Woman Fired After Supporting
Co-worker’s Harassment Charge Gets Her Day in
Court

By Gillian
Thomas, Legal Momentum

This is the story of
Vicky Crawford, a payroll administrator whose case will be argued today before
the Supreme Court:  At a meeting with representatives of her human resources
department, she learned that her boss had been accused of sexual harassment. The
investigators asked Ms. Crawford what she knew. Reluctantly, she disclosed that
the same supervisor had harassed her, too. She explained that she had not come
forward previously because, under office policy, he was the person to whom she
was supposed to complain.  Within weeks, Ms. Crawford learned that her boss was
reprimanded for “inappropriate behavior.”  But she also found out that her
employer was investigating her job performance, and not long after, she was
fired as were the other two women who spoke to the investigators. (The case is
Crawford v.
Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee.)

Federal law makes it
just as illegal for an employer to retaliate against someone who complains of
discrimination as it is for an employer to discriminate in the first place. But
what about employees like Ms. Crawford, who are reluctant to file their own
complaints, but are willing to corroborate a co-worker’s?  Does the law protect
them from retaliation, too?

Ms. Crawford says it
does. Her former employer, which claims that Ms. Crawford was fired for no other
reason than job performance, says it does not. The ban on retaliation, it
argues, does not extend to witnesses like Ms. Crawford who merely give
information instead of filing their own charge. The employer also says that
participating in the investigation of an internal discrimination
complaint, rather than a complaint filed with an outside agency, is not enough
to trigger the law’s protection. 

Ms. Crawford is right.
Research tells us that fear of retaliation is a main reason that employees keep
quiet even in the face of severe harassment.  (Indeed, Ms. Crawford says that
her supervisor asked to see her breasts, pressed his crotch against her office
window, pulled her head into his lap, and responded to a casual “what’s up?” by
grabbing his crotch and saying “you know what’s up.”)  But don’t take the social
scientists’ word for it:  Ask any woman you know whether she’s ever been
harassed on the job. Chances are she has, and chances are she was too afraid to
rock the boat by complaining.

A ruling against Ms.
Crawford will send the message that unless an
employee is prepared to file a formal complaint, she is better off keeping mum
about discrimination. Even an employee who might feel brave enough to file her
own complaint will think twice if she knows that her colleagues will be too
afraid to corroborate her allegations.

The anti-discrimination laws succeed
only when employees are willing to speak up about misconduct, whether directed
against themselves or their colleagues. Unless employers can get answers about
what really goes on in their offices or stores or factories, it is harder to
root out and fix problem situations--not to mention prevent lawsuits. That’s why
Vicky Crawford and people like her need assurance that they won’t be punished
for disclosing what they know. Without that protection, employees have little
incentive to report on-the-job discrimination, and every reason to keep silent.

Gillian
Thomas is senior staff attorney at Legal Momentum, litigating in the area of
employment discrimination.

Related
links: