FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWERLESS TO FIGHT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Two men raped Christy Brzonkala while the three were students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The school did little to help Ms. Brzonkala, and the men continued to harass her. She sued her rapists under the Violence against Women act (VAWA), a law that allowed victims of gender-motivated violence to sue in civil court.
In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to enact a federal statute that legally protected women against their batterers, and that therefore the VAWA was unconstitutional.
US v. Morrison (2000)
HARASSMENT-FREE EDUCATION? NO LONGER GUARANTEED.
Annette Litman was a student at George Mason University when the professor she did research for began harassing her. He told her routinely that he loved her and asked questions about her sex life. He stalked her, waiting for her after classes and telling her he "missed her." After she tried to avoid him, he told her he "had his ways" of finding her. She complained, and, although the university ordered the professor to stay away, it refused to investigate. She pursued her complaint but the university belittled Ms. Litman by calling her persistence a "fishing expedition."
Ms. Litman tried to sue the university, saying that it had retaliated against her, and filed her suit under a law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools, like George Mason University, that receive federal financial assistance.
The court ruled against Ms. Litman, saying that the language of the law did not give her the specific right to go to court and sue for retaliation. The court's ruling suggested that even though the law allows federal agencies to include retaliation as a type of discrimination that's prohibited, Ms. Litman can't sue to stop discrimination based on retaliation. She and others are left with no way to get a court to enforce her right to an education free from sexual harassment.
Litman v. George Mason University (2001)
Marketa Wills, like many others, struggled with her course in organic chemistry as an undergraduate at Brown University. Being a diligent student, she sought help from a chemistry professor. Upon Marketa's arrival, the professor closed the door to his office and requested Marketa join him in prayer, where he then asked God to open up Marketa's brain so that she "could be more receptive to him and to chemistry formulas and equations." Several minutes later the teacher picked Marketa up, put his arms around her waist and sat her on his lap. As he "prayed" about Marketa's problems he put his hand under her shirt, rubbed her stomach, and touched her breast. And this touch was no accident. According to Marketa, the teacher repeated this prayer mixed with fondling two more times in the hour and forty-five minutes or so that she was with the professor. After the session was over the professor said to her, "Don't let the Devil confuse Marketa into thinking that anything that went on today was sexual."
Though Marketa complained to proper school authorities about the incident, the school simply reprimanded the professor and placed him on probation -- even though a memorandum outlining the school's sexual harassment policy listed suspension or dismissal as the official response to sex discrimination. Two months after the incident the professor was given a raise and retained by the university. In addition, this man was the only available organic professor -- a course which all pre-med students like Marketa had to take in order to enter medical school. But because of the enormous burden of proof that student plaintiffs are forced to meet, Marketa lost her case.
It is baffling that the Supreme Court employs a higher standard of proof for students than for workers. The pressures of a student on the medical school track are enormous. Is it fair to allow students such limited recourse in the face of sexual harassment from a trusted authority?
Wills v. Brown University (courtesy of civilrights.org)
HARASSED, FIRED AND UP THE CREEK. WHERE'S THE FAIRNESS?
Rosalind Smith worked as an administrative assistant at PSI Services II Inc. Over the course of three years, she was repeatedly harassed by a co-worker. His egregious and offensive behavior included propositioning her for one night stands, asking her whether her fiancé sexually satisfied her, making vulgar and sexually suggestive comments about her body, grabbing and peering down her blouse, ogling her breasts, and licking his lips and gyrating against her from behind. When Ms. Smith complained to a supervisor about her co-worker's behavior, she was offered the alternative of accepting a demotion or a permanent layoff.
Ms. Smith took her employer to court in an attempt to enforce her civil rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was originally passed to prohibit employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. She was denied the right to go to court, however, because her employment contract had been modified without her knowledge to say that she couldn't go to court if her civil rights were violated. She had to take her claims to an "impartial" referee through a process called arbitration. The arbitrator who heard Ms. Smith's case decided that her co-worker's conduct was highly offensive, but that the harassment was not "pervasive and regular enough" to have a detrimental effect. She appealed, and although the court found that the arbitrator had misapplied the law, there were no legal grounds to overturn the arbitrator's decision.
Ms. Smith was repeatedly and egregiously harassed on the job. She complained and was retaliated against. Her contract didn't allow her the right to go to court. An arbitrator made a mistake, yet she was told there was nothing she could do. Does this sound fair to you?
Smith v. PSI Services II Inc., Troy Hughes, and John Does 1-10, J/S/I (2001)
WORKERS LOSE KEY PAY-DISCRIMINATION RIGHTS
For almost 20 years, Lilly Ledbetter worked hard for Goodyear. That changed when someone at work left Ms. Ledbetter an anonymous note showing that since the day she started working she had received consistently and significantly less pay than her male co-workers doing the same job. She was horrified, and took her case to court. And she won in a trial by jury. The jury found that the company violated federal civil rights laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on a person's sex. The jury ordered Goodyear to make up for the unfair treatment by paying Ms. Ledbetter what it should have been paying her all along, plus damages. But Goodyear appealed, and the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
In May 2006 the Court ruled against Lilly Ledbetter. It said she couldn't sue because she hadn't filed a complaint within 180 days of Goodyear's decision to pay her less than the men -- even though Ledbetter had no way of knowing the company was paying her less until she got an anonymous tip many years later.
She lost by one vote.
In this case, the Court's ruling will affect thousands of workers across the country. The ruling sets a dangerous new precedent and makes it easier for companies to discriminate. And thousands of workers may have no legal recourse when they are treated unfairly based on sex, race, religion or nationality.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007)
For more information about women's rights, go that section.