Law Establishes Women Can be Fired for Being Stalked by a Non-Employee at Work
Saturday May 3, 2008
A recent ruling was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on March 31, 2008. The unpublished decision was handed down by Judges Edwards, Henderson, and Williams who upheld a lower court’s decision favoring employers over women’s safety in the workplace.
The case involves complainant, Professor Dawn V. Martin, who was stalked and harassed by a homeless man while she was at work. The man, Leonard Harrison, had been stalking and harassing women of color at Howard University (correction made 06/01/2008) and other educational institutions for more than twenty years without any repercussions.
Despite repeated pleas from Professor Martin to Howard University campus security, her employer not only refused to take steps to ensure her safety, they would not even enforce existing security policies already in place. After Martin’s requests for security improvements her employment contract was not renewed.
Comments
Thank you so much for posting information about my case. You have clearly explained the case for both lawyers and non-lawyers, with respect to the precedent that this case is setting and how important it is that I get support in my efforts to get the Supreme Court to hear the case.
I have to make one correction, however, both for accuracy and to help protect other women who may be targeted by the serial campus stalker, Leonard Harrison. Harrison was not stalking women at Howard for twenty years — he was stalking or otherwise targeting women law professors at various universities across the country, since the mid-1980s, and even pursued a woman lawyer in Toronto, Canada, in 1998, after he appeared to stop stalking me at Howard. I want to warn other women professors whom he might be stalking at this moment — even ten years later — and to put universities on notice that Harrison could target one of their female professors as well. If he shows up insisting that a particular female professor is his “natural wife,” at least those warned will know who is he, what his background is (a serial stalker with a criminal record and history of violence) so that they can take the appropriate actions to prevent violence on campus or in a workplace.
Thank you again for bringing this story to the forefront. I hope that it will result in women’s and crime victims’ advocacy groups coming together to file an amicus curiae (friend of the Court) petition to support my petition to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear this case. Since the Supreme Court received 5,000 petitions or more each year and can only hear about 85 of the cases, the amicus support is crucial in determining whether a case will be heard.
Sincerely,
Dawn Martin
Although I am not a lawyer, I was an Executive level personnel officer for 30 years and worked closely with lawyers in many Title VII cases, including sexual harassment cases. I am at a complete loss for understanding the reasoning of all of the “learned judges” involved with this case. Gender-based stalking is a form of sexual harassment. Victims stalked in the workplace should be, or are, protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
An employer has the duty of protecting employees from stalking whether the stalker is a fellow employee, or an intruder; the employer does not have the option of doing nothing to protect the employee. Further, establishing harassment does not require the stalker to succeed in gaining access to the intended victim to grope, sexually assault, or rape her. The gender-based stalking in and of itself constitutes sexual harassment, notwithstanding whether the intended victim failed to shout sexual harassment from rooftops.
When the employer knows of the harassment, and not only fails to take appropriate action, but rather, after-the-fact invents a self-serving and fictitious version of events, this is all the more reprehensible.
Clearly when the stalking is severe and pervasive, the victim, having established the facts, should as a matter of law prevail. To allow the judgment as rendered to stand is not only unjust, but sets bad precedent for other cases to come.
John
In a time of increasing campus/workplace violence, women especially must feel free to bring concerns about their safety to campus/workplace administrators without having to fear repercussions or loss of their jobs. That the stalker in Ms. Martin’s case was allowed free access to campus buildings even after Ms. Martin reported him, and that Ms. Martin should lose her job after insisting on appropriate protection from campus police, is astounding. But even more frightening is the dangerous precedent set by the court in this ruling, which leaves women in the workplace without legal recourse or protection from retaliation by employers, if they insist on protection from workplace stalking/harassment by a non-employee. Not only was Ms. Martin victimized twice, but her employer’s failure to act compromised the safety of other employees as well as students, who remained unaware that a dangerous individual was known to be roaming freely about their campus.
Sincerely,
Yolanda, PHD
clinical pyschologist and former professor)
Campus security is pitifully inadequate here as well, but it is
certainly strange that they would fire someone for pointing that out,
especially when it is someone who felt herself to be in danger. Jessica
Dear Professor Martin,
Thank you so much for the important clarification. I have updated the article to reflect the correction as well as your expression of personal concern for other women.
I truly admire your strength and courage. As a women who suffered from domestic violence for many years, I know that laws protecting women are not very effective. But even worse than ineffective laws, can be facing a courtroom situation where the victim herself is on trial.
Please keep me posted. I understand the odds you face in having your case reheard but I also can see that you are not someone to give up easily!
Best,
Lahle Wolfe
Guide to Women in Business
There is no excuse for a University to neglect its security procedures, especially in this day and age, with violent incidents perpetrated by disturbed individuals punctuating the news! Howard just lucked out in that far more serious consequences did not occur in this case – no thanks to their negligence!
Of course, they did eventually avoid further disruption by the stalker – by removing his victim through dismissal from her job!
No sane person can see this as either a just or desirable outcome or “solution” to the problem.
It is sad that a University like Howard, with a fine reputation over the years, should commit such a shameful action, violating both the right to a safe workplace of Professor Martin, and her civil rights under the law.
I wonder how knowledge of this disgusting lack of concern for campus safety will be regarded by other female professors – or students – considering a Howard teaching position or education? Personally, I would think more than twice before exposing myself to such a lack of concern – or adherence to its own security procedures.
By the way, I’m not sure it has been reported – is this deranged individual still loose and casting about for a new and unwilling “wife”?
The ridiculousness of the allegation that stalking in the mad quest for a “wife” is “not associated with gender” boggles the mind.
The unfairness of penalizing Professor Martin, the victim of a crime, with dismissal from her position is so clear that it amazes me that the legal battle continues.
And if they should win the case (God forbid!), and the next – or even the same – sociopath becomes more deadly, what in the world will Howard gain?
I pray that the Supreme Court will see the importance of firmly establishing that employers may not fire anyone because they are being stalked or harrassed or threatened – and that they are required to take every possible step to provide a secure workplace for all, especially female employees.
This article is telling me, that any women in a field of busines or service to the public is being setup to be raped, murder, or assaulted. By person(s) known or unknown to her. How can any self-respecting business company allow the employees to put their life on the line.
This case has set a very dangerous legal precedent for women. For those interested on opposing the decision, visit Professor Martin’s website for more information about how women can help.
Thank you for the support of my efforts in my case, Martin v. Howard Univ. and Alice Gresham Bullock, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 08-204. I wanted to update your readers on its status and also, to fill them in on some of the details of the case. On December 12, 2008, I filed a Rule 44 Petition for Rehearing in the Supreme Court, asking the Court to reconsider my case. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), joined by other women’s advocacy and anti-violence groups, filed an Amicus Curiae (friend of the Court) Brief supporting my original Petition, but the Court denied the Amici’s motion to late file it, so their arguments were not considered. I have petitioned the Court to consider their arguments and also to reconsider, in light of its pending review of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, another case similarly alleging sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. See http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.html.
As a law professor at Howard University, I was stalked by a delusional, homeless, serial stalker of African-American female professors, Leonard Harrison. The stalker was searching for the physical embodiment of his “fantasy,” or ideal “wife” –modeled after a fictional female character, Geneva Crenshaw, in a book, And We are not Saved, written by the renowned Professor Derrick Bell. Instead of following its own security procedures to ban the stalker from campus, Howard responded to my requests for protection by refusing to renew my teaching contract. I sued Howard for sexual harassment/hostile work environment and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex/gender, as well as race, color, ethnic origin and religion. Martin v. Howard University is the first to present the issue of “gender profiling” or “working while female” in the employment context. The lower courts held that I had no legal recourse against Howard University for failing to take reasonable steps to end the workplace stalking or for refusing to renew my teaching contract after I asked the Law School administration to use the University’s own Campus Security procedures to protect me – as well as other women — from a serial campus stalker.
I filed my case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment that is “sexual in nature” or based on gender. I argued that: 1) since 78% of stalking victims are women, stalking constitutes harassment on the basis of gender; 2) when the stalker uses “gender specific” language and criteria to select his victim, the stalking is harassment based on gender; and 3) where a stalker pursues a woman to make her his “wife,” the harassment is stalking “sexual in nature.” I am asking the Court to apply Title VII to protect women from workplace stalking and from employer retaliation for reporting stalking. Women who are doing nothing more than “working while female” should not have to choose between their jobs and their safety.
In 1999, I set precedent in federal district court, for the D.C. Circuit, in Martin by adopting the EEOC Regulation 29 CFR 1604.11(e), holding that an employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to end it. Martin v. Howard University and Alice Gresham Bullock, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516, 1999 WL 1295339, 81 FEP Cases 964 (BNA), 15 IER Cases 1587 (D.D.C. 1999). Judge Hogan identified the jury questions as: 1) whether Harrison’s harassment was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment; and 2) whether Howard took reasonable steps to end it. The jury agreed with me that Harrison’s harassment did create a “hostile work environment” for me and that Howard did not take reasonable steps to end it; yet the verdict was for Howard. With insufficient legal instruction from the judge, the confused jurors found that the harassment was not based on sex – and therefore, that my complaints were not “protected activity” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Many people have asked me how the jury could possibly have concluded that a man who pursued me to be his “wife” did not pursue me based on my gender – after all, he would not have pursued me to be his “wife” – defined as a “married woman” – if I were a male professor at Howard. He also would not have “profiled” me as “Geneva Crenshaw” if I were male, since “Geneva” is a female character. So, this issue was supposed to be the threshold, “no-brainer” that Judge Hogan had already resolved, as a matter of law, based on the undisputed facts, in his 1999 decision. Judge Hogan did not allow us to question the jury after the trial, but I believe that the determining factor was that Howard repeatedly told the jury that my claim must be defeated because I entitled her memos to then Law School Dean Alice Gresham Bullock “Security Problem on Campus” rather than “Sexual Harassment.” The case law specifically holds that a plaintiff does not need to have used the words “sexual harassment” to invoke Title VII. (I actually did initially use that term, but, as I explained at trial, after the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department characterized Harrison as a “stalker,” that is the term that I used to describe him, since the word “stalking” is, by definition, repeated and serious harassment. I asked Judge Hogan to instruct the jury that it is not necessary to use the precise words “sexual harassment” to invoke Title VII protection, using his own words from his 999 decision, but he flatly refused to provide it. Numerous courts have recognized that stalking is one of the most egregious forms of sexual harassment. Judge Hogan also refused to provide the jury with the D.C. stalking statute, which defines “stalking” as repeated harassment. Without the proper legal framework for analyzing harassment based on sex, jurors were confused into accepting Howard University’s argument that the stalker’s harassment was not sexual in nature or based on sex and that my complaints did not constitute “protected activity.”
I believe that the Court should consider my case along with Crawford. Both Ms. Crawford and I lost their jobs shortly after reporting the harassment to our respective employers. Both of us deprived of the opportunity to prove that we lost their jobs due to retaliation for reporting the harassment. In both Crawford and Martin, the respective Circuit Courts held that we did not engage in “protected activity” because of how we reported the sexual harassment to our employers. The Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford would control the outcome of Martin. If Martin is considered as a companion case to Crawford, or supplements Crawford, the Supreme Court would provide lower courts with a more comprehensive definition of “protected activity,” whether the harasser is an employee or a non-employee in the workplace.
January is National Stalking Awareness Month — so it is particularly appropriate that, on January 9, 2009, the Supreme Court will consider reviewing a workplace stalking case. Coincidentally, it is also during Stalking Awareness Month that Sky Radio will be broadcasting an interview with me about the case on American Airlines, from December 16, 2008 through January 31, 2009, as one of the women highlighted in its series entitled “Salute to Women in Leadership,” featured in Time Magazine. I am also currently featured as one of “American’s Premier Lawyers,” in “The Law Business Insider which includes another radio interview discussing the case.
In an interview with Barbara Walters, Paula Abdul directed public attention to the issue of workplace stalking, as a result of the recent suicide of a woman stalking her. Ms. Abdul alleged that her employer, American Idol, allowed a stalker on the show — her workplace –for “entertainment value.” A videotaped audition shows a contestant singing a song he had written about his desire to “stalk” Ms. Abdul. These incidents also highlight the fact that there is no federal statute that expressly protects stalking victims against employer retaliation for complaining about stalking — or that obligates employers to take reasonable steps to keep known stalkers out of the workplace. Again, thank you so much for your excellent coverage and providing this forum.
Every woman in America should be demanding that this case be heard – and that Dawn Martin achieves the justice she deserves. It is not only about Dawn, however – we are all equally vulnerable to sick individuals that stalk defenseless women.
I have not been stalked – but I’ve on a number of occasions been terrified by a threatening or mentally unbalanced male with whom I found myself alone. How much worse to be in that situation every minute of every day!
There is no excuse for not protecting women from this kind of harassment, certainly none for allowing it to threaten not just their freedom of movement, privacy, personal safety, but their jobs as well!
Yes, if the Supreme Court does not do the right thing, we should hound Congress until they do.
Blessings,
Liberty G
Ask this question …What if the “stalker” IS the employer!!That’s the situation that I’ve been undergoing..Employed at Major Airline 25 yrs. ..short story many of us crewmembers are ill and dying from the toxic exposures onboard the aircraft. I’ve been fighting for my rights work. comp etc. My employer launched a massive harassment campaign including phone tapping/all night calls harassment ,breakins,followed run off road, smashed windshields smashed fenders by hammers,stolen mail crashed gate 3x’s, we caught the man on one time he was the local attorney’s man delivering papers by day and harassing at night all has been entered into Fed. court .Airline attorneys stood up in court and said”maybe we did send him to harass her but it’s ok because she is no longer our employee????”I’m also disabled now and suffer with severe health problems, but it’s ok to harass me????I’ve contacted the local Sheriff’s/FBI no help. They come daily to our house sit and watch us. We live in continual fear!! Help! Respectfully,
PRESS RELEASE: February 12, 2009
Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin, LLC e-mail: dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com
(202) 408-7040; (703) 642-0207 website: http://www.dvmartinlaw.com
TV Documentary on Federal Case Holding that a Woman can be Fired for being Stalked by a Stranger in her Workplace, or “Working while Female”
Washington, D.C. – Martin v. Howard University and Alice Gresham Bullock, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08-204. WATCH a new television documentary, featuring esteemed leaders such as Kim Gandy (President of NOW), renowned civil rights Professor Derrick Bell and a former Howard University Security Officer, Dr. Amos Sirleaf, who all strongly support former Howard Law School Professor, Dawn Martin in her efforts to protect stalking victims against employer retaliation. Insider Exclusive website, with producer/host Steve Murphy, at http://insiderexclusive.com/martin.htm (For clearest digital viewing, download Apple quicktime 7.6 version.) Ms. Martin has also been featured on Sky Radio as part of its series on “Salute to Women in Leadership,” noted in Time Magazine and numerous radio shows.
Martin is the first case to present the issue of “gender profiling” in the employment context — or the “working while female” factor. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), joined by additional women’s and victims’ advocacy groups, filed an Amicus Brief in this case, stressing the need to protect stalking victims from employer retaliation. Prof. Dawn Martin was stalked taught at Howard University Law School by a delusional, homeless, serial stalker of African-American female professors, Leonard Harrison. Harrison was searching for the physical embodiment of his “fantasy” wife — a fictional female character in a book, written by the renowned civil rights Professor, Derrick Bell. Instead of following its own security procedures to ban Harrison from campus, Howard responded to Prof. Martin’s requests for protection by refusing to renew her teaching contract. She sued Howard, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment, on the basis of sex/gender. Prof. Martin alleged that Howard permitted the stalker to harass her on the basis of her gender in her workplace. 78% of stalking victims are women. 54% of female murder victims reported their stalkers to the police before being killed by them. Prof. Martin further alleged that Howard retaliated against her by refusing to renew her teaching contract because she asked for protection from Harrison on campus.
In 1999, the federal district court set precedent in Martin, adopting the EEOC Regulation 29 CFR 1604.11(e), holding that an employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to stop it. In 2006, after a trial, the jury agreed with Prof. Martin that Harrison’s harassment did create a “hostile work environment” for her and that that Howard did not take reasonable steps to end it; yet, the jury verdict was for Howard. With insufficient legal instruction from the Court, the confused jurors found that the harassment was not based on sex; Prof. Martin’s complaints were not therefore not “protected activity” under Title VII. The Supreme Court initially declined to review Martin, but nine days later, it decided Crawford v Nashville. Crawford clarified that “protected activity” under Title VII is a question of law for the Court, not a factual question for a jury. On February 9, 2009, therefore, Ms. Martin filed a motion to supplement her Petition for Rehearing, to include the law set by Crawford. Under Crawford, the jury should never have been required to decide this legal question. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of workplace stalking. The application of “gender profiling” to sexual harassment cases will also set precedent for racial, ethnic, religious groups in profiling harassment cases under Title VII and other EEO statutes. For more details and links to other cites discussing the case, see http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.
D.C. is redefining its criminal “stalking” law to include “cyberstalking.” On July 7, 2009, Local Channel 9 news (CBS) aired journalist Gary Nurenberg’s newscast describing D.C.’s proposed “Omnibus Public Safety and Justice Amendment Act of 2009″ (Bill 18-151). It included D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson, the Stalking Resource Center and the principal of this firm, Dawn V. Martin, Esquire.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=88199&catid=187&provider=email.
The Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin, LLC applauds the D.C. Council’s expansion of the definition of stalking, but has proposed that the D.C. Council complement its new criminal stalking statute with an amendment to D.C. Human Rights Law expressly prohibiting employers from discriminating against their employees if they are victims of stalking — just as it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, etc. New York City Human Rights Law, § 8-101, 8-107.1 provides a model for such a statute, prohibiting employer discrimination against both stalking victims and victims of domestic violence.