DCCADV Testimony in Support of B18-796
Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs Hearing on
B18-796, the Protecting Victims of Crime Amendment Act of 2010
July 1, 2010
Testimony of:
Rebecca O’Connor, Esq., Interim Executive Director
Good morning. I am Rebecca O’Connor, Interim Executive Director of the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence.[1]
I am pleased to offer strong support for the Protecting Victims of Crime Amendment Act (“the Act”), which will enablevictims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and stalking to sustain economic independence and stability without sacrificing safety, support and assistance.
Thank you, Councilmember Alexander for your leadership in introducing this bill and for the commitment you share with your colleagues to ensure the District remains a national leader in protecting victims.
In addition to the District’s domestic violence service providers and others present today, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), D.C. Rape Crisis Center, National Stalking Resource Center and Medical Society of the District of Columbia support this legislation. I’ve attached a sign on letter with a list of additional supporters to my testimony.
The Need for this Legislation
A victim’s ability to leave a violent relationship directly relates to her ability to achieve and sustain economic security and independence. Victims often stay in violent relationships because they risk losing employment, housing, health care, or access their abuser’s income.[2] Furthermore, abusers often exercise financial control by keeping victims from reporting to or advancing in their jobs.[3] Abusers may use control tactics such as physical violence that results in visible injury, stealing or destroying work clothes, tampering with the victim’s car, or harassment at work.[4] A survivor may legitimately fear that unexpected workplace visits, harassment by phone or in person by a current or former partner, may result in job loss, and/orstigmatization if co-workers or others find out.[5]
Loss of employment and economic insecurity has a devastating impact on victims and their children – all too frequently forcing the unconscionable choice between homelessness or remaining with an abuser.[6]
The time could not be more appropriate for passage of these reasonable protections. Victims experience an increase in the frequency and severity of abuse during hard economic times due to the strain poverty places on relationships, at the same time facing fewer options and opportunities to flee abuse. This bill will empower victims to take steps to protect themselves and their children without fear of discrimination or retaliation.
This, in turn, will have a positive impact on the economy and business. The annual cost of lost productivity due to domestic violence alone is approximately $727.8 million[7] and research shows that victims of domestic violence lose nearly 8 million days of paid work each year. 74% of employed battered women report being harassed by their partner while at work, and up to 50% of victims of domestic violence report that they have lost a job due to their victim status.[8]
The business community has acknowledged the impact of violence on the workplace and productivity. 70% of senior executives polled believe that domestic violence negatively affects attendance,[9] and 78% of human resources professionals consider partner violence a workplace issue[10] and 94% of corporate security and safety directors at companies nationwide rank domestic violence as a high security concern.[11]
Existing Laws and Policies in the District and other Jurisdictions
Local and national progress has been made: Governors and Mayors – including our own - have issued Executive Orders requiring agencies toprovide leave options, safety accommodations, and training and resource information. In the fall of 2009, the Fenty Administration enacted a zero tolerance Workplace Violence Policy.[12] At least 6 cities and states prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of victim status.[13] Companies have also increasingly taken the initiative to proactively address victimization and its impact on the workplace. For example, Verizon Wireless has made domestic violence awareness and prevention a part of its company culture for more than a decade, providing support and training for their employees.[14]
Background of this Legislation
This bill represents a multi-year partnership between the Coalition, the DC Employment Justice Center, and other allied stakeholders. The bill’s provisions, which my colleagues will specifically address, are based on exhaustive research into other jurisdictions’ laws, policies, and best practices.
Although I’ve focused on the impact of this bill for victims of domestic violence, it is vitally important that the protections also extend to victims of sexual assault and stalking. Approximately 29,000 rapes or sexual assaults occur in the workplace and that stalking or harassment by a current or former intimate partner poses a serious workplace threat.[15] An estimated 8,395 District residents are stalked each year.[16]
Closing
The Coalition is preparedto partner with the business community to develop and provide resources, training, and technical assistance to ensure responsible, cost-effective implementation of the bill’s reasonable requirements. Thank you and I am happy to respond to questions.
Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs Hearing on
B18-796, the Protecting Victims of Crime Amendment Act of 2010
July 1, 2010
Testimony of:
Melissa Hung, Esq., Policy Attorney
My name is Melissa Hung, and I am the Policy Attorney at the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence.[17]Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this important legislation.
Passage of this Legislation Ensures Consistency in District Law and Policy
Swift passage of this Act is essential to ensure reasonable and consistent protections for victims in the workplace. While the District has made great strides through the passage of legislation such as the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act,[18] the existing patchwork of laws and policies leaves critical gaps in workplace protections for victims. As my colleagues will describe further, this bill addresses those gaps.
Since 2007, victims of abuse have been a protected class under the housing provisions of the D.C. Human Rights Act (“HRA”), which prohibits discrimination by housing providers on the basis of actual or perceived victim status. In its report on the housinglegislation, the Committee on Consumer and Regulatory Affairs rightly noted that discrimination “further victimizes the victim … by subjecting him or her to the prospect of losing housing due to another individual’s illegal actions committed against him or her. The prospect of losing housing for oneself and one’s children is among the principle reasons … many victims … do not report these crimes.”[19] Victims, the Committee noted, “increasingly find they must choose between an escape from abuse and the roof over their family’s heads.”[20]
Just like housing, employment is a fundamental component to a victim’s ability to leave an abusive relationship. As my colleagues will discuss further, stripping a victim of financial security may force her to return to an abusive relationship or deter her from seeking essential, life-saving services. This bill is critical because it protects victims from having to make the unconscionable choice between their jobs and their safety.
The Specific Protections Afforded Are Based on Best Practices and Existing District Policy
As Ms. O’Connor testified, this bill is based on existing laws and policies in the District and other jurisdictions. I will touch briefly on some of the bill’s specific provisions.
- Reasonable Accommodations
First, the legislation provides that an employer may not refuse to make what is determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be a reasonable accommodation for a victim’s safety. For example, an employee may request to move her seating assignment away from a window facing the parking lot or to change her phone extension. Such modifications, which are of minimal burden to an employer, can make a tremendous difference in both a victim’s security and productivity.
Moreover, the types of reasonable accommodations contemplated by the bill are entirely consistent with those required by other jurisdictions[21] and with the Administration’s Workplace Violence Policy. Furthermore, the concept is one that already exists in the HRA, which prohibits housing providers from “[r]efusing to make a reasonable accommodation in restoring or improving security and safety measures.”[22]
- Confidentiality of Information
Secondly, the bill requires employers to keep information related to an employee’s victim status confidential. Requiring employer confidentiality is a national best practice[23] and reflects the reality that, all too often, the safety of a victim and her children depends on keeping information away from her abuser—particularly information relating to her reporting of the abuse and her specific location. Without an assurance of confidentiality, victims become legitimately fearful of reporting abuse or seeking vitally-needed assistance or services.
- Workplace Violence Policy, Posting of Notice and Resource Materials
The Act also requires employers to “establish and maintain a corporate policy statement recognizing domestic violence, sexual abuse and stalking in the workplace” and to make this and other resource materials available to employees. Again, this reflects other state laws and policies.[24] The Coalition is prepared to work with employers to develop and provide these materials. A number of model policies exist, and posted materials can be modeled upon the notices employers are already required to post regarding, among other things, an employee’s right to accrued safe leave.
Without a policy recognizing workplace violence, workers may be fearful of disclosing their victim status to employers or requesting leave or workplace modifications that are critical to their safety. A 2004 survey of partner violence offenders confirmed this, with 68% of respondents stating that domestic violence brochures and postersin the workplace would help prevent abuse from impacting the business.[25] Another study found that 66% of full-time, employed adults were unaware of their employer having a workplace domestic violence policy.[26]It is essential that employees be notified of their rights in order for protections to be meaningful.
- Training
Finally, the Act requires employers to receive and provide training on domestic violence, sexual abuse, and stalking. We affirmatively recognize that employers have limited resources, and are committed to working with businesses to equip them with the tools necessary to effectively respond to these complex forms of violence. Training is a central component to creating a corporate culture in which victims feel safe reporting violence, requesting leave, or requesting reasonable accommodations – all of which may be absolutely critical to their safety.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and for your commitment to providing the strongest protections for victims of abuse. I am happy to respond to questions.
[1]As the District's federally recognized coalition, DCCADV is the umbrella organization for all dedicated domestic violence programs in the District of Columbia. The Coalition’s membership is an alliance of anti-domestic violence organizations working together to transform the experiences of domestic violence survivors and address the urgent need to stabilize and expand existing services. DCCADV provides public policy leadership, education, research and training within the community.
[2] U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients, 1998. Washington D.C.: USGAO.
[3] Jill Davies, Policy Blueprint on Domestic Violence and Poverty, Pennsylvania: National Resource Center.
[4]Id.
[5] Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, Everybody’s Business. In a 2005 national poll of 1200 full-time employed adults, 64% of those who identified as victims of domestic violence indicated that violence impacted their ability to work. 45% indicated that fear of an intimate partner’s unexpected visits contributed to their lost productivity, 40% cited harassment by their intimate partner while at work by phone or in person, and 21% cited a fear of job loss due to their victim status. Ibid. CEO & Employee Survey.
[6] Wendy R. Weiser and Deborah A. Widiss, Employment Protections for Domestic Violence Victims, Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, May-June 2004.
[7] Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, available at (2003)
[8] Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, available at (2003); Family Violence Prevention Fund, The Workplace Guide for Employers, Unions and Advocates. San Francisco, CA (1998); National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, Violence Against Women Act 2005 — Title VII: Economic Security (February 2005).
[9] Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, 2008 Survey (2008).
[10]Id.
[11] Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, 2008 Survey (2008).
[12] Workplace Violence Policy is attached to this testimony.
[13] Illinois (820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 180); New York State (N.Y. Exec. L. § 296-1(a) & § 292(34)); New York City (N.Y., N.Y., Admin. Code § 8-107); New York, Westchester County (Westchester Cty., N.Y. Code §§ 700.02 & 700.03); Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 659A.290, 659A.885); Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 12-28-10).
[14] Raines, Laura, Atlanta Journal Constitution, “Companies Take Steps Against Domestic Violence” (April 7, 2010). (attached)
[15] Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime Characteristics: Summary Findings, 2001. U.S. Dept. of Justice.
[16] Michelle M. Garcia, Director, Stalking Resource Center, National Center for Victims of Crime, 6/30/10. (testimony attached)
[17]The Coalition provides education, research and training within the community, and serves as a local and national resource on domestic violence. The Coalition advocates for systemic change to address the needs of domestic violence victims in the District of Columbia. Joined by a number of anti-domestic violence agencies and community-based organizations, the Coalition monitors policies, procedures and practices that impact domestic violence victims and service providers. The Coalition also coordinates and facilitates collaborative, broad-based anti-domestic violence outreach and education activities in the District of Columbia, including the District’s first coordinated public awareness campaign.
[18]D.C. Code Ann. § 32-131.01 et seq.
[19]Discriminatory Eviction for Victims of Domestic Violence Amendment Act,D.C. Law 16-273, Committee Report, pp. 6-7.
[20]Discriminatory Eviction for Victims of Domestic Violence Amendment Act,D.C. Law 16-273, Committee Report, p. 6.
[21]820 Ill. Comp. 180 Stat. 180/30; N.Y., N.Y., Admin. Code § 8-107; Ohio E.O. 2008-08S (2008); Washington E.O. 96-05 (1996).
[22]D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1402.21(f)(3)(A).
[23]Cal. Lab. Code §§ 230-231; Fla. Stat. § 741.313; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-72; 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 180/20, 180/30; K.S.A. §§ 44-1131-1132; New Mexico S.B. 68 (2009); N.Y., N.Y., Admin. Code § 8-107; Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 659A.280(5).
[24]See Idaho E.O. 2007-18 (2007); Maryland E.O. 01.01.1998.25 (1998); Ohio E.O. 2008-08S (2008); see also Wash. Rev. Code § 7.69.130.
[25]Maine Department of Labor and Family Crisis Services study, released February 17,2004.
[26]Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, October 2005), available at