Get inspired: One Person Can Make a Difference

Surviving is a whole lot easier when you have the support of people like Attorney Dawn V. Martin. I have been asked why Attorney Martin's case against Howard University means so much to me and to the many women who are reading and posting to my blogs.
The answer is simple- A person living today in the United States of America- man or woman should not have to choose between their personal safety at the workplace and their livelihood.

It is easy to be a "bystander" and fall prey to the "it cant or won't happen to me syndrome" that many of us have but sadly yes bad things do happen to good people and often.

I was relentlessly pursued by a violent abuser at my place of work on more than one occasion- and later I was terminated. I know how it feels to live in fear and how difficult it is becoming a "survivor".

When a person can't make ends meet it can be devastating- even more devastating is when the person is overcoming obstacles created by a violent offender that should not be there.

It is time for the good guys to have the upper hand especially pertaining to matters of violence in the workplace- Dawn V. Martin is tackling this issue head on! BRAVO!

My hope is that Legal Momentum, NOW, Women's organizations, crime victim's organizations and the thousands of National Coalitions will unite in support of this case as it will set precedent for years to come in our nation. Violence in the workplace should not be tolerated and criminals this includes stalkers -should not have the upper hand!

Please support the efforts of Attorney Dawn V. Martin by making a donation of your time, treasure or talent!

One Person can make a difference!

Below is Attorney Martin's latest press release & Call to Action: The case is making its way to the United States Supreme Court!
###


PRESS RELEASE: May 22, 2008
Contact: Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin e-mail: dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com
(202) 408-7040; (703) 642-0207 website: http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/

Law Professor will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse Decision Holding that a Woman Can be Fired for being Stalked by a Stranger Roaming Freely through her Workplace

Washington, D.C. – On March 31, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judges Edwards, Henderson and Williams, decided the appeal of Martin v. Howard University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516, 1999 WL 1295339; 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 964; 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1587 (D.D.C. 1999). Prof. Dawn V. Martin was harassed by a serial campus stalker. Her contract was “not renewed” after she asked the university to implement its own security procedures to bar the stalker from the law school.

During oral argument, on March 17, 2008, Ms. Martin told the Court: “The precedent set by this Court will determine how employers and educational institutions will respond to stalking and other types of workplace and campus violence – particularly when it is directed against women. If a woman can be stalked in her workplace, and fired for asking her employer to take reasonable steps to keep him out of the workplace, then women will be forced to choose between their safety and their livelihood – a Hobson’s choice.”

Less than two weeks later, in an unpublished decision by the three-judge panel, the Court squarely placed women in the position of choosing between their jobs and their safety, if they are stalked at work. The serial campus stalker only knew that Prof. Martin existed because he roamed through her workplace freely, prowling for a female professor who fit his fantasy concept of a “wife.” This delusional, homeless man, Leonard Harrison, had been targeting women of color, at Universities since the mid-1980s. Harrison had his own vision of his “natural wife,” or “soul-mate,” whom he believed was the physical embodiment of a fictional character, Geneva Crenshaw, in a book, written by the renowned NYU law professor, Derrick Bell.

Ms. Martin asked the entire Court to review the Panel decision, but no judge called for a vote on the case, so her request was denied. Ms. Martin said: “The only hope for reversal now is to go to the United States Supreme Court. I am looking for groups that are willing to come together to file a joint Amicus Brief at the Supreme Court level.” Groups interested in providing support should contact Ms. Martin at dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com.

In 1999, the federal district court set precedent 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 stop it. Howard asked the Court to reverse this decision and invalidate the EEOC Regulation. The Court of Appeals did not address Howard’s argument, or otherwise discuss the lower court’s holding on how employers should address non-employee harassment of employees.

Martin is the first case considering the concept of “gender profiling” in employment, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), as Amicus Curiae filed a Brief supporting Martin. Ms. Martin said, “In 1999, the district court judge said that it was ‘clear’ that Harrison harassed me based on my sex –but seven years later, after all of the evidence was presented at trial, the same judge suddenly submitted the question to the jury. The jurors were clearly confused on the law. They asked the court to give them additional instruction on the definition of sexual harassment, but the judge would not provide it. Based on what they understood the law to be, the jurors concluded that Harrison’ stalking was not sexual in nature or based on my gender. That meant that there is no statute to protect me from being stalked in my workplace from being fired for reporting it.”

The Court of Appeals held that Ms. Martin misinterpreted Judge Hogan’s 1999 decision; however, on October 20, 2003, Magistrate Judge Facciola, to whom Judge Hogan referred the case, specifically detailed what issues were decided in 1999 and would not be “triable issues of fact” for the jury and what issues would proceed to a jury at trial. The Court of Appeals discounted MJ Facciola’s interpretation of Judge Hogan’s decision, stating that he could not overrule Judge Hogan; however, as Ms. Martin stressed in her Brief, Reply Brief and oral argument, Judge Hogan adopted Judge Facciola’s decision as his own, on September 16, 2005.

The district court also held that “groping” and “touching” are “typical” indicia of sexual harassment cases and that since Harrison did not touch Prof. Martin, the jury had reason to find that she was not sexually harassed.” The Court of Appeals did not address this issue. Since it has not been overturned, this precedent set by this decision arguably requires that a woman to be assaulted in order to establish that she was sexually harassed in her workplace.

The Court of Appeals also held that because, on one occasion in 1990, Harrison threatened Prof Bell, this was enough to defeat Ms. Martin’s claim that Harrison harassed her because of her gender; however, Ms. Martin repeatedly pointed out that Harrison did not stalk Prof.
Bell. The legal definition of “stalking” requires repeated acts of harassment directed toward the same victim. Harrison contacted Prof. Bell on only one occasion, and then only to solicit his assistance in identifying the next woman he would stalk -- any woman that he believed might be the “model” for “Geneva Crenshaw.” Ms. Martin said, “Howard’s argument is like saying that John Hinckley did not sexually harass Jodie Foster when he stalked her because he also attempted to kill President Reagan. The fact that a sexually harassing stalker may also have committed a violent act against a man in his lifetime does not negate the fact that he sexually harassed a woman in another setting.”

Martin also presented issues regarding actionable retaliation under Title VII, but the Court of Appeals deemed these issues moot. Since the Court determined that Howard was free to commit any retaliatory act against Prof. Martin for being stalked, with no Title VII penalty, the lower court’s definition of acts that constitute actionable retaliation under Title VII was irrelevant to this case; however, the Court of Appeals’ failure to reverse the lower court on this issue leaves the lower court’s precedent intact: an employer may leave positions unfilled, cancel vacancies and/or convert advertised positions to positions for which an applicant is not the best qualified, even where it is done to prevent the most qualified applicant from being hired, in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment – or any other EEO violation, whether based on race, national origin, religion, ethnicity, age or disability.

Ms. Martin also asked the Court to define the circumstances under which Title VII plaintiffs can be ordered to pay the litigation costs of the defendant. The National Organization of Women (NOW) recently ran a campaign protesting the 11th Circuit’s assessment of costs against the plaintiff in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, after the Supreme Court ruled against her in her sex discrimination claim. Such assessments unfairly punish women who file sex discrimination lawsuits, in good faith, in the public interest. The Court declined to address
this issue.

The Court of Appeals also did not explain why Dean Alice Gresham Bullock’s perjury does not require vacating the verdict. In a July 1, 1999 memorandum to Howard’s General Counsel, Bullock admitted that she perceived Harrison as a threat to Prof. Martin and “other women” on campus; yet, at trial, she testified that she never perceived Harrison’s
harassment as sexual harassment, or harassment based on sex/gender. Martin said.



“Neither Howard nor her own personal counsel has denied that she committed perjury. Alice Gresham Bullock created ten years of contentious and expensive litigation for both sides. She has caused ten years of suffering for my family and me. We will never get
those years back -- the years that I was raising my daughter. This could all have been avoided if she had simply followed the university’s own security procedures and barred Harrison from the law school rather than devoting her efforts to removing me from the law school.” Briefs are uploaded onto http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.html).



You may also hear radio interviews about the case at that cite.
Dawn V. Martin, Esquire


Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin, LLC
1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C 20006
(202) 408-7040 D.C. phone (703) 642-0207
home office(703) 642-0208 facsimile
DVMARTINLAW@yahoo.com
http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/

Ghetto Confessions

I haven’t written in a while so I decided to just sit down and write. “This is my lunch hour,” I said, “and I’m gonna use it to write.” So I sat at my desk and opened up Microsoft Word. I guess it was foolish to simply expect words to emanate from my fingers like bolts of lighting from the hands of a wizard, but I waited anyway.
A few minutes later, I decided to try something else. I should choose a topic and then write. After all, the world could use another short essay on... whatever inspiration moved me to expound upon. But even after waiting (not so patiently,) for several minutes, I remained topic-less and uninspired. This was not good. But I wasn’t about to panic. After all, I’m a professional writer; a published author, recognized by my pears and acclaimed by loyal fans. This was sure to be a simple problem with a solution that would seem obvious, once I finally found it.
So what’s the problem? As I sat there a little confused and more worried than I feel comfortable admitting, it started to dawn on me. Blogging has always been about me looking inward and expressing what I saw, outward to the world. Since the publication of my book, my entire focus has changed. It didn’t happen at any specific moment in time and it actually started well before the publication, but my life has become about others. Their problems, their concerns, their pain, and their struggles. So now when I sit to write, the images that come to mind are those of others.

I see images of a young girl growing up in the projects, being abused, raped, and degraded, first by her father, then by her step-father, and later by her mother’s boyfriend. I see her pride destroyed under the boot-heel of one selfish prick after another who use her as a human toilet. “I was the project ho” she admits to me in a voice heavy-laden with sadness and resignation. She was so thoroughly trained by her father that more often then not, she is (note the present tense) all too willing to submit to the humiliation. And what about the times she was forced to have sex against her will? No big deal. After all, is it really a rape if the victim confesses to being the project ho? Of course it’s rape! But in the end, my self-appointed mission is to teach this young woman that she must stop raping herself.
It would be bad enough if she were the only one. But she is just the latest in a growing list of the molested, the abused, the downtrodden. Children of God, discriminated against and reduced to sexual bondage for no other reason than the fact that they are female. It’s disheartening and it wears on me. But what else can I do but carry on? It’s only appropriate that having myself been counted among the selfish pricks who consumed women for nothing more than my own sexual gratification, I should devote my energies to helping these poor women heal. But the magnitude of the problem pushes me to the brink of despair.

Later in the evening my phone rings. I look at the caller ID, take a deep breath and pull a smile from deep inside. She has no idea who she is, but she is determined to be anything but the project ho, and I’m determined to help in any way I can.

Peace and Love,

Xavier

The Blinding Justice Film Project

I realize that this blog is a forum for survivors from all over, but I'm hoping that some of you out there may be from Alaska or know of other survivors from Alaska who might be willing to share their stories. As many of you may (or may not) already know, the Alaskan rape rate is 2.5 times that of the US national average. This is within a state that has a total population of only about 700,000 people. These alarming statistics have had very little, if any, promising change over the last several years.

My film partner (who is also a full time staff member at an organization in Valdez, AK for victims of violence) and I are seeking to have more dialogue with Alaskan women who have survived an incident of sexual assault and have had some experience (either positive or negative) with the legal systems available to them at the time. Or even if you might have chose not to work within the legal system, we'd love to hear what made you choose that route instead.

We are absolutely aware of just how delicate this topic is to all involved and we are committed to exploring all pertinent view points and desire to do so in an accurate, yet sensitive manner. Just to be clear here - by corresponding with us, no one is automatically committing to be in the film. At this point, we just want to speak with people off the record and then go from there. It's not uncommon for people to hear the word "film" and immediately have a panic button go off. I'll be the first to admit that this is not a completely unfounded response. However, it is truly not our intention to scandalize, rather we hope that by pointing out the shortcomings of the systemic response to SA/DV through specific stories in such a public way, we will be working towards the ultimate goal that another Alaskan woman won't have to suffer the same injustice.

In summary:
Blinding Justice is a 30-minute film that will seek to educate a broad audience around issues of domestic violence and sexual assault against Alaskan women. It will provide a window into the world of Tribal, State and Federal justice systems and the challenges these women face in navigating them.

Please check out our temporary website for more information:
http://web.mac.com/stacybloom/Blinding_Justice/Home.html

OR
http://blindingjustice.blogspot.com/

Many thanks,
Stacy

Howard Professor Dawn Martin had to choose between her safety and her job

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you were stalked at your place of employment? Former Howard Professor Dawn V. Martin did not have to wonder as it happened to her.

Professor Dawn V. Martin an attorney who ironically is known for her valiant representation of clients in matters of employment discrimination, civil rights and personal injury was harassed by a serial campus stalker. Her contract was “not renewed” after she asked the university to implement/its own established security procedures to bar the stalker from campus. I know this sounds bad - but keep reading as it gets worse!

Yesterday, Ms. Martin filed a Petition for Rehearing, En Banc, asking the full Court to review the three-judge Panel’s decision.Ms. Martin said: “The Court rarely grants petitions for review, but it is the only step before the United States Supreme Court. I would appreciate it if women’s groups, civil rights groups and crime victim’s associations would make their members aware of this case. If I don’t prevail at this level, I will be looking for groups that are willing to come together to file a joint Amicus Brief at the Supreme Court level.”

Groups interested in providing support should contact Ms. Martin at dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com or http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/

It is hard to understand why the campus would not want to implement any and all security measures available based upon the simple fact that this situation could have had a much direr outcome.This event in itself should have been considered a “wake up call” or at least an eye opener for Howard University -as a golden opportunity arrived for Howard to make the campus a safer place for the educators as well as the students. Seems to me someone here is trying to sweep the matter under the rug.

Nationally, campus security has been in question for a couple of years now as our nation has experienced wide spread campus violence. For Howard University to take this stance in the Martin case is startling to say the very least.

This will continue to be a very important case as what is happening here is more than a simple employment contract dispute- this case involves workplace safety and more importantly workplace standards that will impact all of us in this country and abroad.

For those of us who are victims of crime in particular of domestic abuse and stalking we need to speak out and to have our voices heard as safe working conditions should not be taken lightly.No one should not have to choose between their personal safety and their job- period.

To help Dawn Martin pursue justice and safe working conditions please contact her directly by e-mail at DVMartinlaw@yahoo.com. Donations are greatly appreciated to help continue this legal fight that will have a significant impact upon all of us.

If you have been victimized at work you are not alone. Please share your stories here as well as with Ms. Martin directly as employees should not have to work in fear.