Tag: Sexual Assault

New York Adult Survivors Act

New York’s Adult Survivors Act[1] (“ASA” or “the Act”) (S.66A/A.648A) became effective on November 24, 2022. The Act provides a one-year lookback window for people to seek civil remedies for sexual abuse they experienced after they turned 18, regardless of what year the abuse occurred. This law adds critical energy to the ongoing momentum of the #MeToo movement, allowing survivors to file suit against both their abusers and the institutions that enabled them.

The one-year lookback window lasts until November 23, 2023, so as of today, survivors have just over ten months to take advantage of the law. The following guide provides context and recommendations for understanding and using New York’s Adult Survivors Act.

What does the ASA do?

The ASA creates a one-year lookback window for sexual assault survivors to pursue civil claims in court for abuse that may have occurred years earlier, as long as they were over 18 at the time. Previously, a person who experienced sexual abuse only had a few years to file a lawsuit in New York before their claim would be time-barred. This meant that survivors had little time in which to come to terms with the abuse they experienced, find an attorney, prepare a case, and file an action. For those who missed that small window, the ASA reopens the courthouse doors. So until November 23, 2023, whether you experienced abuse in 2015, 2000, or 1985, you can file a claim in court and seek recovery for what happened to you.

What does the law cover?

Sexual offenses covered by the ASA span a wide range of behaviors, including but not limited to forcible touching, rape, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, and other forms of sexual abuse. Not every sexual offense is covered under the ASA,[2] and an attorney can help assess whether your claim falls within its provisions.

Who can you sue?

Another powerful provision of the law is who it allows to be named as a defendant. Survivors are not limited to suing their abusers—they can also hold accountable the institutions that insulated those abusers from justice. These institutions can include entities that had responsibility to keep the survivor safe and to control the actions of the abuser. Claims against the institutions can involve both intentional and negligent acts. If your abuser was part of a larger organization that contributed to or failed to prevent, notice, or stop the abuse, the ASA empowers you to go after that organization.

This provision comes directly from New York’s 2019 Child Victims Act (“CVA”).[3] Over 10,000 people have used the CVA to sue institutions that had a role to play in their abuse, including churches, hospitals, overnight and day camps, and schools. For example, a large number of CVA cases name the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America as institutional defendants. The ASA provides a similar recourse to justice: oftentimes, survivors are subject to abuse by people who hold power over them. For minors, these people could be coaches, religious leaders, teachers, mentors, or other caregivers. For people over 18, those in power may be employers, professors, or community leaders. The ASA enables adult survivors to sue the institutions that gave their abusers power and protected those abusers from answering for their actions.

The institutional defendant provision of the ASA opens significantly larger opportunities for recovery, as institutions oftentimes have deeper pockets than individual abusers. Examples of institutions that could face liability under the ASA include employers, colleges and universities, social organizations such as fraternities and sororities, medical practices, and facilities that house people with disabilities. Any entity that knew about or should have known about and stopped the abuse could be on the hook.

Who is it for?

The ASA opens the courts to people who were over the age of 18 when they experienced sexual abuse but are otherwise unable to file due to missing the statute of limitations. You can use the ASA even if you have previously tried to file but had your suit dismissed as untimely.[4]

It is important to note that if you have resolved or released your claims through a settlement process, you may not file under the ASA. For example, the nearly 150 women who received payment from a settlement with Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York Presbyterian Hospital based on sexual abuse by Dr. Robert Hadden cannot use the ASA to file new suits as their claims have been fully resolved.

Why do we need this?

The Adult Survivors Act is a game-changer for people who were previously unable to file claims for sexual abuse due to a short statute of limitations. In 2019, New York extended the statute of limitations for certain civil lawsuits related to sex crimes from five to 20 years. But that law did not apply retroactively, so survivors who experienced abuse just a few years prior were still barred from seeking justice.

The ASA honors the lived reality of sexual abuse. Like the CVA before it, the ASA recognizes sexual abuse can take years to process, and those years often extend far beyond the short filing windows New York historically placed on these types of claims.

Survivors have many reasons for waiting to come forward with claims of sexual abuse. Some face retaliation by their abusers, some fear the risk of community backlash, and others lack the resources to seek legal representation. Finally, “[t]rauma takes time,” as New York State Senator and ASA champion Brad Hoylman said when promoting the then-bill. Many sexual assault and sexual abuse survivors need years to process what they endured. This can be particularly true when an abuser uses power, manipulation, or threats to coerce submission to sexual contact, a common tactic of notorious abusers Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Dr. Robert Hadden. Understanding the event as sexual abuse, reconciling yourself with your experience, and deciding how to move forward can take decades. The ASA is an effort to respect this process and empower survivors to hold their abusers accountable.

Why would I file a lawsuit about what happened to me?

For many people, surviving sexual abuse is not something that can be “fixed” by any kind of legal action. But the remedies available through civil suits can serve as a proxy for some measure of justice, and that proxy can enable survivors to move forward.

Successful ASA plaintiffs can recover economic, compensatory, and punitive damages from both the individual abuser and the institution. Many survivors suffer financial loss in addition to the mental, emotional, and physical harm of the abuse itself. If your boss sexually harasses you and then terminates you when you protest, you may find yourself without an income. If a classmate assaults you, you may forfeit tuition money after deciding to leave campus for your safety. Civil courts can make you financially whole and further compensate you for the pain of the experience and the efforts you must make to heal. Courts can also provide other remedies, requiring the people who perpetrated or allowed abuse to do or stop certain behaviors, thereby protecting other potential future targets of abuse and assault.

How do I use the ASA?

The first thing you should do is consult an attorney. These cases can be complicated, and plaintiffs still maintain the burden of proof, so you want the expertise of an experienced lawyer. There are several firms that regularly bring these kinds of actions, and many will provide you with a free consultation. If you decide to move forward with your case after a consultation, your attorney will work with you to determine the best strategy. This strategy may include going to court, or it may involve seeking a resolution that works for you outside of court.

As you go through the process of finding an attorney, please know that you deserve counsel that is compassionate, knowledgeable, and focused on your needs and interests as a client. This is about what happened to you, and your attorney is there to guide you. You should feel heard, understood, and respected.

When do I need to file?

You must file your claim by November 23, 2023.

While the ASA is a powerful effort by New York to support the rights of sexual abuse survivors, it is time-limited. November 23, 2023 is the cutoff date for filing a claim, but if you are interested in seeking recovery under the Act, you should take action now. It may take time to find the right attorney for you, and your lawyer will need additional time to put together your case. If you and your lawyer decide to pursue a resolution without going to court, that process could take even longer.

Ten months sounds like a long time, but in the legal world, it can move very quickly. Start considering whether you want to take advantage of the ASA and reach out to an attorney as soon as possible.

What happens after I file?

This will come down to conversations you have with your attorney. Filing is the first major step in the process. Following that process through might include discovery, more court filings, and hearings before a judge or a jury.

What else should I consider?

Take care of yourself as you think about your next steps. Reach out to trusted loved ones and mental health professionals. It is critical that you ground yourself in what is best for you.

FOOTNOTES

[1] New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the ASA into law on May 24, 2022. The ASA passed the New York Assembly by a majority vote of 140 in favor to 3 against after receiving unanimous support in the state Senate one month prior.

[2] Article 130 of the New York Penal Law lists offenses covered under the ASA.

[3] The CVA came into effect in 2019, providing a two-year lookback window for people who experienced abuse as minors. The CVA amends N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 208 (2019) and allows victims to initiate civil action against their abusers and enabling institutions. As to victims where civil actions were barred before the CVA took effect, N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214-g (2020) creates a lookback period to file a claim. Since 2019, over 10,000 people have filed lawsuits in New York against abusers and the institutions that protected them.

[4] The ASA can revive your claim only if it was dismissed for failure to file by the statutory deadline. If your claim was dismissed for other reasons, this law cannot fix that.

For more labor and employment news, click here to visit the National Law Review. 

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

Congress Passes Speak Out Act, Banning Certain Prospective Non-Disclosure Agreements (US)

Earlier this year, we reported that Congress amended the Federal Arbitration Act to preclude compulsory binding arbitration of sexual assault and sexual harassment claims. This past week, Congress went a step further, passing the Speak Out Act, S. 4524, which is aimed at prohibiting prospective, pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements that prevent employees from discussing sexual harassment or sexual assault. The Senate passed the bill unanimously on September 29, 2022 and the House of Representatives voted in favor of the measure, 315-109, on November 17, 2022. President Biden has expressed his intention to sign the bill into law, and it will become effective immediately upon his signature.

The bipartisan federal legislation – the latest federal bill inspired by the #metoo movement and one that has been slowly gaining support over the past five years – applies only to pre-dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreements and similar clauses in employment agreements, rendering them null and void in instances in which sexual harassment or sexual assault is alleged in violation of federal, state, or tribal law. The goal of the bill is to prevent the use of pre-dispute agreements aimed at silencing employees from reporting sexual impropriety in the workplace. Similar measures have been passed at the state level in some jurisdictions (see, for example, our prior reporting regarding analogous California, Illinois, Maryland, and Vermont here, here, and here, to name just a few), but when President Biden signs the Speak Out Act, as he has indicated he will do, the law becomes immediately effective nationwide.

Earlier versions of the Speak Out Act included language precluding non-disclosure clauses as applied to claims of race, age, national origin, and similar equal employment opportunity claims, but the bill was stripped back to apply only to claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault in its final form. President Biden’s administration urges further legislation to address the use of non-disclosure agreements used to prevent discussion of other types of labor violations, but as a practical matter, the National Labor Relations Act already protects the right of covered employees to engage in protected, concerted activity – such as discussing workplace discrimination, assault, and harassment – and existing EEO laws protect employees engaged in conduct aimed at asserting their own rights or cooperating with other employees in protecting their rights.

Furthermore, the Speak Out Act only precludes the use of pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements, meaning those signed before the unlawful conduct begins. It does not prevent employers and employees from agreeing to confidential settlements after alleged sexual harassment or abuse occurs. Parties remain free to enter into such arrangements, provided that employers still cannot preclude employees from reporting violations of EEO laws to agencies entrusted with enforcing such laws, like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Employers may still require non-disclosure agreements to protect trade secrets and confidential business information, and may still include confidentiality provisions in severance agreements. Consequently, the Speak Out Act is not as much a sea change itself as a recommitment by Congress and the Administration to expanding measures aimed at transparency around sexual misconduct in the workplace. Employers should review existing handbook policies and standard non-disclosure agreements to ensure compliance with the Speak Out Act, but that should be just one small step in a comprehensive audit of sexual harassment policies, reporting mechanisms, and investigation procedures.

For more Labor and Employment Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Actual Malice in the Age of #fakenews

Public figures are fighting back against fake news.

In the most recent headline from the world of celebrity defamation cases, E. Jean Carroll is suing former President Trump for statements he made after she accused him of sexual assault. In a 2019 book and excerpt in New York magazine, Carroll, a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine, accused Trump of sexual assault in the mid-1990s. Trump responded that Carroll was “totally lying” and not his “type.” Carroll sued Trump for defamation, claiming his statements had harmed her reputation. But Carroll—like all public figure defamation plaintiffs—has an uphill battle before her. To succeed, Carroll will have to prove that Trump’s statements were false, and—because Carroll is a public figure—she will also have to show that Trump acted with “actual malice.” The actual malice standard often proves to be too high a threshold for most public figures to cross, and most cases are lost on that prong—regardless of whether the statement was false. In fact, Johnny Depp was one of the few public figures in recent years to win a defamation suit.

So, what would it mean if the actual malice requirement was rescinded?

The seminal decision in New York Times Company v. Sullivan and its progeny are the backbone of defamation law in this country. These cases hold that public officials and public figures claiming defamation must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was made, “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” In other words, with “actual malice.” On the other hand, a private figure, or one who has not sought out the limelight, need only show the false statement was made negligently. Prior to Sullivan, all plaintiffs fell under the negligence standard.

Public figures who must meet this “actual malice” standard fall into two categories: (1) all-purpose public figures, with “pervasive fame or notoriety,” like Johnny Depp; and (2) limited-purpose public figures, like Carroll, who, in the words of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., achieve their status by “thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” The Court rationalized that both categories of public figures have “invite[d] attention and comment.” Moreover, because “public figures enjoy “greater access to the channels of effective communication” than private individuals, they are better able to “contradict the lie or correct the error.”

In today’s age of social media, do these justifications still hold true? When Sullivan and its progeny came down, there was a clear delineation between public and private figures. Typically, public figures had media access, and private figures did not. Today’s social media landscape muddles that line. We are all just one post, tweet, or TikTok away from becoming public figures.

In 2019, in a case strikingly similar to Carroll’s, the Supreme Court declined to review a defamation case filed by Kathrine McKee against Bill Cosby. In 2014, McKee publicly accused Cosby of forcibly raping her 40 years earlier. In response, Cosby’s attorney authored and subsequently leaked an allegedly defamatory letter. Excerpts of the letter were disseminated via the Internet and published by news outlets around the world. McKee argued that the letter deliberately distorted her personal background to “damage her reputation for truthfulness and honesty, and further to embarrass, harass, humiliate, intimidate, and shame” her. Applying Sullivan and its progeny, the Court concluded because McKee had “‘thrust’ herself to the ‘forefront’” of the public controversy over “sexual assault allegations implicating Cosby,” she was a “limited-purpose public figure” who needed to show actual malice—regardless of whether the statements about her were false.

In a lone dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that “in an appropriate case, [the Court] should reconsider the precedents” requiring public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard. Justice Thomas later double-downed on his proffer in his dissents in Berisha v. Lawson, and most recently in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. In Berisha, pointing to the shift in the media landscape since Sullivan, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas in calling to review the Sullivan decision, noting our new media world “facilitates the spread of disinformation.”

According to these Justices, in recent years Sullivan has become less of a shield and more of a sword. The “actual malice” standard allows spreaders of conspiracy theories, false accusations, and fake news to be virtually untouchable. In an era where misinformation spreads like wildfire, has the actual malice standard allowed journalists to become sloppy and irresponsible? Under this legal standard a journalist is better off printing a story without fact-checking. In fact, failing to thoroughly investigate, standing alone, does not prove actual malice. If the Court abolished that standard, public figures would be like every other defamation plaintiff and would only need to show that the false statement was made carelessly. In other words, instead of the defendant knowingly printing misinformation, a plaintiff would only need to show that the defendant didn’t bother checking if the information was true or false before making it.

Under this precedent, for years reporters, and individuals alike have been shielded from consequences of publishing falsehoods about public figures. Removing the “actual malice” standard would have sweeping effects on journalists and news platforms, and would make reputable news organizations more vulnerable to attack and open to further scrutiny. But responsible journalists would still remain protected. Truth remains an absolute defense to a defamation claim.

Between 2018 and 2020 the number of defamation suits filed increased by 30%. With “fake news” on the rise, more individuals falling into the “public figure” category, and technology moving at warp speed, the Court may have no choice but to rethink Sullivan. While it is unlikely that that 50 years of settled precedent would be overturned, Sullivan just might, at the very least, be revisited.

Article By Melissa Sarsten Polito of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more litigation and legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Department of Education Unveils Proposed Title IX Regulations

On Friday, November 16, 2018, the Department of Education (DOE) released proposed Title IX regulations dictating the process by which colleges and universities must handle allegations of sexual misconduct.

Institutions of higher education have been in limbo since September 2017 when the DOE rescinded Obama-era guidance that called for hard-hitting enforcement of Title IX and issued interim guidance as a placeholder until they could engage in the formal rulemaking process. Today’s proposed regulations, if enacted, will take the place of the DOE’s September 2017 interim guidance.  According to the DOE, the new regulations would substantially decrease the number of investigations into complaints of sexual misconduct and save institutions millions over the next decade.

Many of the new regulations deviate significantly from prior guidance. The most significant changes increase the discretion given to universities in crafting procedures for adjudicating Title IX claims within their institutions.  The proposed guidance allows universities to choose the applicable evidentiary standard (either “preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence”) in determining responsibility, as long as it is consistent with the standard used in other student disciplinary matters.  The new regulations also permit the use of informal resolution processes to resolve sexual misconduct allegations if the parties agree.

Other notable provisions of the proposed regulations include the following:

  • The definition of “sexual harassment” has been more narrowly defined as “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.”
  • For purposes of administrative enforcement, universities would be held to a “deliberately indifferent” standard. In other words, to avoid liability, a university with “actual knowledge” of sexual harassment need only respond in a manner that is not “deliberately indifferent.” An institution would be found deliberately indifferent “only if its response to sexual harassment is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.”
  • “Actual knowledge” is defined in the proposed regulations as notice of sexual harassment or allegations of sexual harassment provided to an official of the institution “who has the authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of the [institution].” In contrast to prior guidance, this definition excludes most professors, administrators, and staff.
  • Under the proposed regulations, universities would no longer be allowed to investigate allegations of sexual harassment that occurred off-campus.
  • The proposed regulations would require universities to provide written notice to a respondent upon receipt of a complaint, which would include a statement that the responding party is presumed to be not responsible for the alleged conduct and that a determination of responsibility will be made at the end of the grievance process.
  • Live fact-finding hearings would be mandatory for universities under the new regulations. Investigators would also be precluded from serving as factfinders.  This would eliminate the use of the single investigator model currently used by many universities.
  • Universities must permit cross-examination of any party or witness by the opposing party’s advisor, but not by the party him/herself.  If a party or witness refuses to submit to cross-examination, that person’s testimony could not be relied on by the fact-finder. The party’s choice of advisor could not be limited by the institution of higher education.
  • Religious institutions of higher education would no longer be required to seek assurances of exemption from Title IX regulations in advance of a DOE investigation. Under the new regulations, a religious institution of higher education could invoke an exemption to Title IX’s requirements at any time during the investigation.

The new regulations address other topics such as constitutional issues and the intersection between Title IX and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. They also clarify that, just as an institution’s treatment of a complaining party may constitute discrimination based on sex, an institution’s treatment of the responding party may also constitute discrimination based on sex. Institutions of higher education must continue to comply with all applicable state laws regarding sexual misconduct and sexual misconduct investigations.

Now that the proposed regulations have been published, the public has sixty days to submit comments before the regulations go into effect. The final regulations, however, are likely to closely mirror what has been proposed today, and colleges and universities should act immediately to carefully review their sexual misconduct policies and practices for compliance.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by Susan D. Friedfel, Monica H. Khetarpal Marla N. Presley Crystal L. Tyler and Hobart J. Webster.

California Employers Face New Notice Requirement for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Time Off

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has published a new form that must be added to the growing list of documents that employers are required to provide to employees at the time of hire.

The new form refers to employees’ rights under California Labor Code Section 230.1 relating to protections of employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or stalking. Last October, we notified California employers about this new law amending Section 230.1, Assembly Bill (AB) 2337. The amended law requires employers with 25 or more employees to provide an employee with written notice of his or her rights to take time off for the following purposes:

  1. “To seek medical attention for injuries caused by domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
  2. To obtain services from a domestic violence shelter, program, or rape crisis center as a result of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
  3. To obtain psychological counseling related to an experience of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
  4. To participate in safety planning and take other actions to increase safety from future domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including temporary or permanent relocation.”

The law requires employers to provide the notice “to new employees upon hire and to other employees upon request.”

As we reported previously, employers were not required to distribute this information until the California Labor Commissioner published a form employers could use to comply with the law. The law gave the Labor Commissioner until “on or before July 1, 2017” to develop and post the form.

As required by AB 2337, the Labor Commissioner’s office recently released the notice. The DLSE has made both an English and Spanish version of the notice available on its website. The notice also contains information on employees’ rights to reasonable accommodation and to be free from retaliation and discrimination.

Finally, the new law clarifies that employers that do not use the Labor Commissioner’s notice may use an alternative that is “substantially similar in content and clarity to the form developed by the Labor Commissioner.”

This post was written by Christopher W. Olmsted and Hera S. Arsen of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Read more legal analysis on the National Law Review.