Justice for Women Stalked in the Workplace and Retaliation by Their Employers

[DVMartinEsq]

On January 13, 2012, the Supreme Court will decide whether not to review this case. The National Organization for Women (NOW) Foundation filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Brief in support of Ms. Martin's Petition for Review. If you would like to lend support in the case, please contact NOW Foundation and Dawn V. Martin, Esquire.

[DVMartinEsq]

On November 16, 2011, the National Organization for Women (NOW) Foundation filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of my Petition for Supreme Court review of this case. People and groups who want to join the Amicus Brief or otherwise support the case, contact NOW Foundation President, Terry O'Neill, or me, Dawn V. Martin, at The Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin, in Washington, D.C.

[DVMartinEsq]

On Oct. 13, 2011, I filed a Petition to the Supreme Court to hear this case. I am asking the Court to hold, as a matter of law, that Title VII protects a woman from being stalked in her workplace and from being terminated for reporting it. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is filing an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of my Petition. Additional women’s groups seeking to join the Amicus Brief should contact NOW and/or me at dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com. Dawn V. Martin, Esquire

[NoLifeSketh]

Does no one remember that they have fists?!?!? Girls know guys weak spots... Kick a mofo between the legs... Damnit!

[DVMartinEsq]

I was on "Good Morning America" (ABC, Ch. 7) today, Aug. 5, 2010, interviewed by Erin Andrews, along with other women who had been stalked. The broadcast is on the net. I am urging federal legislation to protect stalking victims and victims of domestic violence against employment discrimination and retaliation. (New York City Human Rights Law include this protection.) This is the lesson of my own experience, stalked at Howard University and losing my job and law teaching career over it.

[pepsi1649]

there are videos on the internet that make fun of sexual harassment at the workplace. I think these videos help spur the idea that sexual harassment is not serious. What can be done about having these videos removed?

[TheLibertyG]

YES, OF COURSE - DON'T PUNISH THE VICTIMS! DV Martin is right on in suggesting this change to the criminal statute. It is only simple common sense and decency to protect those harassed by stalkers from losing their jobs because employers don't want to be bothered with the problem. The council should follow in NYC steps on this one.

[ebayliberty]

Why is someone so bent on distracting from this case and stalking issues by degrading this discussion with links to porno cites? Who is so afraid of this discussion? Who doesn't want us to focus on amending federal and D.C. Human Rights law to protect stalking victims against discrimination?

[DVMartinEsq]

D.C.'s proposed Omnibus Public Safety and Justice Amendment Act of 2009" (Bill18-151) was covered on Ch. 9 Local news, by journalist Gary Nurenberg. The July 7, 2009 broadcast included me, as well as Councilman Phil Mendelson and a rep of the Stalking Resource Center. Please join me in urging D.C., Congress and your own state to pass legislation to protect stalking victims against employment discrimination/retaliation.

[DVMartinEsq]

D.C. is expanding criminal "stalking" to include "cyberstalking." I applaud the Council's actions, but am urging it to complement the criminal statute with an Human Rights Law amendment including a provision similar to that of New York City Human Rights Law, § 8-101, 8-107.1. NYC expressly prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their status as stalking victims, or victims or domestic violence, just as it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, etc.

[DVMartinEsq]

Apparently, someone is almost daily trying to detract from the seriousness of this documentary by posting vulgar comments with links to porno cites. Although the host removes them regularly, he apparently cannot keep up with the offensive postings. Please ignore them. Do not let this person or persons deter you from commenting on this important issue of stalking in the workplace. Thank you. Dawn Martin

[ebayliberty]

Federal Title VII should mirror NYC's Human Rights Act, § 8-101, which begins: "[T]here is no greater danger to the health, morals, safety and welfare of the cit[ies]... inhabitants than ... prejudic[e] against one another ... because of their ... differences, including those based on race, color ... age, national origin, ... gender, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, partnership status ...status as a victim of domestic violence or status as a victim of sex offenses or stalking ...

[wythersin]

I am currently being stalked by an ex-boyfriend and my employer (a public elementary school) does not want me to return to work until the police arrest my stalker to ensure safety of the students. While I am in favor of the students safety being paramount, I am being punished and left without employment because of someone else's actions. I am told its extremely difficult to arrest and prosecute stalkers. Any suggestions are helpful! State is Indiana

[DVMartinEsq]

File a charge of sexual harassment/hostile work enivironment under Title VII with the EEOC. Go to my website to find legal arguments and case law to support your case, particularly my Appellate Briefs and Supreme Court Petitions, as well as the Amicus Breifs filed by NOW, NAWL, etc. Post comments on websites discussing my case. Help us pass legislation prohibiting retaliation against stalking victims -- like the NYC Human Rights Act. See also Alexis Moore's website for Survivors in Action.

[DVMartinEsq]

I was wondering if you ever received help, filed a charge or otherwise resolved things with your employer. Feel free to contact me for more assistance than can be provided on this site.

[thekenniewitch]

I was threatened by a co-worker who threatened to kill me. My supervisor did nothing about this. Employers MUST realize hoe dangerous some employees are and take action before someone gets hurt or killed.

[darwincollins]

Contact your HR department. Your supervisor may not be trained to know how to handle the situation.

The size of the company will effect what resources the employee can access to deal with these issues.

Additionally, knowing what a Criminal Trepass warning and Restraining Order would be suggested, if the problem may occur off work property.

Where I work, if we observe security problems, we directly contact our police security section (sworn officers).

[kappalew]

One would think that a university with a long and proud history of seeking to advance the ideals of justice and fairplay would be the last place where a professor would be treated the way Ms. Martin was treated. It seems clear that Ms. Martin did what would be expected of any person in her situation and equally as clear that the university failed to take appropriate action.

[kappalew]

It is not too late for university officials to take appropriate action. I understood from the video the principal actors who failed to take appropriate protective action and the principal actors that took retaliatory action against Ms. Martin are no longer with the university. Now is the time for Howard University to make things right. Admitting past mistakes and taking action to correct past sins is good for the soul  even the soul of a prestigious university.

[Vearlsriver]

What about women who feed off of power in the workplace...I hate them.

[DVMartinEsq]

Former Howard Law School Dean Alice Gresham Bullock is a perfect example of a woman who fed off her power and abused it. She even mocked me for reporting the stalking by telling an EEOC investigator: "Martin was dissatisfied with my response. It seemed like she wanted me to wrestle the stalker down." Of course, all I asked was the HU follow its own security procedures and ban Harrison, the stalker, from the law school buildings -- the same thing that D.C. police advised.

[querolusone]

The essential point, Prof. Martin's plight notwithstanding, is that the decision in this case, as it stands, strips stalking victims of meaningful protection under the law. Women who are stalked are victims who are entitled to protection in the workplace. We should do no less than ensure that they are protected. I would be most interested in hearing from the jurors who decided this case.

[DVMartinEsq]

Usually, judges do let the attorneys talk to jurors after the trial, but here, the trial judge, Judge Thomas F. Hogan, would not let us talk to the jurors. I could only guess what they were thinking when I wrote the appellate briefs, based on the way they worded their requests for additional instruction on sexual harassment and the legal definition of "based on sex" since Harrison stalked me to be his "wife." I would also love to know what the jurors were thinking when they made this decision.

[LowryMartin]

Cheesecake,

Do you feel that way about your mother? your response is unfortunate. I have compassion for you.

[darwincollins]

Is it possible that the contract was not renewed due to issues unrelated to being stalked by that crazy man?

[ebayliberty]

The jury never answered that question because they said that there was no Title VII protection. If there's no statute to protect a stalking victim from being fired, then it's perfectly legal for an employer to fire a person for being stalked. That's the larger issue for women and why the Martin case matters to women's and anti-workplace violence groups. That's why I am asking the question, how could the jury determine that this stalking was not based on sex under these facts?

[darwincollins]

Was it even determined that she was fired for being stalked? It further sounds like she was an 'at will' employee, so her employment may be closer to contractor than employee.

[ebayliberty]

Again, the jury never reached the issue of whether she was not renewed in retaliation for the stalking because its determination that the stalking was not based on sex meant that there was no Title VII protection and the employer was free to retaliate against her for being stalked. That's the legal issue and why this case is important.

[ebayliberty]

"Sounds like" based on what? Why would a professor be an independent contractor? All employees are "at will" unless an exception is made by statute or contract -- some state statutes, civil service protections for gov employees, anti-discrimination statutes and union contracts. "At will EMPLOYEES" are "employees," not independent contractors, which are totally different. Contractors don't get health insurance or other benefits and employers don't take taxes out of their paychecks.

[darwincollins]

My boss is an 'at will' employee, and I am not. (we are both Salary Exempt to FLSA rules) Basically, 'at will' employees operate under different administrative polices.

For example, I have a grievance process if I feel that I was unfairly subject to a disciplinary action, where he does not.

[ebayliberty]

What does your own employer's greivance process have to do with Howard U's process or this case? Do you work for Howard? Typically, non-management employees have a union that negotiated a grievance process for non-management employees. As I said, this is one of the exceptions to "at will" employment. Employees are also exempted from "at will" by EEO laws that prevent discrimination based on race, sex, etc., including sexual harassment and retaliation. Howard is subject to these laws.

[darwincollins]

I was trying to give you an example of an 'at will' employee. I don't recognize your use of 'at will', but, there are many types.

[querolusone]

"At will" employment simply means that the employment only continues at the will of both parties. The employee has no obligation to stay and the employer has no duty to keep the employee. At common law, all employment was "at will." Ebayliberty aptly explained that the law carves out exceptions to "at will" employment. EEO laws are part of those exceptions. You don't have to keep an employee, but you can't fire them based on race, sex, etc, or complaining about sexual harassment.

[darwincollins]

Did you bother to read the start of the thread? No. Did I say that 'at will' gave an employer permission to ignore EEO laws? No.

[querolusone]

Of course I read the entire thread. That's why I was able to say that Ebayliberty aptly explained the exceptions to "at will" employment. If you understand that EEO laws provide an exception to "at will" employment that Prof. Martin sued under Title VII, an EEO statute, I don't know why you were bringing up "at will" employment or suggesting that she was an independent contractor.

[darwincollins]

Take a deep breath, relax, and then read the thread again. You are thinking way too much or just can't follow the thread. fwiw, your description of 'at will' employment was general, but, well thought out.

[querolusone]

Thinking "too much" is better than not thinking at all. The basic concept of "at will" employment is very simple. There is no space here for a dissertation on it anyway. Why would you suggest that Prof. Martin was a "contractor" and/or "at will" employee other than to imply that Howard could refuse to renew her contract, even if it was in retaliation for reporting stalking or sexual harassment?

[darwincollins]

I never ever implied that anyone can or should take advantage of 'at will' (or any other type of employment) in any way or fashion.

[DVMartinEsq]

FYI: The HU Faculty Grievance Comm. (Comm Report uploaded on my website, dvmartinlaw) found that "Professor Dawn V. Martin was not given due process" and that "her academic freedom, rights and

privileges may have been violated." The Committee also found my breach of contract claim "has merit."

Law School Dean Alice Gresham Bullock rejected the Comm's jurisdiction and refused to participate in HU's own Grievance process! So I sued under Title VII and DC law.

[darwincollins]

Couldn't you sue for reinstatement or compensation since the policy was not followed, instead of a totally different direction?

[DVMartinEsq]

I'm not sure I understand your question. I did sue for reinstatement and for compensation, under Title VII, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. You generally sue under all valid legal theories. The fact that "the policy was not followed," i.e., security procedures, was relevant to all claims, and the greivance. My website, dvmartinlaw, does detail all claims and evidence. It includes appellate briefs, motions, the trial transcript and exhibits.

[darwincollins]

Martin case should not be used for 'larger issue', since, it deals with folks with mental instability. (for example, say your brother is bipolar. you can not legally affect his civil rights/freedom until he harms someone.)

[ebayliberty]

The legal issues in Martin have nothing to do with mental instability or bipolar disorder. Martin v. HU involves sexual harassment by non-employees in the workplace, stalking and how a victimof stalking has to word her complaints, or requests for protection at work, to be protected against employer retaliation -- whether its being fired, not being renewed, denied a promotion, or whatever. What kinds of complaints are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[darwincollins]

Its tainted. You can keep repeating your statement over and over again, but, until you see how the legal processes are undermined related to mental health cases.

[DVMartinEsq]

See my website, under "Retaliation," my Appellate Brief and Reply Brief. I have uploaded the "Chart of Changing Defenses" mapping out Howard's ever -changing, contradictory stories. Each time HU's asserted "non-retaliatory" reason for my non-renewal was contradicted by its own witnesses, documents and admissions, HU fabricated another one -- which was then contradicted by its own evidence again. That's why HU needed a verdict saying there was no Title VII protection.

[darwincollins]

Interesting. I do thank you for posting info about it. I also hope that you NEVER hear from the stocker again.

[DVMartinEsq]

Thank you. I also want to warn other African-American women professors and lawyers about Leonard Harrison. He is a serial campus stalker. All universities should be on alert for him. He has targeted Prof. Lani Guiner at the U of Penn (she's now at Harvard) and confronted Prof. Adrienne Wing at U of Iowa, as well as a female political science prof at Harvard, according to Prof. Derrick Bell. He has been doing this since the mid 1980s, at least. I hope he does not hurt or harass anyone else.

[darwincollins]

It is a sickness. I know of a couple that has been struggling with it for almost 20 years. Like most, she was not physically dangerous nor their goal was sexually relations. Even though she is intelligent & beautiful, she couldn't accept that her victims (dr, pres, boss) had no interest in her. Restraining orders had limited success. The legal system repeatedly failed her, and could not force her to get the help that she so desperately needed. Only bf/(now husband) is still trying

[ebayliberty]

Can we please bring this discussion back to what this case is about? What was the jury thinking when it found that this delusional homeless stalker did not stalk Prof. Martin based on her sex when he wanted her to be his "wife," based on his concept of a fantasy woman in a book? Can anybody figure that one out? Do we need a statute that specifically protects stalking victims from being fired or should Title VII cover it just as it is written?

[halfmanhalfman]

There can be several reasons. like you said, his intent wasn't on a specific female so the jury could think she wasn't in any relative danger. His victim was a fictional character, so they could think when he was stalking her it was just a minor phase. He's delusional, anybody lawyer brings in psychology in a case for the delusional person usually gets sympathy votes for them. Also, to what degree was he stalking her.

[ebayliberty]

Please read the information on the case before you derail it all again. The jury determined that the stalking created a hostile work environment for Prof. Martin, so you are just making things up that have no bearing on reality or the verdict. The question is, how could it not be based on gender when he stalked her to be his WIFE based on a fictional FEMALE character, which was his fantasy wife? Do we need a new statute or amendment to Title VII to protect stalking victims at work?

[halfmanhalfman]

You know what, I made a mistake about the media isse. Yea it was irrevelent. That doesn't mean that people think like that. The issue with race, yea, it bugs me. I notice we say that a discrimination to women is also a discrimination against race. How come I never see any blacks, women, or any other race besides asians speaking their mind on Miley Cyrus making offensive facial gesture of asians?

[halfmanhalfman]

I'm not supporting what I said I was pointing out the sympathy of an "attractive" woman. The average woman wouldn't get that much attention from the media.

[smurfettehatesyou]

There was never any dispute that she was stalked. This was a matter of public record, and something the jury never question. The legal issue was whether or not the stalking constituted sexual harassment. Your comment is irrelevant and obnoxious.

[halfmanhalfman]

So I try to contribute to a discussion and this how I get treated? Because of what I said it's not about race but about whether or not if she will get justice or not based on her appearance? I wasn't trying to offend nobody. I just didn't see a race card in this matter.

[smurfettehatesyou]

No one has alleged that this woman wasn't stalked. The only person raising the argument that she's "not pretty enough," to be stalked is you, which means your comment has nothing to do with this case and is just your way of announcing that you don't find the victim in this case attractive, which, nobody asked you. If you want a world where people aren't judged on their appearances, repeatedly calling a woman who most of us would feel lucky to look like unattractive is not the way to do it.

[halfmanhalfman]

First of all, The original argument was about the media attention to this case. You just skipped the part where people was trying to make this into a racial case. I doubt you care about "blacks" anyway. They said, " If this case were to happen with a BLACK person it would get more attention." Yet, none of you never care to think there could be other reason why it didn't get more attention. I never said that I supported any of this! I just stated what is on other people's mind.

[smurfettehatesyou]

What? I am black, and the woman who was staled in this case is also black, so whatever comment you are referring to makes no sense, nor does your snipe at me. You don't seem to understand the legal argument here. The law that allows women to sue when they are harassed because of their gender is the SAME law that allows black people to sue when they are harassed on the basis of race. Any ruling on a case brought under title VII impacts both women and black people.

[halfmanhalfman]

"Thanks a lot, Howard, for making law allowing employers to fire women for being stalked! What if the stalking had been based on race? Do these people have mothers, sisters, wives, aunts, grandmothers, etc.? Howard's refusal to keep a homeless stalker off campus could have resulted in a bloodbath like Virginia Tech. HU's own security officer, a HU alumnus, who took the stalking report, says Howard paid "deaf ears" to Prof. Martin and was wrong. Why won't HU do the right thing, even now? "

[halfmanhalfman]

This is the comment I responded about. Ebayliberty is implying that due to race this would of been taken in a different light

[smurfettehatesyou]

In other words, this case says that a woman being stalked because a man confuses her with a fictional female character is not inherenlty being harassed on the basis of sex, and has no legal protection, even though men on campus are not in danger of being confused with a fictional woman. The ruling in this case may mean that a black victim wasn't legally protected from someone obsessed with a black fictional person, even if they were singled out when white people in the same workplace were safe.

[halfmanhalfman]

It has nothing to do with being black. It just only the matter of being fictional or not. Carrying "black" to this only brings in an issue that shouldn't be there in the first place. Should it matter if it is a black character? What difference does it make?

[smurfettehatesyou]

You don't understand the legal system in this country. Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. Each group does not have their own seperate law. If the law says this woman's case is not valid, then that interpretation is available to a judg eor jury who is deciding a case where a black person sues over racial discrimination. Anything that makes it harder for a person to win a title VII case impacts black people.

[smurfettehatesyou]

it matters, because if a person is seeking out a black character, only black people are in danger. If a person is seeking a female character, only women are in danger. If a person is seeking a character who has no known physical form, everyone who works there is in danger, and there is no title VII lawsuit, because title ViI only protects people from being treated *differently* not from being treated badly if everyone is being treated badly.

[halfmanhalfman]

It stated that he had a "fantasy wife." Where did it stated that he had the intent to put only blacks in danger. Why isn't "by coincidence?" We're putting this case on a level that shouldn't be there. I doubt he had specific intention for a race. He just fell in love with a character.

[ebayliberty]

Smurfette is right! The stalker, Harrison, was a 41 year old Black man who wanted a Black female law professor teaching civil rights to be his wife. That's because the fictional character, Geneva Crenshaw,

is a BLACK FEMALE law professor teaching civil rights courses. He was not looking for Ashlee Simpson!

[halfmanhalfman]

Nothing stated he had an exclusive obsession to one race. You guys are taking this too far. This is one of the reason why people have a hard time to find which is a real case is about race or which isn't.

[ebayliberty]

You obviously have not bothered to read anything about the case. Go to the dvmartinlaw website and you will learn that the stalker ONLY targeted African-American women because the fictional character, Geneva Crenshaw is an African American female law professor. The book was written by Prof. Derrick Bell, who is in the video and created the character. Since the character is Black, he did not stalk white women or any man -- only Black women.

[halfmanhalfman]

Doesn't Howard university have major black demographic? You guys are taking this too far.

[halfmanhalfman]

With that demographic of course he's going to target them. All that mean is he have less option for other races. After all, black men are most open to other race when it comes to sex, dating, and relationship.

[ebayliberty]

If you would actually read something about this case, you would know that Harrison went to different schools, in Iowa, D.C., Boston, Pennsylvania and even wrote to a lawyer in Toronto, looking for the "real" "Geneva Crenshaw." He did not just go to Howard and then pick somebody out there. He was looking EVERYWHERE for a BLACK WOMAN who fit the profile of the character. Go to dvmartinlaw for the court filings, the entire trial transcript and actual exhibits, including Harrison's letters.

[halfmanhalfman]

Then he was looking for a specific female. I can say that If someone, in the same situation, is looking for a red-hair white women, it wouldn't be about race! It's the samething and it wouldn;t be brought to this.

[ebayliberty]

Again, go read the facts OR just listen to the video! He was not looking for a "specific female." There was no specific female, just an imaginary Black woman made up by Prof. Derrick Bell in his book! So, this homeless, deranged man, Harrison, stalks Black women across the country looking for the "real" Geneva Crenshaw -- who doesn't exist! In the process, he harasses Black women -- not men, not White women, but BLACK WOMEN. GOT IT?

[halfmanhalfman]

Again, I ask you if somebody was in a same situation but after a white red-hair women, it wouldn't be about race! This is just exploding into something it's not to meant to be!

[smurfettehatesyou]

You are missing the point. In this case, he was looking for a black woman. A black woman was the only person harassed and threatened by him, and a black woman was the only person who lost her job over it. If you are actually trying to learn something, please read title VII. You can't alter the interpretation of title VII without having a serious impact on every black person, relgions minority, or ethnic group in the country.

[ebayliberty]

You misquote me, twice. I said, "What if the stalking had been based on race?" I later corrected myself to say "He stalked her because she fit the description of a fictional BLACK woman in a book, so this case actually IS about race, as well as gender." He did stalk a Black person -- Prof. Martin. Also, I never said that it would get more attention if she were Black. I was commenting on the bad law that Howard made with this case, that will hurt Black people as well as women.

[halfmanhalfman]

That's the thing! Why does it have to be about race? The more we talk about race the more there is a wedge between us. I bet you a 100% If a heated argument of race comes, slur will follow.

[halfmanhalfman]

If you don't believe me, type any race related issue on the youtube search bar. You see a plethora of people with twisted minds.

[ebayliberty]

I am Black too, so, yes, I do care about "Blacks." I care about everybody getting fair treatment and being able to work in safety. I care about my wife, my mother and my sisters too.

[halfmanhalfman]

Can I ask you this; isn't the focus on the issue of blacks in this case take this case too far?

[smurfettehatesyou]

The intitial focus was one comment, then you came along and tried to derail the conversation. The point is, there is no "bringing" race into a conversation about Title VII law-- Title VII is one of the cornerstones of antidiscrimination law in this country, and the university in question has a legacy of fighting for civil rights, including the rights in the very statute they violated. You can't mess with title VII for one group without having an impact on other groups' rights.

[halfmanhalfman]

I'm not derailing anything. I understand the discimination laws. This is about women. Heck, read the title, "Stalked in the Workplace and Retaliation by Their Employers." Where does it says anything about race? If this going to focus on race, this is going to blow out proportion...... it already did.

[smurfettehatesyou]

You don't understand discrimination laws. If you did, you would a) see the point of someone calling attention to the fact that a university that prides itself on fighting for civil rights when it comes to race violated the civil rights statute b) understand that bad rulings for women= bad rulings for black people. Howard has hurt its own population here by making arguments that make it harder for title VII cases to succeed. In this case, a woman was hurt. next time, could be anyone.

[halfmanhalfman]

There is a difference between a heroic battle and a drunken hero stuck on his past adventure. Just like those in the 60s and 70s fought an epic struggle to bring justice for those who needed are now beating a dead horse that should of been put to it's grave.

[smurfettehatesyou]

so you're saying Howard should stop all of its numerous ongoing campaigns on behalf of the civil rights of black people? I guess then it could discriminate against women without being hypocritical? I don't even think you know what your point is anymore. You also don't know the difference between it's (it is) and its (posessive.)

[halfmanhalfman]

No, I'm saying stop making every petty thing into something big. It is a waste of time and causes frictions between others. Do you know how many time I hear people pull out a race card. If woman and black rights are one in the same, then Why is should he get slap with a double discrimintation?

[halfmanhalfman]

Not that i'm saying Her being stalk is being petty. I'm just saying that her being black as well shouldn't increase attention... just because she is black.

[smurfettehatesyou]

We have laws not just to remedy strange or unfair things that have already happened, but to try to prevent unfair things form happening in the future. Imagining and thining through the various possi bile repercussions of a case or a law is not taking things too far, it's what the courts do every day.

[halfmanhalfman]

Yes I understand that. Try to understand what I'm saying even though they are one in the same. If you bring race into an issue that it's not the big focus on, it'll cause friction and hostility to others.

[LowryMartin]

Lets see a picture of you halfman, and put your mouth where your face is, or somewhere else/

Halfman, mmm?

[halfmanhalfman]

Kind of a hypocrite yourself, right? I don't see a pictures on yours. Try to read or get help with your, "middle school education reading level." I was pointing out this case wasn't about race. I pointed out that most case that makes it to mainstream media are those who fit the ideal of beauty.

[ebayliberty]

Why should LowryMartin post a picture? He/she is not the one talking about whether someone is "beautiful" enough to win a lawsuit -- you are! Just what are you saying is this nebulous "ideal of beauty" and how would that make a difference to a jury that DID decide that Prof. Martin was stalked in her workplace and that Howard did nothing to stop it? But, the jury said it wasn't based on gender, so she couldn't win under Title VII.

[halfmanhalfman]

He or she asked me to post a picture. I told her she was a hypocrite for critizing me and not doing the same. Again, I told you the appearance was about the attention from the media. Don't get me wrong, i believe no one should get stalk. I'm just dissapointed in the media.

[ebayliberty]

"Halfman's" profile says he's only 21. Maybe when he's a "Wholeman," he'll appreciate a Wholewoman! Also, it's been 11 years. Prof. Martin is now 52! You can see a photo of her at Howard in 1998, at age 41, on her website. Focus what this case is about - safety, jobs and laws protecting people in their workplace from stalkers -- particularly if a stalker targets someone based on sex, race, or any other protected category.

[halfmanhalfman]

So you're trying to discriminate me against my age? I can easily say that older generation of blacks are paranoid of everything and it will boil down to race for them. I'm not like that. Anyway, I agree it should be about safety. You guys, however, want this evolve into something that's not.

[ebayliberty]

I'm saying that, at 21 (and presumably White), you may relate to an obsession with Ashlee Simpson, but a mature, racially diverse (or predominantly Black -- this case was tried in D.C.) jury would have a different concept of beauty. As Smurfette has pointed out, the jury DID hold that Harrison created a hostile work environment for Prof. Martin when he stalked her. So, your comments about Prof. Martin's looks have no bearing on this case at all, especially since she was stalked 11 years ago.

[halfmanhalfman]

Oh wait? Why did you assume that I'm white? Because you believe that only white people dismiss situations like this as a non-race issue? I'm black as they come buddy. What YOU did there was a stereotype I think they would find offensive. As for the "beauty" that issue was only a matter pertaining this going into mainstream media or not, assuming she had the ideal beauty at that time.

[halfmanhalfman]

You know what, I made a mistake about the media issue. Yea it was irrevelent. That doesn't mean that other people think like that. The issue with race, yea, it bugs me. I notice we say that a discrimination to women is also a discrimination against race. How come I never see any blacks, women, or any other race besides asians speaking their mind on Miley Cyrus making offensive facial gesture of asians?

[LowryMartin]

Now I understand, you are 21 and seems that you are still trying to figure things out.

Good job, we all love your debate!

Keep going, however in the meantime you should go to Dawn Martins web site and read the whole case. Then you will have the facts of what exactly happened, then comment. We would be interested in your comments after you read the entire case.

[4u2b1ib12]

I know women should rule the world. Men have ruled, using fear. Violence is a direct product of fear. Women are smarter. When women lie, it is to survive. Men lie to control. This video is another

great example. If she had lied, she would be a victim. She told the truth, and now she is making

a difference. Girl Power!

[MinaJadeBlog]

It is terrible, the unjust against women... and that some men (secretly or less secretly) actually agrees with abusers and sexists.

Women SHOULD be equally treated as they ARE equal... A few centuries ago, in a certain wealthy country, people said "African Americans won't be equal ever". And NOW look who is the President of the same country!!

[LowryMartin]

No one should be afraid to work or study on any college campus. As we know there have been many murders and rapes on campuses. The media, parents, and faculty have been asking and asking for an overhaul of security on campus for years! Should Professors and students take 101 course at the shooting range before stepping foot on campus and pack em...

[ebayliberty]

Thanks a lot, Howard, for making law allowing employers to fire women for being stalked! What if the stalking had been based on race? Do these people have mothers, sisters, wives, aunts, grandmothers, etc.? Howard's refusal to keep a homeless stalker off campus could have resulted in a bloodbath like Virginia Tech. HU's own security officer, a HU alumnus, who took the stalking report, says Howard paid "deaf ears" to Prof. Martin and was wrong. Why won't HU do the right thing, even now?

[halfmanhalfman]

Huh? What does race have anything to do with it? If anything it's probably the matter of appearance. If she was "beautiful"; (by standard of the media), then she would recieve her justice.

[ebayliberty]

He stalked her because she fit the description of a fictional BLACK woman in a book, so this case actually IS about race, as well as gender. What if some KKK lunatic stalks Black employees? Can the employer fire them instead of protecting them? Howard just established law that says they can. Also, are you saying that a woman has to be beautiful, "by media standards," to "get justice?" How "just" is that? Does that mean blonde, thin and young? That's about race -- and age.

[DVMartinEsq]

How ironic. When I was at Howard, I was 41 and mistaken for a student. People blamed me for being "too beautiful" and "attracting" a stalker to campus. Now that I am 52 and chubby, I am "not beautiful" enough to win a lawsuit? How "not beautiful" or "beautiful" do we have to be NOT to get stalked, but to get justice if we are stalked and terminated? Women face this kind of ignorant, "no win" judgment, based on their looks, daily. It's got to change! Dawn Martin, Esq.

[halfmanhalfman]

No, I never meant that. I was saying that the common ideal of a beautiful women get more sympathy. I'm not siding with this. It's just that some people think that a woman is only try to instigate it for monetary gain, if someone doesn't find it reasonable for her to get stalked. It as if someone would say this; "fake, She's not the beautiful to stalk."

[LowryMartin]

Halfman, that must mean half brain also. If you had half of the intelligence that Dawn Martin has, you would not post such a comment. I am almost to embarrassed to respond do to you.

Where do you work, enquiring minds with intelligence want to know?

There are many people of intelligence that win court cases every day, obviously you would not be one of them. Beauty has absolutely nothing to do with it halfman.

[1Mamou]

The comment from golferking77 is a reminder of just how far women have to go in order to receive equal opportunity and fair treatment. This is a terrible case, and unfortunately this is not uncommon. Good that NOW is working to put an end to this kind of discrimination on the job.

[golferking77]

What cry babies typical ! women will never be equal w/men because of this kind of BS...always playing the victim. Men are stronger then this and it's only because a bunch of C****'s get together & bitch that idiot's listen to them not because they care but to silence the noise.

[MinaJadeBlog]

You are abnormal, I do hope you will never have a girlfriend, and I feel sorry for all your female relatives!

[Alexis4584]

Good stuf! I hope NOW will post the story to their web sites and blogs very soon!

[insiderexclusive]

This is a very informative News Documentary on the continuing prevalence of Stalking in the Workplace the retaliation Victims still endure. Watch it.

[insiderexclusive]

A riveting Documentary on Injustice in the Workplace!!! Watch it.