Portfolio at NYU

Posted 06.13.03
Execs Aware of Domestic Violence Costs

By Julie Leupold

"Just two years ago, a man who claimed, at one time, to love me, repeatedly slammed my head into the pavement. As my brain ricocheted against the four walls of my skull, I saw stars that turned into electric bolts. Then, I blacked out. When I came to, my boyfriend was still beating me, and I just knew that I was dying."

The bruises have healed and extensions cover the spots where her hair was pulled from her scalp, but Kathryn Kaiser is far from over her bout with domestic violence. After her boyfriend was found not guilty in court, Kaiser is still struggling with restraining order issues and residual effects from her brain injuries. She took time off from her position as an administrator and shareholder services analyst for PNM Resources, the largest utility in New Mexico, to prosecute her attacker and is now trying to readjust to her life as a professional.

"My family and the criminal justice system disappointed me. The same cannot be said of my employer," says Kaiser. She was given four months of disability and then worked half days for two months after that. "During that time, my manager stayed in contact with me, giving me support by providing positive feedback. That was important, because given the frame of mind I was in at the time, I felt no one cared or understood what happened to me."

Kaiser's employers are in the vanguard of professionals who are redefining the line between personal issues and professional responsibilities. But they are in a small but growing minority. Nine in 10 senior executives from Fortune 1,000 companies believe that domestic violence affects both the private lives and working lives of employees, but only 12 percent of them are willing to do anything about it, according to a recent Roper ASW study supported by Liz Claiborne, Inc. Among that small percentage of proactive employers are Altria Group Inc. (formerly Philip Morris Companies Inc.), Verizon and Liz Claiborne, Inc., who are attempting to stave off the economic consequences of domestic violence through employer training and extra security measures. Although these companies have no real way to measure the benefits of these programs outside of individual success stories, the government is supporting their effort with new congressional legislation that protects the jobs of domestic violence victims.

Kaiser's employer not only saved her job during a protracted legal battle, but made an extra effort to create a safe work environment, including working with the human resource department to add extra security, assign a new phone number and move her parking spot into a covered lot adjacent to the building. Even with these precautions her attacker was still able to make threatening phone calls and stalk her at work using his company car.

"I have met with my CEO explained to him that domestic violence does affect the workplace," Kaiser says. "Ever since my brutal crime other employees have contacted me because either they are in an abusive relationship or someone they know is. I told him that victims will probably not come forward, but if domestic violence training started from him and his senior management, then worked its way down they would be able to recognize the signs before it becomes fatal."

In addition to protecting the lives and health of domestic violence victims, implementing these types of programs would hold economic benefits for companies who nationwide lose between an estimated $3 billion and $5 billion a year from decreased productivity and employee absenteeism as a result of domestic violence, according to the Office of Violence Against Women. Employers are still reluctant to take action against what has traditionally been regarded as a social problem. The direct costs of domestic violence stem from absenteeism, higher health care costs and insurance premiums, increased sick leave, higher turnover and lower productivity. In addition domestic violence contributes a lower morale among employees, negative publicity for a company and a general fear in the work place, according to a study called the Cost of Domestic Violence.

"America's corporate leaders understand the prevalence of domestic violence," says Paul R. Charron, chairman and chief executive officer of Liz Claiborne, Inc. "They understand the bottom-line impact of domestic violence. In fact, more than half personally know people in their companies who have been affected by domestic violence. And yet they still think it is someone else's responsibility to deal with it."

But new state and proposed national legislation is putting the responsibility squarely back on the executive's shoulders. From national insurance laws that deem it illegal to claim domestic violence as a pre-existing condition to Occupational Safety and Health Laws that require "employers to provide a safe and secure workplace free from recognized hazards," the government is forcing the once private issue of domestic violence into the public spotlight.

While many Fortune 1000 companies have implemented some type of program for domestic violence victims, financial powerhouse Wal-Mart, which is the largest private employer with 1.2 million employees and the largest violator of Equal Employment Opportunity Act, is in throes of a lawsuit for failing to do so. On Aug. 27, 1999, Wal-Mart employee Marsha Midgette was shot in the head by her husband, who had purchased the bullets a few hours earlier from her Pottstown, Pa., store. Although she had a restraining order against him and according to the lawsuit the store was aware of the situation, no precautions were made to protect her. Wal-Mart maintains no comment.

An AFL-CIO study found that batterers commit 13,000 violent acts against their partners in the workplace each year, posing serious threats to the safety of co-workers in the workplace environment. Two-thirds of surveyed executives put domestic violence on par with terrorism as an important social issue, but they believe that the family should be the main institution responsible for addressing the issue since most of the violence derives from home life situations.

Over the last three years, Verizon Wireless has become a leading activist organization in the increasingly popular effort to stop domestic violence from entering the workplace. But that wasn't always the case. According to spokeswoman Andrea Linskey, Verizon's initial programs addressing domestic violence were sparsely attended. She speculates that other companies might ignore this issue, because most employees are reluctant to talk about domestic violence in a work atmosphere and without an immediate problem to solve, employers don't see how they can help.

"It's hard to get a lot of people to come to a session on domestic violence," Linskey said. "But if we create an environment where people feel comfortable talking about it, it may encourage a victim to come forward."

Even when a victim does come forward, many business owners find it easier to eliminate the problem than to try and solve it. Kathy Evsich was fired from two jobs after her abuser harassed her at work and threatened at least one of her bosses, according to her July 25, 2000, testimony to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Senate Committee. Although she made her employer aware of the situation before being hired at her local credit union, no security precautions were put in place and she was fired after her abuser made several phone calls to the boss. "(My employer) looked at me and said, 'Goodbye,' " says Evsich, 35-year-old mother of two in Swannanoa, N.C. "I needed that job...to stash away the money I knew I would need to get away from my abuser. I knew my boss was concerned for his safety, but why didn't he call the police and get a restraining order against my abuser? I was not the threat; it was my abuser who was the threat. But it was I who paid the price."

Evsich succeeded in getting a restraining order against her abuser, but on Nov. 10, 1999, he found her and beat her, leaving her permanently disabled, according to her testimony. She has now joined other feminists struggling to disassociate domestic violence with a silent shame by speaking out. Psychological studies have shown that many women still feel ashamed to talk about a violent situation, carrying a certain amount of blame for the situation. While domestic violence is stereotypically associated with immigrant women or women on welfare, the Office on Violence Against Women found that "domestic violence does not occur at a higher frequency within one socio-economic class, racial group, or geographic area" and thus invades corporate America as readily as the unemployment line.

One organization that is trying to address the problem is the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence. The alliance brings together dozens of progressive companies across the United States to exchange information, collaborate on projects and use their collective influence to instigate change. Members such as Liz Claiborne, Inc. and Altria Group, Inc. have instituted programs to increase awareness about domestic violence within their own ranks as well as support nationwide initiatives in communities where they have a strong business presence.

The updated Liz Claiborne study -- the first was in 1994 -- is based on telephone interviews with 100 senior executives in randomly selected Fortune 1,000 companies and marks the latest research in the company's 11-year domestic violence awareness campaign.

According to its Web site, Liz Claiborne, Inc. started the Women Work program in October 1991 "as a way to give something of value back to the people who have made the company a success over the years." Liz Claiborne first applied its domestic violence program after one of its summer interns was stalked by her ex-boyfriend. Protecting her led to a full-scale program that includes public service announcements, T-shirts, free posters, brochures and handbooks, fundraising and the forging of partnerships with local retailers and community groups to increase awareness about domestic violence in the workplace.

Altria followed suit with its Campaign against Domestic Violence, which operates on a two-front attack to educate and treat victims. Booklets containing information and advice about where to get help can be found in every corporate office throughout the United States in hopes of reaching some 57,000 employees. Altria intends to expand the program to the almost 80,000 people working overseas in 18 countries.

"The [Altria] family of companies recognizes that corporate America has a responsibility--and a unique ability--to help address the problem of domestic violence, and the company is committed to doing its part to raise awareness and help find solutions," according to Altria's program material.

In addition to the in-house prevention materials, Altria Group, Inc. started the Doors of Hope program, a philanthropic organization to support domestic violence initiatives in communities where the company holds a viable business interest. Since the program's inception in 1998, Doors of Hope has given away more than $6 million to local shelters and domestic violence programs in communities across the country.

The 2002 grantees reflect the breadth of domestic violence issues, embracing everything from legal services to shelter expansions to child protection personnel. Some of the year's recipients include: Washington-based Ayuda Inc., which provides legal services to Hispanic victims of domestic violence; Houston Area Women's Center shelter, which works with a local arts school to provide art-based therapy along with legal advice to battered women; La Casa de Las Madres, San Francisco's oldest and largest shelter for women and children; and The New York Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which is adding site supervisors and security to expand its hours of operation, as well as adding Asian-language interpreters to reach a broader section of battered women.

"At [Altria] we take a comprehensive approach to preventing domestic violence," says spokeswoman Laurie Guzzianti. "The Doors of Hope campaign is the grant-making aspect. We also work with local community groups to educate both employees and others in the community, as well as other employers, about the impact of domestic violence in the workplace." She added said Altria works with the National Domestic Violence Hotline in Texas and the corporate alliance.

Altria has initiated a number of corporate programs for domestic violence victims, from instituting a clothing drive for the families of battered women to launching a "fix-up" initiative to revamp area women's shelters. And in 1996, Altria organized the first Annual Corporate Conference on Domestic Violence, which has since turned into a national event.

Admittedly Altria started the domestic violence campaign and shed the name of Philip Morris Company to draw public attention away from the smoking lawsuits that have tarnished the company name for the last two decades. The Harris Interactive and Reputation Institute conducted an online survey in fall 2000 to determine the public's opinion of the newsmaking organization. The survey showed that while advertising can be effective in getting a message across, it doesn't necessarily change opinions. Despite the costly ad campaign, Philip Morris still receives low marks on trust, respect and admiration. Moreover, 16 percent of respondents familiar with the company said they had boycotted its products in the past year. What did change significantly was the public's awareness of its philanthropic deeds -- about 40 percent of people familiar with Philip Morris now give it a strong rating for supporting good causes, compared with just 10 percent in 1999.

Philip Morris says it is pleased with the increased awareness of its charitable activities. However, Charles Fombrun, a management professor at New York University and executive director of the Reputation Institute, calls the survey's results "a very sad outcome for such a major ad campaign."

While these companies are trying to change things at a corporate level, politicians are addressing work-related issues connected to domestic violence on the political stage.
Before Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, he introduced the Victims' Economic Security and Safety Act to the Senate in July 2001. Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney of New York and Lucille Roybal-Allard of California introduced the same bill to the House.

"A lot of people are more fiercely dedicated to the cause in recognition of Paul Wellstone and his family's commitment to it," said Geoff Boehm, a NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund staff attorney who was active in the drafting of the bill. "There is greater commitment among advocates. The outpouring of grief is giving us an opportunity to continue the vision that he and his wife had."

The Wellstone bill is bipartisan and would protect the employment and economic security of domestic abuse victims. It entitles eligible employees--including welfare-to-work participants--to take up to 30 days of unpaid leave to deal with a domestic violence situation. The bill forbids employers from removing health benefits or demoting the employee during this time and even mandates employers to keep the reason for the absence strictly confidential.

"There are bills that say domestic violence is a crime; this isn't that bill," Boehm said. "I think it would really empower survivors of domestic violence to take the steps they need to stay safe and open lines of communication with employers. Many victims are afraid they will get fired if they tell that they are victims of domestic violence."

For most domestic abuse victims, steady employment is an essential key to developing economic self-sufficiency and eventually complete autonomy from a batterer. However, the U.S. General Accounting Office found that one-quarter to one-half of victims surveyed lost a job--at least in part--due to domestic violence.

"This creates a dangerous cycle. Without the financial security offered by a paycheck and unemployment benefits, battered women are often left dependent on the abuser," Roybal-Allard said in a floor statement supporting the bill. "This is wrong, costly and dangerous."

When Congress adjourned last session, the bill had been read twice and referred to the Senate Finance Committee and a House subcommittee.