Congress Has Special Fund to Payout Sexual Harassment Victims

Written by Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Elise Viebeck, 10-27-17, at MSN & Washington Post:

Briony Whitehouse was a 19-year-old intern in 2003 when she boarded an elevator in the Russell Senate Office Building with a Republican senator, who she said groped her until the doors reopened.

She never reported the incident to her bosses for fear of jeopardizing her career. But she recently tweeted about her experience on Twitter as part of the “#MeToo” campaign, a social-media phenomenon that has aired thousands of complaints about unwanted sexual harassment.

Some of the accounts have called out by name Hollywood moguls, media stars, even a former U.S. president. Other women such as Whitehouse have stopped short of naming harassers. Whitehouse in an interview last week with The Washington Post declined to name the politician who made unwanted advances, convinced that he would retaliate.

“At the time, I didn’t know what to do, so I did nothing at all,” said Whitehouse, who works overseas as a political consultant. “Because this happened so early on for me, I just assumed this was the way things worked and that I’d have to accept it.”

If Whitehouse had chosen to pursue a complaint against the senator, she would have discovered a process unlike other parts of the federal government or much of the private sector. Her complaint likely would have been thrown out because interns have limited harassment protections under the unique employment law that Congress applies to itself. (Click here to read other troubling accounts.)

Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers.

The result is a culture in which some lawmakers suspect harassment is rampant. Yet victims are unlikely to come forward, according to attorneys who represent them.

Under a law in place since 1995, accusers may file lawsuits only if they first agree to go through months of counseling and mediation. A special congressional office is charged with trying to resolve the cases out of court.

When settlements do occur, members do not pay them from their own office funds, a requirement in other federal agencies. Instead, the confidential payments come out of a special U.S. Treasury fund.

Congressional employees have received small settlements compared to the amounts some public figures pay out. Between 1997 and 2014, the U.S. Treasury has paid $15.2 million in 235 awards and settlements for Capitol Hill workplace violations, according to the congressional Office of Compliance. The statistics do not break down the exact nature of the violations.

“It is not a victim-friendly process. It is an institution-protection process,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who has unsuccessfully pushed to overhaul how harassment cases are handled. “I think we would find that sexual harassment is rampant in the institution. But no one wants to know, because they’d have to do something about it.”

“We have no doubt that sexual harassment is underreported in Congress, just as all workplace infractions are underreported in Congress,” said Brad Fitch, president and chief executive of the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit organization that helps lawmakers and staff learn to run their offices.

Tangled process

Victims who do seek action face a confusing process under a law known as the Congressional Accountability Act that was put in place in 1995. Sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), it imposed a range of civil rights, labor and worker-safety laws on Capitol Hill for the first time.

A scandal involving Sen. Robert Packwood (R-Ore.) and multiple women accusers led to his 1995 resignation and to debate over which labor protections should apply to Congress. Packwood first denied the allegations, but later apologized.

Following the Packwood allegations, a 1993 survey by The Post showed that one-third of female congressional employees responding said they were sexually harassed by members, supervisors, lobbyists or fellow aides.

Grassley’s bill established the 20-person Office of Compliance to adjudicate disputes and handle harassment complaints.

The law gives victims 180 days after the offending incident to initiate complaints. Victims must agree to go through counseling, which take typically takes 30 days.

After that, victims who want to continue, begin 30 days of mediation, which is handled by a neutral mediator. If the problem is still unresolved, they can pursue an OOC administrative hearing or file a federal lawsuit against their harasser.

The confidential dispute resolution process can be made public only if the case is ruled in the victim’s favor, after it goes through administrative or judicial proceedings.

The OOC contends that its process has helped resolve “scores of employee disputes” and benefits all sides.

Some advocates believe the pre-lawsuit mediation requirement undercuts victims. The rule contrasts sharply with the rest of the federal government, where mediation is an option but not mandatory for employees to pursue legal action.

Few staffers seem aware of their rights or the harassment reporting process.

“A lot of people are confused about it. We’ll get calls from people who work down on the Hill, and they’re not all that clear as to what they should be doing,” said Alan Lescht, an employment attorney in Washington who handles harassment cases involving federal and congressional employees.

The only mandatory training for congressional employees is an ethics program put into place after the 2006 Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and instruction on cybersecurity. The lack of mandatory anti-harassment training places Congress out of step with the majority of the private sector, according to human-resources experts.

The OOC sends newsletters and regular emails urging chiefs of staff to prioritize staff training and describing how to access resources online. While the office oversees tens of thousands of employees, only about 800 people since 2015 have taken its 20-minute online tutorial on preventing sexual harassment.

Some congressional leaders have been questioned about the culture on Capitol Hill amid a national outcry over allegations of serial harassment by Weinstein.

Grassley told The Post this week that if the law is not effectively accomplishing sexual harassment prevention and anti-discriminatory training, “then it should be revisited.”

Nancy Pelosi said members need to take responsibility for anti-harassment training in their own offices. A 2014 effort led by Speier to make training mandatory was defeated, but Pelosi told The Post she supports Speier’s efforts. On Thursday, Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) introduced a bill to require sexual-harassment training.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who has spoken about her own experience with sexual harassment in Congress, said she supports mandatory sexual harassment training for every member of Congress and their staff.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) recently said that it would be “naïve” to suggest sexual harassment doesn’t happen on Capitol Hill, and that current systems can always be improved. His office declined to offer more details.

“I do believe that exposing these things can help improve the culture,” Ryan said in an interview on MSNBC. “The more you expose it and the more we can castigate people in society on these things to show that this is not acceptable behavior, I think that’s to the good.”

Speier said members need to be held more accountable. “It’s an embarrassment,” she said, “and we’ve got to fix it.”


I’m not sure which is more disturbing – the fact that our money is spent on settling sexual harassment cases or that our money is spent on training people how not to sexually harass people. How hard can it be to ‘train’ someone to keep their hands to themselves and their comments confined to business? Instead of sending the victim to counseling, why aren’t we putting the harasser in the penalty box?

If Trump wants to drain the swamp, my suggestion would be start here by getting rid of the leeches.


Categories: Political

Tags: ,

11 replies

  1. It’s interesting that the federal government came up with laws to stop sexual harrassment in the workplace. But in federal government? It’s like a jungle. My husband always takes the side of the man saying women or ‘victims’ can say anything. But he’s wrong. What victim wants to hurt their job? There is no doube in my mind that this goes on. Someone tried that on me in an elevator and got hurt. Never happened again.

    Congress needs to allow whistle blowers to blow whistles on this behavior without punishment. And counseling for the victim?????
    This is all just garbage. I would leave and tell the news media all about what happened and who it was. (After I hurt the person real bad.)


    • I don’t see how any job, or any movie role, is worth putting up with unwanted advances or the touchy-feely garbage that goes on. Sometimes there are people that need setting straight on mutual respect, or like you said, they get hurt.

      Early on, if someone had stood up to Harvey Weinstein they could have put a stop to that. Bullies are unacceptable, especially sexual ones.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Some day, when CW is queen, I hope she remembers to command that Congress live up to every law that they impose on the rest of us.


  3. I can understand, at least on one level, why sexual harassment presents a bit of a unique problem in congress. It isn’t like your standard workplace where management sets the rules and can fire you if you break them. Even so, I have a big problem any time taxpayers are the ones who pay the price for other people’s wrong-doings, which so frequently happens to be the case. Punishing someone else – especially in a way that they can’t directly connect the punishment to the act – for someone else’s crime is wrong and won’t cure the problem.

    Having said that I also have a big problem with the subjective nature of the whole sexual harassment issue. I remember when the Packwood thing happened and the phrase “unwanted advances” became popular. I remember thinking, “How does one know if their advances will be wanted or unwanted until after they’ve made them, and then it’s too late?” If Packwood had made an advance that was appreciated, would that make it ok? Consensual activity goes on all the time, I assume. Whether I agree with the specific behavior or not I think it’s unfair to hold people accountable for standards that are unclear and behaviors that one person deems acceptable but another does not.

    Again, I understand it’s problematic. There are going to be members of congress who abuse their positions and misbehave. There will also be well-behaved members of congress who are susceptible to losing their jobs to false claims of harassment that may be politically motivated. Grassly was probably trying to address both of these realities with these rules, but I don’t agree with taxpayers footing the bill. When I get to be queen, they’ll just have to find another way.


    • Maybe they leave it a gray area intentionally so it can be addressed differently depending on who the assailant is. Grassley said the training needs to revisited, and I agree.

      Their current system is laborious and time consuming for the victim while the perp goes about his life unhampered. It’s designed more to punish the victim and protect the members, but the flip side is that there will always be women who exaggerate or make up an incident in order to make a political move.

      There needs to be clear standards for preventing sexual assault and they should be adhered to just as they would in a business environment. After all, they are there to take care of the people’s business and government employees should feel as safe in DC as they would at a civilian job. They should be able to tell a guy straight up to cut it out and not be afraid their job is in jeopardy if they speak up.

      I wish you’d hurry up and be queen – there’s a lot junk going on in DC that you need to clean up.


  4. As the saying goes “Do what I say and not as I do”
    Only Congress gets away with all this crap sickening



  1. The Weekly Headlines – My Daily Musing
  2. Br Andrew's Muses

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: