Carey Roberts Responds: Franklin Doesn’t Understand How the DV System Really Works
In Roberts Misunderstands DV Bill, Robert Franklin, Esq. criticizes Carey Roberts' piece Ladies, want job security? Just scream 'abuse!' (RenewAmerica.com, 2/4/09). Roberts responds:
I was surprised to read Robert Franklin’s recent blog, “Roberts Misunderstands DV Bill,” which characterizes much of my February 4, 2009 article on the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act as “flat wrong.” His blog insultingly lumps my work with the “misrepresentations” of feminism.
As an attorney, surely Mr. Franklin knows that when you read any proposed law, you need to consider not only the written bill, but also how it will work in practice. This is especially true for DV laws, which typically operate very differently than the statutory language.
Yes, the SAFE Act contains the standard fig leaf qualifiers designed to convince persons that the bill is supposed to help DV victims who are experiencing workplace discrimination. But anyone who has a passing understanding how the DV system really works knows that the burden of proof, especially in civil law, is placed on the defendant, not the accuser. That means in most cases, a person only needs to make an accusation to win her case.
That’s how the SAFE Act would operate. The burden of proof would be unfairly placed on the employer to prove he is not discriminating against the woman (or man) who claims to be a victim of DV. It would become the workplace equivalent of that bad joke, “And when did you stop beating your wife?”
So merely signing a statement of abuse – no hard proof necessary -- would in most cases become a guarantee of lifetime employment. When it comes to the proposed SAFE Act, what you see is definitely not what you get.
Mr. Franklin doesn’t understand that fact.
Franklin's original post can be seen here.
|
| More from Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Stumble It!
