State Employment Protection Statutes for Victims of Domestic Violence

Abstract

Evidence indicates that domestic violence has negative consequences on victims' employment; yet employers lag in recognizing this as a workplace issue. To address the problem, some states have established several policy solutions. To understand the scope of the public sector's response to domestic violence as a workplace issue, a content analysis of state-level employment protection policies for domestic violence victims (N = 369) was conducted. Results indicate three broad policy categories: (a) policies that offer work leave for victims; (b) policies that aim to reduce employment discrimination of domestic violence victims; and (c) policies that aim to increase awareness and safety in the workplace. Subcategories emerged within each of these three categories. Implementation of employment protection policies varies significantly across states. Implications for workplaces, practitioners, and policy leaders are discussed.

Workplace interventions for intimate partner violence: A systematic review

“…The U.S. is one of the only high-income countries without laws requiring employers to offer paid family leave to employees. Additionally, the U.S. does not have specific federal legislation to protect employment rights of IPV victims (Karin & Shapiro, 2009) though policies such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Family Violence Option have been used to protect IPV victims (Swanberg, Ojha, & Macke, 2012). Most policies enacted in the U.S. related to employment protections for IPV victims have been at the state level (Swanberg et al, 2012).…”

“…Additionally, the U.S. does not have specific federal legislation to protect employment rights of IPV victims (Karin & Shapiro, 2009) though policies such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Family Violence Option have been used to protect IPV victims (Swanberg, Ojha, & Macke, 2012). Most policies enacted in the U.S. related to employment protections for IPV victims have been at the state level (Swanberg et al, 2012). A 2012 study on state-level employment protection policies for IPV victims found that policies fell into three broad categories: (1) policies that offer work leave for IPV victims (e.g., allowing employees to take time off to seek counseling, participate in court proceeding, visit the doctor or establish a safety plan without fear of loss of employment or income), (2) policies reducing employment discrimination of IPV victims, and (3) policies that increase safety and awareness in the workplace (Swanberg et al, 2012).…”

“…Most policies enacted in the U.S. related to employment protections for IPV victims have been at the state level (Swanberg et al, 2012). A 2012 study on state-level employment protection policies for IPV victims found that policies fell into three broad categories: (1) policies that offer work leave for IPV victims (e.g., allowing employees to take time off to seek counseling, participate in court proceeding, visit the doctor or establish a safety plan without fear of loss of employment or income), (2) policies reducing employment discrimination of IPV victims, and (3) policies that increase safety and awareness in the workplace (Swanberg et al, 2012). Significant variation in policies exists across states, and there are few mechanisms to ensure that employers are compliant with state regulations (Swanberg et al, 2012).…”

Mothers’ Resilience: Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence Survivors at Work

“…Further, none of these interventions focus on mothers who are struggling to care for their children. As researchers continue to develop interventions and sector-specific support, we recommend that service providers support mothers at work by utilizing safety planning or helping them to enforce state-level protections [36].…”

Intersection of Intimate Partner Violence, Partner Interference, and Family Supportive Supervision on Victims’ Work Withdrawal

“…Victims would also have more alternatives available to them, including the means of exiting an abusive relationship. Individualized support from supervisors would also have work-related benefits, for example, in granting time off work for reasons pertaining to IPV, when it is within their discretion; Swanberg & Ojiha, 2012). In investigating partner interference and family supportive supervision as moderators of the IPV-work withdrawal relationship, we have developed a better understanding of how organizations can help employees who are IPV victims.…”