Buried deep on the Google news aggregator, not even making the top U.S. stories, is a piece by NBC correspondent Corky Siemaszko entitled “Kamala Harris responds to alleged sex assault at her husband's law firm.” The article starts out:
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris was pulled Monday into a sexual assault dispute at the Silicon Valley law firm where her husband, Douglas Emhoff, is a partner.
Emhoff works for DLA Piper, where a junior partner named Vanina Guerrero has charged last week in a complaint to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that she was sexually assaulted four times by a top deal-maker at the firm, Louis Lehot.
In a letter to Harris published on Medium on Monday, Guerrero’s lawyer, Jeanne Christensen, asked for the California senator’s help in getting her client released from DLA Piper’s mandatory arbitration rules so she can “get her day in court.”
In short, a female attorney at DLA Piper was sexually assaulted by a senior partner. No one blames Harris, or her husband who works at a different office of the law firm, for the sexual assault.
Instead, Harris’ connection to the story is that the victim’s attorney, Jeannie Christensen of Wigdor LLP (a prominent attorney known for representing women, minorities, and LGBT+ plaintiffs in discrimination and harassment suits), wrote Harris a letter asking her to weigh in to oppose DLA Piper’s invocation of a mandatory arbitration provision to deny the victim her day in court.
Harris, of course, has publicly called upon other businesses to cease using mandatory arbitration clauses. She has written that:
“One of the fundamental principles of our democracy is that everyone should get their day in court. Forced arbitration deprives Americans of that basic right.”
So, it is not surprising that the victim’s attorney chose the potentially highly beneficial tactic to her client of attempting to get Harris to condemn her own husband’s law firm’s invocation of a mandatory arbitration provision to deny the victim her day in court. The victim’s attorney wrote in an open letter to Harris:
I am sure that you would agree that silencing women though forced arbitration must end. No female employee, including a new partner, would knowingly agree to waive her right to our court system for claims involving sexual assault, battery, or rape. Given your profile as a candidate for the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, you are in a unique position to condemn the actions of DLA Piper and made clear that mandatory arbitration must stop.
Again, I urge you to support Ms. Guerrero and let DLA Piper know that time is up for its draconian policy that disproportionately protects male predators at the expense of women.
And you know what? Harris, despite the fact her position is contrary to the financial interests of her husband’s law firm, DLA Piper, and her husband as one of 401 owners of that firm, stuck by her principles! She responded via release from her Senate office:
"Senator Harris has been and continues to be a staunch advocate for survivors and believes all people must be guaranteed their day in court. She has long opposed forced arbitration agreements and that position has not changed and she does not believe this [DLA Piper] is any exception."
That, my friends, is called passing the profile in courage moment test!
Harris stuck by her principles even though it might cost her husband’s firm, and her husband, and by extension Harris herself money. Not something that we could ever envision Trump doing.
This is a story which should be celebrated!
Yet, on this site, I see posters running in fear from this story. They are worried because the words “Harris” and “Sexual Assault” appear in the same headline, even though no one is claiming Harris has any connection to the sexual assault.
Some even liken it to a “swiftboat” attack by the rightwing propaganda machine, despite the fact that there is no reason to believe that to be the case.
They fail to recognize that the only danger to Harris here was that she would act hypocritically. But she did NOT.
Have we fallen so far, and become so fearful, that we cannot recognise an opportunity when we see it? This site used to be dedicated to “framing.” Yet, the framing of this incident by the recommended diary was one of fear and loathing, not celebration.
What a sad missed opportunity.