International Journal of Workplace Health ManagementWorkplace domestic violence leave laws implementation use implicationsNaima Laharnar Nancy Perrin Ginger Hanson W Kent Anger Nancy Glass

Article informationTo cite this documentNaima Laharnar Nancy Perrin Ginger Hanson W Kent Anger Nancy Glass (2015)Workplacedomestic violence leave laws implementation use implications International Journal of WorkplaceHealth Management Vol 8 Iss 2 pp 109 - 128Permanent link to this documenthttpdxdoiorg101108IJWHM-03-2014-0006

Downloaded on 07 June 2015 At 0821 (PT)References this document contains references to 47 other documentsTo copy this document permissionsemeraldinsightcomThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 16 times since 2015Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided byTokenJournalAuthor4F54CC54-34BA-421E-B53D-38DD13719062

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this or any other Emerald publication then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all Please visit wwwemeraldinsightcomauthors for more information

About Emerald wwwemeraldinsightcomEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2350 books and book series volumes aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation

Related content and download information correct at time ofdownload

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Workplace domestic violenceleave laws implementation use

implicationsNaima Laharnar

Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences (formerly CROET)Oregon Health and Science University Portland Oregon USA

Nancy Perrin and Ginger HansonCenter for Health Research Kaiser Permanente Portland Oregon USA

W Kent AngerOregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences (formerly CROET)Oregon Health and Science University Portland Oregon USA and

Nancy GlassSchool of Nursing Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland USA

AbstractPurpose ndash Intimate partner violence (IPV) affecting 30 percent of women worldwide may affectemployment and workplace safety In all 16 US states adopted laws providing leave for employedsurvivors These qualitative findings are from an evaluation of Oregonrsquos state leave law The paperaims to discuss these issuesDesignmethodologyapproach ndash The authors interviewed Oregon government employees (nfrac14 17)with past year IPV and Oregon supervisors (nfrac14 10) of past year IPV survivors Interviews weretranscribed analyzed and codedFindings ndash Participants agreed that IPV has an effect on work They reported positive workplacereactions to IPV disclosure (93 percent positive 52 percent negative) but also negative reactions(lack of information confidentiality supervisor support) Several implications for supervisorswere named (workload being untrained being a mandatory reporter workplace safety andconfidentiality) Three years after implementation 74 percent of participants did not know the leaveexisted 65 percent of survivors would have used it if known The main barriers to usage were fearfor job lack of payment and stigma The main barriers of implementation were untrainedsupervisors and lack of awareness Participants (85 percent) suggested workplace training on IPVthe law and supervisor rolePractical implications ndash Effective implementation and support of the IPV leave law is important toavoid negative consequences for survivors and the workplace Participants called for an increase inIPV awareness and supervisor training

International Journal of WorkplaceHealth Management

Vol 8 No 2 2015pp 109-128

copyEmerald Group Publishing Limited1753-8351

DOI 101108IJWHM-03-2014-0006

Received 14 March 2014Revised 20 October 2014

Accepted 13 November 2014

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight atwwwemeraldinsightcom1753-8351htm

The authors are grateful to the members of the Association of Oregon Counties for countyrecruitment assistance and members of the studyrsquos National Advisory Board for ongoingtechnical assistance The authors would like to thank all participating Oregon county employeesand supervisors for their time and expertise during the interviews and are grateful to thecountyrsquos HR departments for their assistance in recruitment and flyer distribution Special thanksto Andrew Kirk Kendra Evans Cassandra Dinius Mervyn Christian Kelsey Egbert MagaliBlanco and Helen Moss for support in conducting transcribing and coding the interviews Thisstudy is part of a project funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH R01 OH009524) The interview protocol recruitment flyer and consent forms wereapproved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at Oregon Health amp Science University(OHSU) and The Johns Hopkins University

109

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Originalityvalue ndash These results provide important recommendations to policymakers authoritiesand advocates on development implementation and evaluation of laws adopted to support employedIPV survivorsKeywords Domestic violence Qualitative research Intimate partner violence Supervisor supportWorkplace leave law Workplace policy implementationPaper type Research paper

IntroductionDomestic violence also known as intimate partner violence (IPV) may include physicalviolence sexual violence threats of violence andor emotional violence (Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2003 Saltzman et al 2002) About 30 percent ofwomen are affected worldwide by IPV and over one-third (356 percent) of women in theUSA experience IPV in their lifetime (Black et al 2011 World Health Organization 2013)IPV often results in long-term negative health economic and social consequences for thesurvivor and their family including effects on the survivorrsquos workplace and employmentsecurity (LaVan et al 2012 Swanberg et al 2006 Tolman 2011 Warshaw et al 2009)

Our study provides an examination of a workplace resource available to few IPVsurvivors globally employment protection The study provides insights from theperspective and experience of both employed survivors and their work supervisorsThe study focusses on the employment protection law for IPV survivors implementedin the US state of Oregon The Oregon law was passed in 2007 (ldquoDomestic ViolenceHarassment Sexual Assault or Stalking Protectionsrdquo Oregon Revised Statutesect 659A270) and provides employees who are survivors or parentsguardians of aminor child who is a survivor of IPV sexual assault criminal harassment or stalkingwith reasonable unpaid leave The employee may seek medical treatment counselinglegal assistance attend court hearings or relocate without fear of loss of employmentEmployees are eligible if working for an employer with more than five employees(Hayes 2013 Oregon Laws 2007)

Workplace impact of IPVResearch has demonstrated IPV spillover to the workplace affecting productivity andalso safety of the IPV survivor and possibly other employees (Adams et al 2012 Ariasand Corso 2005 Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) 2007 CDC 2003Crowne et al 2011 LaVan et al 2012 Plichta 2004 Reeves and OrsquoLeary-Kelly 2007Rivara et al 2007 Swanberg et al 2011 Swanberg and Logan 2005 Swanberg et al2006 Tolman 2011 World Health Organization 2013) Work-related consequences ofIPV include the abuser using work-interference tactics (harassing co-workers affectingemployeersquos ability to get to work stay at work) survivor absenteeism due to illnessinjury or mental health and reduced job performance and productivity due to employeersquosdifficulty concentrating and absence The most severe outcome of IPV results inhomicide with over one-third (38 percent) of all female murders in the US workplace(1982-2011) committed by an intimate partner (US Department of Labor Bureau of LaborStatistics 2013) IPV in the workplace leads to increased workplace costs the averageannual workplace costs for an IPV survivor is $2400 for absenteeism $4300 forworkplace distraction and $80 for tardiness (Reeves and OrsquoLeary-Kelly 2007)

State and workplace support and challengesDespite the well-known effects of IPV on the employee and workplace there iscurrently no required US federal employment protection law for IPV to support or

110

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

protect the employee and co-workers Several laws have been introduced to the USCongress but to date none of them have passed (Jacobs and Raghu 2010 EmploymentLaw Update 2011 GovTrackus 2014 Hayes 2013 Piotrowski-Govreau 2007 Runge2010) While 49 US states have workplace anti-discrimination laws for crime victimsonly four states (California Connecticut Illinois Kansas) have laws specifically for IPVsurvivors However 13 US states have IPV workplace awareness and safety policiesand three (New York Illinois Oklahoma) require workplace IPV education andtraining Only 15 US states and the District of Columbia provide protected leavespecifically to IPV survivors with Oregon being one of those states (Table I LegalMomentum 2013 Swanberg et al 2011)

However US state level differences in protected leave law requirements andcoverage makes implementation a challenge especially for national and multi-nationalcompanies For example Californiarsquos leave law for IPV survivors is criticized as it onlyapplies to businesses with at least 25 employees (Mattis 2010) limiting access forsurvivors working in smaller businesses Further awareness and knowledge ofIllinoisrsquos leave law by employers was still low in 2007 four years after enactment anddespite required postings in the workplace (Piotrowski-Govreau 2007)

Another major barrier for employers to address IPV at their workplace is the lack ofIPV disclosure and the resulting perception that IPV does not have an impact at theircompany and does not need to be addressed (87 percent of CEOrsquos CAEPV 2007) Only15 percent of US workplaces have a workplace IPV policy and only 4 percent havetraining on IPV (US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics 2006) Alsoproviding effective workplace support regarding IPV informal (supportive wordsscreening outside calls) or formal (IPV policies Employee Assistance Programs leavetime) may be challenging as each survivorrsquos needs are different and unwanted supportcan be experienced as intrusive and distressful (Katula 2012 Yragui et al 2012 Zinkand Sill 2004) Nonetheless effective workplace safety programs and support may leadto productive employees that are able to balance work and life benefiting the employeeand employer (Kossek et al 2011 Jackson and Garvin 2003 Perrin et al 2011 Ryanand Kossek 2008 Swanberg and Logan 2005)

PurposeTo date there are few studies that provide insight into usersrsquo experience with existingIPV leave laws (Swanberg and Logan 2005 Swanberg et al 2007 2012 LaVan et al2012 Katula 2012) As part of a parent National Institute of Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) funded study to evaluate the effectiveness of computer-based IPVtraining for supervisors our study begins to address this gap Qualitative researchtechniques were used to explore both IPV survivorsrsquo and supervisorsrsquo perspective andexperience with Oregonrsquos IPV protected leave law including perceived impact onsurvivorsrsquo employment as well as facilitators and barriers for using and implementingthe leave

MethodRecruitmentInterviews were conducted with county supervisors of employees with past year IPVand county employees who self-reported being IPV survivors in past year The HumanResource (HR) departments of 27 Oregon counties that participated in the parent studyassisted in distributing the recruitment flyer for survivors and supervisors in their

111

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Statelaw Benefitsa

California (2006)ldquoSurvivors of Domestic Violence EmploymentLeave ActrdquoLabor Code sectsect 230 amp 2301

Unpaid leave Benefits vary by employer size

Colorado (2002)Revised Statute sect 24-34-4027

Up to 3 daysyear of unpaid leave Employers of50+ employees

Connecticut (2010)Family Violence Leave LawGeneral Statute sect31-51ss

Up to 12 daysyear of unpaid leave Employerswith 3+ employees

District of Columbia (2008)ldquoEmployee Sick Leave for IPVrdquoDC Code sectsect 32-13101 32-13102 32-13103 amp32-13104

3-7 daysyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size

Florida (2007)General Statute 741313

Up to 3 daysyear of unpaid leave Employerswith 50+ employees

Hawaii (2012)Revised Statute sect378-72 amp sect378-73

5-30 daysyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size

Illinois (2003)ldquoVictimsrsquo Economic Security and Safety ActrdquoStatute 1801-18045

8-12 weeksyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size Employers with 15+ employees

Kansas (2007)ldquoEmployment Protections For Victims OfDomestic Violence And Sexual AssaultrdquoStatute sectsect44-1131 amp -1132

Up to 8 daysyear of unpaid leave All employers

Maine (2008)ldquoEmployment Leave for Victims of ViolencerdquoRevised Statute sect850

Reasonable and necessary unpaid leaveAll employers

New Jersey (2013)ldquoSecurity and Financial Empowerment ActrdquoSR 2177 PL 2013

20 daysyear of unpaid leave Employers with25+ employees

New Mexico (2009)ldquoPromoting Financial Independence for Victimsof Domestic Abuse ActrdquoStatute sect 50-4A-1-8

Up to 14 daysyear of unpaid leave to obtain arestraining order attend court and seek legalassistance All employers

North Carolina (2004)General Statute sect 50B-55 amp sect 95-270(a)

Reasonable leave to obtain a restraining orderApplies to all employers

Oregon (2007)ldquoDomestic Violence Harassment Sexual Assaultor Stalking ProtectionsrdquoRevised Statute sectsect 659A270-290

Reasonable unpaid leave Employers with 6+employees

Pennsylvania (2009)Code sectsect 9-1103 amp 9-3200

4 to 8 weeksyear of unpaid leave Benefits varyby employer size

Rhode Island (2010)General Laws sect 12-28-10

Unspecified unpaid leave to obtain restrainingorder Prohibits discrimination All employers

Washington (2008)Domestic Violence Leave LawRevised Code sect4976

Unpaid job protected reasonable leave

Note aIf not otherwise specified leave is to seek legal assistance relocate or seek medical or IPVservices

Table IUS states withemploymentprotected leave lawsfor IPV

112

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

county (postings attachments to pay envelope e-mail announcements in meetings)Interested supervisors and employees contacted the research team who confirmedeligibility (18 years or older county employeesupervisor past year IPV experiencesupervising employee with past year IPV experience) and scheduled a private in-personor phone meeting at participantrsquos convenience time and location (eg church roomlibrary) outside work time The interviews were offered over a period of two years asthe parent study was being implemented

Interview protocol and procedureThe study team developed a short semi-structured interview protocol with fivequestions on IPV leave knowledge usage experience opinion and workplace supportto guide the interview ldquoHave you takensupervised a worker who has taken leave fromwork to deal with issues related to domestic violencerdquo ldquoDo you know that Oregon has aleave law for survivors of domestic violencerdquo ldquoIf you or a worker you supervise haveused it Can you describe your experience in taking the leave lawrdquo ldquoWe are interestedin what you think about the lawrdquo ldquoWe are interested in what you think the workplacecan do to help learn about and use the leave if neededrdquo

Before the interview started research staff collected oral consent permission todigitally audiotape the interview and a short demographic questionnaire (13 questions)The interviews took on average 38 min (range 18-68 min) Participants werereimbursed $30 for their time and expertise

Research assistants were trained to end the interview if participant showedpsychological distress locate local resources assess for immediate danger and followsafety procedures and scripts (Glass et al 2009) The study was approved by JohnsHopkins University and Oregon Health and Science University Institutional ReviewBoards (IRB)

Analytic processThe digitally recorded interviews were transcribed by research team members andno identifiers such as names were used on the study transcript Following StraussrsquoGrounded Theory approach to discover concepts and relationships in raw data(Strauss and Corbin 1990 Denzin and Lincoln 2011) a thematic analysis (Gibsonand Brown 2009) was performed Each transcript was read several times for deeperlevel of contextualization first for global understanding second to identify datarelevant to the protective leave and survivorrsquos health safety and employment thirdto perform inductive coding and categorization lead by participantsrsquo perspectivesand experiences and fourth to group and compare transcripts (eg employee vssupervisors) and identify patterns and possible relationships These pieces of datawere combined into meaningful units known as themes The transcripts wereuploaded into NVivo 7 (QSR International Doncaster Australia) for final analysisTrustworthiness and authenticity of qualitative data analysis was demonstratedby ensuring credibility (ldquovalidityrdquo) and confirmability (ldquoobjectivityrdquo) throughtriangulation and peer debriefing with team members of different expertise (Tobinand Begley 2004) Dependability was ensured by having a logical traceable andclearly documented audit trail Our primary approach was to analyze the interviewtranscripts and present the results qualitatively with individualized quotesHowever we also used a quantitative approach to compare visually the survivor andsupervisor groupsrsquo perspectives and experiences

113

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ResultsParticipant demographicsOut of 27 participants 17 participants (63 percent all women) were county employeeswith past year IPV The remaining ten participants (37 percent nine women and oneman) were county supervisors of employees with past year IPV The average age ofparticipants was 445 years (Table II)

Emerging themesThe interviews revealed four themes covering the impacts of IPV on survivorrsquosemployment situation and the usability of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law effects that IPV canhave on survivor IPV leave law knowledge and usage available IPV workplaceresources and supervisor support and IPV leave law dissemination andimplementation

Theme 1 IPV effects on survivorrsquos work health safety and family

We take our arguments with our spouses and our children and financial struggle [hellip] I meanthey all follow us in one shape or another whether or not they are at the forefront of our heador that or we are able to put them at the you know back of our head They still go with usand I think especially a recent victim of domestic violence thatrsquos gonna be something thatrsquosgonna be so encompassing and so overwhelming that there would just be no way for thatperson to focus legitimately at the job at hand (supervisor)

Employees Supervisors Total

Participants 17 10 27Different counties 9 5 11Female 17 9 26Age 408 years

(SD 1035)507 years(SD 785)

445 years(SD 1052)

Years of education(if 16+ taken as 16)

145 years(SD 146)

152 years(SD 114)

148 years(SD 137)

Duration at Current Position 53 years(SD 472)

113 years(SD 687)

75 years(SD 621)

No of employees supervising na 11(SD 1315)

RaceethnicityCaucasian 13 10 23Native American 1 0 1Hispanic 3 0 3

County Departmenta

Computeraccounting 3 0 3Health 5 3 8Justice 3 2 5Administration 5 5 10

EmploymentFull-time 11 9 20Part-time 6 1 7Note aOne employee did not answer the question

Table IIParticipantdemographics

114

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The majority of participants (78 percent) named at least one effect of IPV on theirhealth safety and family and almost all participants (96 percent) reported that IPV hasan effect on the workplace

Yeah and being in the situation Irsquom in itrsquos real itrsquos real volatile and I think itrsquos affected myhealth a lot so Irsquove missed a lot of work just because of being so worn down and and gettingsick itrsquos just kinda [hellip] I donrsquot know it just wears you down (employee)

The most frequently named effects on health safety and family included psychologicalhealth effects (59 percent of participants - being visibly ldquorattledrdquo ldquoworn downrdquoldquonervousrdquo ldquogrouchyrdquo ldquostressedrdquo ldquohystericalrdquo) effects on children and family(26 percent ndash abuserrsquos threat to talk bad about their mother to the children worriesabout reported child welfare and abuse) fear for safety (22 percent ndash being afraid ofabuser life threatening situations etc) physical effects (22 percent ndash visible marksblack eye) and mental illness (19 percent ndash depression anxiety)

She is involved with the child welfare system because of failure to protect she is not justhealing from her domestic violence from a man she is in love with her husband her soulmate she also has lost her children her daughter because of not protecting her becauseallowing the husband to stay in the home after hitting her (supervisor)

The most frequently named effects of IPV on work were time off (82 percent ndash takingleave due to IPV including comp time personal time vacation or sick time or IPV stateleave) and performance issues (56 percent ndash due to lack of concentration distractionemotional stress)

I thought I was ok you know tense and I didnrsquot think I was all that cranky or anything out ofthe unusual however when I had an evaluation a couple of months ago my superiors thoughtthat I was doing way too many disciplinary write-ups I was doing more than anybody else inthat period of time that it had affected me [hellip] negatively at work that it was an issue andyou know really came down on me a little bit for it (employee)

Further effects included stalking at work (26 percentndash abuser harassing through callsor appearances at the workplace) and safety at work (22 percent)

He um is very erratic and unstable and um he came to the workplace looking for her inviolation of her restraining order and um my co-worker tried to downplay things and keepkeep really calm [hellip] um but my boss got very angry with her because he decided that her ex-husband at this point was a threat to all of our safety and so he actually considered firing herum because of her mentally ill ex-husbandrsquos behavior (supervisor)

To go to work when you are dealing with something at home like that itrsquos horrible becauseyou canrsquot do your job I was in the position I was a program officer in my last job at the countyand Irsquoll Irsquom responsible to making sure inmates follow order I am responsible and I have to bea strong person and they could tell that something was wrong with me They could see it Andthat put my life in danger (employee)

Other reported effects were related to job position (15 percent ndash getting reprimandedlosing job) co-workers (11 percent ndash getting distracted due to talking about problems)and getting to work (7 percent ndash abuser keeping her from sleeping not fixing the car)

Theme 2 IPV leave law knowledge and usage

I didnrsquot know that I had those kind of options at work so I didnrsquot know that it would beappropriate for me to talk about it (employee)

115

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Most participants (74 percent) did not know about Oregonrsquos IPV leave law at time of theinterviews Seven participants reported knowledge of the law learned from theirsupervisors job position (eg mental health counselor) county intranet or policy Threeparticipants (11 percent) had used or were using the IPV leave In all 11 out of 17employees (65 percent) reported that they would have used or would use the IPV leaveif needed now that they are aware of it

Almost all participants (94 percent) considered the IPV leave law useful withbenefits of providing time off and job protection and it may even ldquodesensitizerdquo andeducate the workplace regarding IPV Some participants mentioned that the law mightnot be useful as it is unpaid One employee reported a negative opinion due toconfidentiality concerns when disclosing IPV in a small community

The most frequently mentioned reasons to use the IPV leave law were for legalmatters (74 percent ndash meeting with an attorney getting a restraining order going tocourt) finding safe housing (63 percent ndash moving finding shelter) counseling(59 percent) and taking time for rest and recovery (47 percent)

I think itrsquos really good to for I think that one of the things that the law speaks very clearlyabout is this is a this is a true step forward for not blaming the victim for realizing that itrsquosnot you know itrsquos not necessarily your fault if you end up in some sort of a domestic violencesituation (supervisor)

The most frequently mentioned barriers to usage of the IPV leave were job security (81percent) lack of payment (74 percent) stigma of being a victim (67 percent) andconfidentiality (52 percent) Despite being a job protected leave participants were stillafraid of losing their job being ldquoreprimandedrdquo ldquodowngradedrdquo that it would affect theldquoannual reviewrdquo or that ldquoit might pop you up on screen as being somebody that theynow take a note ofrdquo

I donrsquot think anyone would fire someone for that They might come up with another reasonand kind of go around the issue without saying it out loud But that could be the reason theemployer says lsquowe canrsquot have this person around because they are going to be trouble so theyare always having problems at home so letrsquos just get rid of themrsquo kind of thing Like thatrsquoswhat they are thinking but they are not going to say it out loud to the employee (employee)

Several participants mentioned that unpaid leave would not be an option as it ldquoreallyimpacts their ability to pay their billsrdquo and might even ldquoaggravate a situation and makethe survivor less saferdquo if the husband finds out they are on unpaid leave Participantsmentioned that women tend to use the paid vacation or sick times for taking care of asick child or pregnancy and would not have them available in a crisis related to IPV

Stigma included feeling shame and embarrassment to be in an abusive situationParticipants were concerned that co-workers would not respect them if the IPV becameknown and it would be especially difficult to be seen as a ldquovictimrdquo in a professionalsetting as it may affect their career opportunities

If you are a professional itrsquos itrsquos embarrassing You donrsquot want anyone to know you donrsquot wantit to affect your career you donrsquot want your employer to think you are stupid you are any lesssmart than they are that you had a drama in your life so I probably wouldnrsquot use it (employee)

Further barriers of IPV leave usage included fear for safety (41 percent ndash being ldquovisiblerdquoat the workplace is safer) denial of IPV (22 percent of participants) workload(22 percent ndash concerned ldquonot just not getting own work done but upsetting and addingto the workload of othersrdquo things would need ldquoto be rescheduled last minute and thatrsquos

116

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Originalityvalue ndash These results provide important recommendations to policymakers authoritiesand advocates on development implementation and evaluation of laws adopted to support employedIPV survivorsKeywords Domestic violence Qualitative research Intimate partner violence Supervisor supportWorkplace leave law Workplace policy implementationPaper type Research paper

IntroductionDomestic violence also known as intimate partner violence (IPV) may include physicalviolence sexual violence threats of violence andor emotional violence (Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2003 Saltzman et al 2002) About 30 percent ofwomen are affected worldwide by IPV and over one-third (356 percent) of women in theUSA experience IPV in their lifetime (Black et al 2011 World Health Organization 2013)IPV often results in long-term negative health economic and social consequences for thesurvivor and their family including effects on the survivorrsquos workplace and employmentsecurity (LaVan et al 2012 Swanberg et al 2006 Tolman 2011 Warshaw et al 2009)

Our study provides an examination of a workplace resource available to few IPVsurvivors globally employment protection The study provides insights from theperspective and experience of both employed survivors and their work supervisorsThe study focusses on the employment protection law for IPV survivors implementedin the US state of Oregon The Oregon law was passed in 2007 (ldquoDomestic ViolenceHarassment Sexual Assault or Stalking Protectionsrdquo Oregon Revised Statutesect 659A270) and provides employees who are survivors or parentsguardians of aminor child who is a survivor of IPV sexual assault criminal harassment or stalkingwith reasonable unpaid leave The employee may seek medical treatment counselinglegal assistance attend court hearings or relocate without fear of loss of employmentEmployees are eligible if working for an employer with more than five employees(Hayes 2013 Oregon Laws 2007)

Workplace impact of IPVResearch has demonstrated IPV spillover to the workplace affecting productivity andalso safety of the IPV survivor and possibly other employees (Adams et al 2012 Ariasand Corso 2005 Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) 2007 CDC 2003Crowne et al 2011 LaVan et al 2012 Plichta 2004 Reeves and OrsquoLeary-Kelly 2007Rivara et al 2007 Swanberg et al 2011 Swanberg and Logan 2005 Swanberg et al2006 Tolman 2011 World Health Organization 2013) Work-related consequences ofIPV include the abuser using work-interference tactics (harassing co-workers affectingemployeersquos ability to get to work stay at work) survivor absenteeism due to illnessinjury or mental health and reduced job performance and productivity due to employeersquosdifficulty concentrating and absence The most severe outcome of IPV results inhomicide with over one-third (38 percent) of all female murders in the US workplace(1982-2011) committed by an intimate partner (US Department of Labor Bureau of LaborStatistics 2013) IPV in the workplace leads to increased workplace costs the averageannual workplace costs for an IPV survivor is $2400 for absenteeism $4300 forworkplace distraction and $80 for tardiness (Reeves and OrsquoLeary-Kelly 2007)

State and workplace support and challengesDespite the well-known effects of IPV on the employee and workplace there iscurrently no required US federal employment protection law for IPV to support or

110

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

protect the employee and co-workers Several laws have been introduced to the USCongress but to date none of them have passed (Jacobs and Raghu 2010 EmploymentLaw Update 2011 GovTrackus 2014 Hayes 2013 Piotrowski-Govreau 2007 Runge2010) While 49 US states have workplace anti-discrimination laws for crime victimsonly four states (California Connecticut Illinois Kansas) have laws specifically for IPVsurvivors However 13 US states have IPV workplace awareness and safety policiesand three (New York Illinois Oklahoma) require workplace IPV education andtraining Only 15 US states and the District of Columbia provide protected leavespecifically to IPV survivors with Oregon being one of those states (Table I LegalMomentum 2013 Swanberg et al 2011)

However US state level differences in protected leave law requirements andcoverage makes implementation a challenge especially for national and multi-nationalcompanies For example Californiarsquos leave law for IPV survivors is criticized as it onlyapplies to businesses with at least 25 employees (Mattis 2010) limiting access forsurvivors working in smaller businesses Further awareness and knowledge ofIllinoisrsquos leave law by employers was still low in 2007 four years after enactment anddespite required postings in the workplace (Piotrowski-Govreau 2007)

Another major barrier for employers to address IPV at their workplace is the lack ofIPV disclosure and the resulting perception that IPV does not have an impact at theircompany and does not need to be addressed (87 percent of CEOrsquos CAEPV 2007) Only15 percent of US workplaces have a workplace IPV policy and only 4 percent havetraining on IPV (US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics 2006) Alsoproviding effective workplace support regarding IPV informal (supportive wordsscreening outside calls) or formal (IPV policies Employee Assistance Programs leavetime) may be challenging as each survivorrsquos needs are different and unwanted supportcan be experienced as intrusive and distressful (Katula 2012 Yragui et al 2012 Zinkand Sill 2004) Nonetheless effective workplace safety programs and support may leadto productive employees that are able to balance work and life benefiting the employeeand employer (Kossek et al 2011 Jackson and Garvin 2003 Perrin et al 2011 Ryanand Kossek 2008 Swanberg and Logan 2005)

PurposeTo date there are few studies that provide insight into usersrsquo experience with existingIPV leave laws (Swanberg and Logan 2005 Swanberg et al 2007 2012 LaVan et al2012 Katula 2012) As part of a parent National Institute of Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) funded study to evaluate the effectiveness of computer-based IPVtraining for supervisors our study begins to address this gap Qualitative researchtechniques were used to explore both IPV survivorsrsquo and supervisorsrsquo perspective andexperience with Oregonrsquos IPV protected leave law including perceived impact onsurvivorsrsquo employment as well as facilitators and barriers for using and implementingthe leave

MethodRecruitmentInterviews were conducted with county supervisors of employees with past year IPVand county employees who self-reported being IPV survivors in past year The HumanResource (HR) departments of 27 Oregon counties that participated in the parent studyassisted in distributing the recruitment flyer for survivors and supervisors in their

111

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Statelaw Benefitsa

California (2006)ldquoSurvivors of Domestic Violence EmploymentLeave ActrdquoLabor Code sectsect 230 amp 2301

Unpaid leave Benefits vary by employer size

Colorado (2002)Revised Statute sect 24-34-4027

Up to 3 daysyear of unpaid leave Employers of50+ employees

Connecticut (2010)Family Violence Leave LawGeneral Statute sect31-51ss

Up to 12 daysyear of unpaid leave Employerswith 3+ employees

District of Columbia (2008)ldquoEmployee Sick Leave for IPVrdquoDC Code sectsect 32-13101 32-13102 32-13103 amp32-13104

3-7 daysyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size

Florida (2007)General Statute 741313

Up to 3 daysyear of unpaid leave Employerswith 50+ employees

Hawaii (2012)Revised Statute sect378-72 amp sect378-73

5-30 daysyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size

Illinois (2003)ldquoVictimsrsquo Economic Security and Safety ActrdquoStatute 1801-18045

8-12 weeksyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size Employers with 15+ employees

Kansas (2007)ldquoEmployment Protections For Victims OfDomestic Violence And Sexual AssaultrdquoStatute sectsect44-1131 amp -1132

Up to 8 daysyear of unpaid leave All employers

Maine (2008)ldquoEmployment Leave for Victims of ViolencerdquoRevised Statute sect850

Reasonable and necessary unpaid leaveAll employers

New Jersey (2013)ldquoSecurity and Financial Empowerment ActrdquoSR 2177 PL 2013

20 daysyear of unpaid leave Employers with25+ employees

New Mexico (2009)ldquoPromoting Financial Independence for Victimsof Domestic Abuse ActrdquoStatute sect 50-4A-1-8

Up to 14 daysyear of unpaid leave to obtain arestraining order attend court and seek legalassistance All employers

North Carolina (2004)General Statute sect 50B-55 amp sect 95-270(a)

Reasonable leave to obtain a restraining orderApplies to all employers

Oregon (2007)ldquoDomestic Violence Harassment Sexual Assaultor Stalking ProtectionsrdquoRevised Statute sectsect 659A270-290

Reasonable unpaid leave Employers with 6+employees

Pennsylvania (2009)Code sectsect 9-1103 amp 9-3200

4 to 8 weeksyear of unpaid leave Benefits varyby employer size

Rhode Island (2010)General Laws sect 12-28-10

Unspecified unpaid leave to obtain restrainingorder Prohibits discrimination All employers

Washington (2008)Domestic Violence Leave LawRevised Code sect4976

Unpaid job protected reasonable leave

Note aIf not otherwise specified leave is to seek legal assistance relocate or seek medical or IPVservices

Table IUS states withemploymentprotected leave lawsfor IPV

112

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

county (postings attachments to pay envelope e-mail announcements in meetings)Interested supervisors and employees contacted the research team who confirmedeligibility (18 years or older county employeesupervisor past year IPV experiencesupervising employee with past year IPV experience) and scheduled a private in-personor phone meeting at participantrsquos convenience time and location (eg church roomlibrary) outside work time The interviews were offered over a period of two years asthe parent study was being implemented

Interview protocol and procedureThe study team developed a short semi-structured interview protocol with fivequestions on IPV leave knowledge usage experience opinion and workplace supportto guide the interview ldquoHave you takensupervised a worker who has taken leave fromwork to deal with issues related to domestic violencerdquo ldquoDo you know that Oregon has aleave law for survivors of domestic violencerdquo ldquoIf you or a worker you supervise haveused it Can you describe your experience in taking the leave lawrdquo ldquoWe are interestedin what you think about the lawrdquo ldquoWe are interested in what you think the workplacecan do to help learn about and use the leave if neededrdquo

Before the interview started research staff collected oral consent permission todigitally audiotape the interview and a short demographic questionnaire (13 questions)The interviews took on average 38 min (range 18-68 min) Participants werereimbursed $30 for their time and expertise

Research assistants were trained to end the interview if participant showedpsychological distress locate local resources assess for immediate danger and followsafety procedures and scripts (Glass et al 2009) The study was approved by JohnsHopkins University and Oregon Health and Science University Institutional ReviewBoards (IRB)

Analytic processThe digitally recorded interviews were transcribed by research team members andno identifiers such as names were used on the study transcript Following StraussrsquoGrounded Theory approach to discover concepts and relationships in raw data(Strauss and Corbin 1990 Denzin and Lincoln 2011) a thematic analysis (Gibsonand Brown 2009) was performed Each transcript was read several times for deeperlevel of contextualization first for global understanding second to identify datarelevant to the protective leave and survivorrsquos health safety and employment thirdto perform inductive coding and categorization lead by participantsrsquo perspectivesand experiences and fourth to group and compare transcripts (eg employee vssupervisors) and identify patterns and possible relationships These pieces of datawere combined into meaningful units known as themes The transcripts wereuploaded into NVivo 7 (QSR International Doncaster Australia) for final analysisTrustworthiness and authenticity of qualitative data analysis was demonstratedby ensuring credibility (ldquovalidityrdquo) and confirmability (ldquoobjectivityrdquo) throughtriangulation and peer debriefing with team members of different expertise (Tobinand Begley 2004) Dependability was ensured by having a logical traceable andclearly documented audit trail Our primary approach was to analyze the interviewtranscripts and present the results qualitatively with individualized quotesHowever we also used a quantitative approach to compare visually the survivor andsupervisor groupsrsquo perspectives and experiences

113

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ResultsParticipant demographicsOut of 27 participants 17 participants (63 percent all women) were county employeeswith past year IPV The remaining ten participants (37 percent nine women and oneman) were county supervisors of employees with past year IPV The average age ofparticipants was 445 years (Table II)

Emerging themesThe interviews revealed four themes covering the impacts of IPV on survivorrsquosemployment situation and the usability of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law effects that IPV canhave on survivor IPV leave law knowledge and usage available IPV workplaceresources and supervisor support and IPV leave law dissemination andimplementation

Theme 1 IPV effects on survivorrsquos work health safety and family

We take our arguments with our spouses and our children and financial struggle [hellip] I meanthey all follow us in one shape or another whether or not they are at the forefront of our heador that or we are able to put them at the you know back of our head They still go with usand I think especially a recent victim of domestic violence thatrsquos gonna be something thatrsquosgonna be so encompassing and so overwhelming that there would just be no way for thatperson to focus legitimately at the job at hand (supervisor)

Employees Supervisors Total

Participants 17 10 27Different counties 9 5 11Female 17 9 26Age 408 years

(SD 1035)507 years(SD 785)

445 years(SD 1052)

Years of education(if 16+ taken as 16)

145 years(SD 146)

152 years(SD 114)

148 years(SD 137)

Duration at Current Position 53 years(SD 472)

113 years(SD 687)

75 years(SD 621)

No of employees supervising na 11(SD 1315)

RaceethnicityCaucasian 13 10 23Native American 1 0 1Hispanic 3 0 3

County Departmenta

Computeraccounting 3 0 3Health 5 3 8Justice 3 2 5Administration 5 5 10

EmploymentFull-time 11 9 20Part-time 6 1 7Note aOne employee did not answer the question

Table IIParticipantdemographics

114

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The majority of participants (78 percent) named at least one effect of IPV on theirhealth safety and family and almost all participants (96 percent) reported that IPV hasan effect on the workplace

Yeah and being in the situation Irsquom in itrsquos real itrsquos real volatile and I think itrsquos affected myhealth a lot so Irsquove missed a lot of work just because of being so worn down and and gettingsick itrsquos just kinda [hellip] I donrsquot know it just wears you down (employee)

The most frequently named effects on health safety and family included psychologicalhealth effects (59 percent of participants - being visibly ldquorattledrdquo ldquoworn downrdquoldquonervousrdquo ldquogrouchyrdquo ldquostressedrdquo ldquohystericalrdquo) effects on children and family(26 percent ndash abuserrsquos threat to talk bad about their mother to the children worriesabout reported child welfare and abuse) fear for safety (22 percent ndash being afraid ofabuser life threatening situations etc) physical effects (22 percent ndash visible marksblack eye) and mental illness (19 percent ndash depression anxiety)

She is involved with the child welfare system because of failure to protect she is not justhealing from her domestic violence from a man she is in love with her husband her soulmate she also has lost her children her daughter because of not protecting her becauseallowing the husband to stay in the home after hitting her (supervisor)

The most frequently named effects of IPV on work were time off (82 percent ndash takingleave due to IPV including comp time personal time vacation or sick time or IPV stateleave) and performance issues (56 percent ndash due to lack of concentration distractionemotional stress)

I thought I was ok you know tense and I didnrsquot think I was all that cranky or anything out ofthe unusual however when I had an evaluation a couple of months ago my superiors thoughtthat I was doing way too many disciplinary write-ups I was doing more than anybody else inthat period of time that it had affected me [hellip] negatively at work that it was an issue andyou know really came down on me a little bit for it (employee)

Further effects included stalking at work (26 percentndash abuser harassing through callsor appearances at the workplace) and safety at work (22 percent)

He um is very erratic and unstable and um he came to the workplace looking for her inviolation of her restraining order and um my co-worker tried to downplay things and keepkeep really calm [hellip] um but my boss got very angry with her because he decided that her ex-husband at this point was a threat to all of our safety and so he actually considered firing herum because of her mentally ill ex-husbandrsquos behavior (supervisor)

To go to work when you are dealing with something at home like that itrsquos horrible becauseyou canrsquot do your job I was in the position I was a program officer in my last job at the countyand Irsquoll Irsquom responsible to making sure inmates follow order I am responsible and I have to bea strong person and they could tell that something was wrong with me They could see it Andthat put my life in danger (employee)

Other reported effects were related to job position (15 percent ndash getting reprimandedlosing job) co-workers (11 percent ndash getting distracted due to talking about problems)and getting to work (7 percent ndash abuser keeping her from sleeping not fixing the car)

Theme 2 IPV leave law knowledge and usage

I didnrsquot know that I had those kind of options at work so I didnrsquot know that it would beappropriate for me to talk about it (employee)

115

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Most participants (74 percent) did not know about Oregonrsquos IPV leave law at time of theinterviews Seven participants reported knowledge of the law learned from theirsupervisors job position (eg mental health counselor) county intranet or policy Threeparticipants (11 percent) had used or were using the IPV leave In all 11 out of 17employees (65 percent) reported that they would have used or would use the IPV leaveif needed now that they are aware of it

Almost all participants (94 percent) considered the IPV leave law useful withbenefits of providing time off and job protection and it may even ldquodesensitizerdquo andeducate the workplace regarding IPV Some participants mentioned that the law mightnot be useful as it is unpaid One employee reported a negative opinion due toconfidentiality concerns when disclosing IPV in a small community

The most frequently mentioned reasons to use the IPV leave law were for legalmatters (74 percent ndash meeting with an attorney getting a restraining order going tocourt) finding safe housing (63 percent ndash moving finding shelter) counseling(59 percent) and taking time for rest and recovery (47 percent)

I think itrsquos really good to for I think that one of the things that the law speaks very clearlyabout is this is a this is a true step forward for not blaming the victim for realizing that itrsquosnot you know itrsquos not necessarily your fault if you end up in some sort of a domestic violencesituation (supervisor)

The most frequently mentioned barriers to usage of the IPV leave were job security (81percent) lack of payment (74 percent) stigma of being a victim (67 percent) andconfidentiality (52 percent) Despite being a job protected leave participants were stillafraid of losing their job being ldquoreprimandedrdquo ldquodowngradedrdquo that it would affect theldquoannual reviewrdquo or that ldquoit might pop you up on screen as being somebody that theynow take a note ofrdquo

I donrsquot think anyone would fire someone for that They might come up with another reasonand kind of go around the issue without saying it out loud But that could be the reason theemployer says lsquowe canrsquot have this person around because they are going to be trouble so theyare always having problems at home so letrsquos just get rid of themrsquo kind of thing Like thatrsquoswhat they are thinking but they are not going to say it out loud to the employee (employee)

Several participants mentioned that unpaid leave would not be an option as it ldquoreallyimpacts their ability to pay their billsrdquo and might even ldquoaggravate a situation and makethe survivor less saferdquo if the husband finds out they are on unpaid leave Participantsmentioned that women tend to use the paid vacation or sick times for taking care of asick child or pregnancy and would not have them available in a crisis related to IPV

Stigma included feeling shame and embarrassment to be in an abusive situationParticipants were concerned that co-workers would not respect them if the IPV becameknown and it would be especially difficult to be seen as a ldquovictimrdquo in a professionalsetting as it may affect their career opportunities

If you are a professional itrsquos itrsquos embarrassing You donrsquot want anyone to know you donrsquot wantit to affect your career you donrsquot want your employer to think you are stupid you are any lesssmart than they are that you had a drama in your life so I probably wouldnrsquot use it (employee)

Further barriers of IPV leave usage included fear for safety (41 percent ndash being ldquovisiblerdquoat the workplace is safer) denial of IPV (22 percent of participants) workload(22 percent ndash concerned ldquonot just not getting own work done but upsetting and addingto the workload of othersrdquo things would need ldquoto be rescheduled last minute and thatrsquos

116

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

protect the employee and co-workers Several laws have been introduced to the USCongress but to date none of them have passed (Jacobs and Raghu 2010 EmploymentLaw Update 2011 GovTrackus 2014 Hayes 2013 Piotrowski-Govreau 2007 Runge2010) While 49 US states have workplace anti-discrimination laws for crime victimsonly four states (California Connecticut Illinois Kansas) have laws specifically for IPVsurvivors However 13 US states have IPV workplace awareness and safety policiesand three (New York Illinois Oklahoma) require workplace IPV education andtraining Only 15 US states and the District of Columbia provide protected leavespecifically to IPV survivors with Oregon being one of those states (Table I LegalMomentum 2013 Swanberg et al 2011)

However US state level differences in protected leave law requirements andcoverage makes implementation a challenge especially for national and multi-nationalcompanies For example Californiarsquos leave law for IPV survivors is criticized as it onlyapplies to businesses with at least 25 employees (Mattis 2010) limiting access forsurvivors working in smaller businesses Further awareness and knowledge ofIllinoisrsquos leave law by employers was still low in 2007 four years after enactment anddespite required postings in the workplace (Piotrowski-Govreau 2007)

Another major barrier for employers to address IPV at their workplace is the lack ofIPV disclosure and the resulting perception that IPV does not have an impact at theircompany and does not need to be addressed (87 percent of CEOrsquos CAEPV 2007) Only15 percent of US workplaces have a workplace IPV policy and only 4 percent havetraining on IPV (US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics 2006) Alsoproviding effective workplace support regarding IPV informal (supportive wordsscreening outside calls) or formal (IPV policies Employee Assistance Programs leavetime) may be challenging as each survivorrsquos needs are different and unwanted supportcan be experienced as intrusive and distressful (Katula 2012 Yragui et al 2012 Zinkand Sill 2004) Nonetheless effective workplace safety programs and support may leadto productive employees that are able to balance work and life benefiting the employeeand employer (Kossek et al 2011 Jackson and Garvin 2003 Perrin et al 2011 Ryanand Kossek 2008 Swanberg and Logan 2005)

PurposeTo date there are few studies that provide insight into usersrsquo experience with existingIPV leave laws (Swanberg and Logan 2005 Swanberg et al 2007 2012 LaVan et al2012 Katula 2012) As part of a parent National Institute of Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) funded study to evaluate the effectiveness of computer-based IPVtraining for supervisors our study begins to address this gap Qualitative researchtechniques were used to explore both IPV survivorsrsquo and supervisorsrsquo perspective andexperience with Oregonrsquos IPV protected leave law including perceived impact onsurvivorsrsquo employment as well as facilitators and barriers for using and implementingthe leave

MethodRecruitmentInterviews were conducted with county supervisors of employees with past year IPVand county employees who self-reported being IPV survivors in past year The HumanResource (HR) departments of 27 Oregon counties that participated in the parent studyassisted in distributing the recruitment flyer for survivors and supervisors in their

111

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Statelaw Benefitsa

California (2006)ldquoSurvivors of Domestic Violence EmploymentLeave ActrdquoLabor Code sectsect 230 amp 2301

Unpaid leave Benefits vary by employer size

Colorado (2002)Revised Statute sect 24-34-4027

Up to 3 daysyear of unpaid leave Employers of50+ employees

Connecticut (2010)Family Violence Leave LawGeneral Statute sect31-51ss

Up to 12 daysyear of unpaid leave Employerswith 3+ employees

District of Columbia (2008)ldquoEmployee Sick Leave for IPVrdquoDC Code sectsect 32-13101 32-13102 32-13103 amp32-13104

3-7 daysyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size

Florida (2007)General Statute 741313

Up to 3 daysyear of unpaid leave Employerswith 50+ employees

Hawaii (2012)Revised Statute sect378-72 amp sect378-73

5-30 daysyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size

Illinois (2003)ldquoVictimsrsquo Economic Security and Safety ActrdquoStatute 1801-18045

8-12 weeksyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size Employers with 15+ employees

Kansas (2007)ldquoEmployment Protections For Victims OfDomestic Violence And Sexual AssaultrdquoStatute sectsect44-1131 amp -1132

Up to 8 daysyear of unpaid leave All employers

Maine (2008)ldquoEmployment Leave for Victims of ViolencerdquoRevised Statute sect850

Reasonable and necessary unpaid leaveAll employers

New Jersey (2013)ldquoSecurity and Financial Empowerment ActrdquoSR 2177 PL 2013

20 daysyear of unpaid leave Employers with25+ employees

New Mexico (2009)ldquoPromoting Financial Independence for Victimsof Domestic Abuse ActrdquoStatute sect 50-4A-1-8

Up to 14 daysyear of unpaid leave to obtain arestraining order attend court and seek legalassistance All employers

North Carolina (2004)General Statute sect 50B-55 amp sect 95-270(a)

Reasonable leave to obtain a restraining orderApplies to all employers

Oregon (2007)ldquoDomestic Violence Harassment Sexual Assaultor Stalking ProtectionsrdquoRevised Statute sectsect 659A270-290

Reasonable unpaid leave Employers with 6+employees

Pennsylvania (2009)Code sectsect 9-1103 amp 9-3200

4 to 8 weeksyear of unpaid leave Benefits varyby employer size

Rhode Island (2010)General Laws sect 12-28-10

Unspecified unpaid leave to obtain restrainingorder Prohibits discrimination All employers

Washington (2008)Domestic Violence Leave LawRevised Code sect4976

Unpaid job protected reasonable leave

Note aIf not otherwise specified leave is to seek legal assistance relocate or seek medical or IPVservices

Table IUS states withemploymentprotected leave lawsfor IPV

112

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

county (postings attachments to pay envelope e-mail announcements in meetings)Interested supervisors and employees contacted the research team who confirmedeligibility (18 years or older county employeesupervisor past year IPV experiencesupervising employee with past year IPV experience) and scheduled a private in-personor phone meeting at participantrsquos convenience time and location (eg church roomlibrary) outside work time The interviews were offered over a period of two years asthe parent study was being implemented

Interview protocol and procedureThe study team developed a short semi-structured interview protocol with fivequestions on IPV leave knowledge usage experience opinion and workplace supportto guide the interview ldquoHave you takensupervised a worker who has taken leave fromwork to deal with issues related to domestic violencerdquo ldquoDo you know that Oregon has aleave law for survivors of domestic violencerdquo ldquoIf you or a worker you supervise haveused it Can you describe your experience in taking the leave lawrdquo ldquoWe are interestedin what you think about the lawrdquo ldquoWe are interested in what you think the workplacecan do to help learn about and use the leave if neededrdquo

Before the interview started research staff collected oral consent permission todigitally audiotape the interview and a short demographic questionnaire (13 questions)The interviews took on average 38 min (range 18-68 min) Participants werereimbursed $30 for their time and expertise

Research assistants were trained to end the interview if participant showedpsychological distress locate local resources assess for immediate danger and followsafety procedures and scripts (Glass et al 2009) The study was approved by JohnsHopkins University and Oregon Health and Science University Institutional ReviewBoards (IRB)

Analytic processThe digitally recorded interviews were transcribed by research team members andno identifiers such as names were used on the study transcript Following StraussrsquoGrounded Theory approach to discover concepts and relationships in raw data(Strauss and Corbin 1990 Denzin and Lincoln 2011) a thematic analysis (Gibsonand Brown 2009) was performed Each transcript was read several times for deeperlevel of contextualization first for global understanding second to identify datarelevant to the protective leave and survivorrsquos health safety and employment thirdto perform inductive coding and categorization lead by participantsrsquo perspectivesand experiences and fourth to group and compare transcripts (eg employee vssupervisors) and identify patterns and possible relationships These pieces of datawere combined into meaningful units known as themes The transcripts wereuploaded into NVivo 7 (QSR International Doncaster Australia) for final analysisTrustworthiness and authenticity of qualitative data analysis was demonstratedby ensuring credibility (ldquovalidityrdquo) and confirmability (ldquoobjectivityrdquo) throughtriangulation and peer debriefing with team members of different expertise (Tobinand Begley 2004) Dependability was ensured by having a logical traceable andclearly documented audit trail Our primary approach was to analyze the interviewtranscripts and present the results qualitatively with individualized quotesHowever we also used a quantitative approach to compare visually the survivor andsupervisor groupsrsquo perspectives and experiences

113

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ResultsParticipant demographicsOut of 27 participants 17 participants (63 percent all women) were county employeeswith past year IPV The remaining ten participants (37 percent nine women and oneman) were county supervisors of employees with past year IPV The average age ofparticipants was 445 years (Table II)

Emerging themesThe interviews revealed four themes covering the impacts of IPV on survivorrsquosemployment situation and the usability of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law effects that IPV canhave on survivor IPV leave law knowledge and usage available IPV workplaceresources and supervisor support and IPV leave law dissemination andimplementation

Theme 1 IPV effects on survivorrsquos work health safety and family

We take our arguments with our spouses and our children and financial struggle [hellip] I meanthey all follow us in one shape or another whether or not they are at the forefront of our heador that or we are able to put them at the you know back of our head They still go with usand I think especially a recent victim of domestic violence thatrsquos gonna be something thatrsquosgonna be so encompassing and so overwhelming that there would just be no way for thatperson to focus legitimately at the job at hand (supervisor)

Employees Supervisors Total

Participants 17 10 27Different counties 9 5 11Female 17 9 26Age 408 years

(SD 1035)507 years(SD 785)

445 years(SD 1052)

Years of education(if 16+ taken as 16)

145 years(SD 146)

152 years(SD 114)

148 years(SD 137)

Duration at Current Position 53 years(SD 472)

113 years(SD 687)

75 years(SD 621)

No of employees supervising na 11(SD 1315)

RaceethnicityCaucasian 13 10 23Native American 1 0 1Hispanic 3 0 3

County Departmenta

Computeraccounting 3 0 3Health 5 3 8Justice 3 2 5Administration 5 5 10

EmploymentFull-time 11 9 20Part-time 6 1 7Note aOne employee did not answer the question

Table IIParticipantdemographics

114

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The majority of participants (78 percent) named at least one effect of IPV on theirhealth safety and family and almost all participants (96 percent) reported that IPV hasan effect on the workplace

Yeah and being in the situation Irsquom in itrsquos real itrsquos real volatile and I think itrsquos affected myhealth a lot so Irsquove missed a lot of work just because of being so worn down and and gettingsick itrsquos just kinda [hellip] I donrsquot know it just wears you down (employee)

The most frequently named effects on health safety and family included psychologicalhealth effects (59 percent of participants - being visibly ldquorattledrdquo ldquoworn downrdquoldquonervousrdquo ldquogrouchyrdquo ldquostressedrdquo ldquohystericalrdquo) effects on children and family(26 percent ndash abuserrsquos threat to talk bad about their mother to the children worriesabout reported child welfare and abuse) fear for safety (22 percent ndash being afraid ofabuser life threatening situations etc) physical effects (22 percent ndash visible marksblack eye) and mental illness (19 percent ndash depression anxiety)

She is involved with the child welfare system because of failure to protect she is not justhealing from her domestic violence from a man she is in love with her husband her soulmate she also has lost her children her daughter because of not protecting her becauseallowing the husband to stay in the home after hitting her (supervisor)

The most frequently named effects of IPV on work were time off (82 percent ndash takingleave due to IPV including comp time personal time vacation or sick time or IPV stateleave) and performance issues (56 percent ndash due to lack of concentration distractionemotional stress)

I thought I was ok you know tense and I didnrsquot think I was all that cranky or anything out ofthe unusual however when I had an evaluation a couple of months ago my superiors thoughtthat I was doing way too many disciplinary write-ups I was doing more than anybody else inthat period of time that it had affected me [hellip] negatively at work that it was an issue andyou know really came down on me a little bit for it (employee)

Further effects included stalking at work (26 percentndash abuser harassing through callsor appearances at the workplace) and safety at work (22 percent)

He um is very erratic and unstable and um he came to the workplace looking for her inviolation of her restraining order and um my co-worker tried to downplay things and keepkeep really calm [hellip] um but my boss got very angry with her because he decided that her ex-husband at this point was a threat to all of our safety and so he actually considered firing herum because of her mentally ill ex-husbandrsquos behavior (supervisor)

To go to work when you are dealing with something at home like that itrsquos horrible becauseyou canrsquot do your job I was in the position I was a program officer in my last job at the countyand Irsquoll Irsquom responsible to making sure inmates follow order I am responsible and I have to bea strong person and they could tell that something was wrong with me They could see it Andthat put my life in danger (employee)

Other reported effects were related to job position (15 percent ndash getting reprimandedlosing job) co-workers (11 percent ndash getting distracted due to talking about problems)and getting to work (7 percent ndash abuser keeping her from sleeping not fixing the car)

Theme 2 IPV leave law knowledge and usage

I didnrsquot know that I had those kind of options at work so I didnrsquot know that it would beappropriate for me to talk about it (employee)

115

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Most participants (74 percent) did not know about Oregonrsquos IPV leave law at time of theinterviews Seven participants reported knowledge of the law learned from theirsupervisors job position (eg mental health counselor) county intranet or policy Threeparticipants (11 percent) had used or were using the IPV leave In all 11 out of 17employees (65 percent) reported that they would have used or would use the IPV leaveif needed now that they are aware of it

Almost all participants (94 percent) considered the IPV leave law useful withbenefits of providing time off and job protection and it may even ldquodesensitizerdquo andeducate the workplace regarding IPV Some participants mentioned that the law mightnot be useful as it is unpaid One employee reported a negative opinion due toconfidentiality concerns when disclosing IPV in a small community

The most frequently mentioned reasons to use the IPV leave law were for legalmatters (74 percent ndash meeting with an attorney getting a restraining order going tocourt) finding safe housing (63 percent ndash moving finding shelter) counseling(59 percent) and taking time for rest and recovery (47 percent)

I think itrsquos really good to for I think that one of the things that the law speaks very clearlyabout is this is a this is a true step forward for not blaming the victim for realizing that itrsquosnot you know itrsquos not necessarily your fault if you end up in some sort of a domestic violencesituation (supervisor)

The most frequently mentioned barriers to usage of the IPV leave were job security (81percent) lack of payment (74 percent) stigma of being a victim (67 percent) andconfidentiality (52 percent) Despite being a job protected leave participants were stillafraid of losing their job being ldquoreprimandedrdquo ldquodowngradedrdquo that it would affect theldquoannual reviewrdquo or that ldquoit might pop you up on screen as being somebody that theynow take a note ofrdquo

I donrsquot think anyone would fire someone for that They might come up with another reasonand kind of go around the issue without saying it out loud But that could be the reason theemployer says lsquowe canrsquot have this person around because they are going to be trouble so theyare always having problems at home so letrsquos just get rid of themrsquo kind of thing Like thatrsquoswhat they are thinking but they are not going to say it out loud to the employee (employee)

Several participants mentioned that unpaid leave would not be an option as it ldquoreallyimpacts their ability to pay their billsrdquo and might even ldquoaggravate a situation and makethe survivor less saferdquo if the husband finds out they are on unpaid leave Participantsmentioned that women tend to use the paid vacation or sick times for taking care of asick child or pregnancy and would not have them available in a crisis related to IPV

Stigma included feeling shame and embarrassment to be in an abusive situationParticipants were concerned that co-workers would not respect them if the IPV becameknown and it would be especially difficult to be seen as a ldquovictimrdquo in a professionalsetting as it may affect their career opportunities

If you are a professional itrsquos itrsquos embarrassing You donrsquot want anyone to know you donrsquot wantit to affect your career you donrsquot want your employer to think you are stupid you are any lesssmart than they are that you had a drama in your life so I probably wouldnrsquot use it (employee)

Further barriers of IPV leave usage included fear for safety (41 percent ndash being ldquovisiblerdquoat the workplace is safer) denial of IPV (22 percent of participants) workload(22 percent ndash concerned ldquonot just not getting own work done but upsetting and addingto the workload of othersrdquo things would need ldquoto be rescheduled last minute and thatrsquos

116

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Statelaw Benefitsa

California (2006)ldquoSurvivors of Domestic Violence EmploymentLeave ActrdquoLabor Code sectsect 230 amp 2301

Unpaid leave Benefits vary by employer size

Colorado (2002)Revised Statute sect 24-34-4027

Up to 3 daysyear of unpaid leave Employers of50+ employees

Connecticut (2010)Family Violence Leave LawGeneral Statute sect31-51ss

Up to 12 daysyear of unpaid leave Employerswith 3+ employees

District of Columbia (2008)ldquoEmployee Sick Leave for IPVrdquoDC Code sectsect 32-13101 32-13102 32-13103 amp32-13104

3-7 daysyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size

Florida (2007)General Statute 741313

Up to 3 daysyear of unpaid leave Employerswith 50+ employees

Hawaii (2012)Revised Statute sect378-72 amp sect378-73

5-30 daysyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size

Illinois (2003)ldquoVictimsrsquo Economic Security and Safety ActrdquoStatute 1801-18045

8-12 weeksyear of paid leave Benefits vary byemployer size Employers with 15+ employees

Kansas (2007)ldquoEmployment Protections For Victims OfDomestic Violence And Sexual AssaultrdquoStatute sectsect44-1131 amp -1132

Up to 8 daysyear of unpaid leave All employers

Maine (2008)ldquoEmployment Leave for Victims of ViolencerdquoRevised Statute sect850

Reasonable and necessary unpaid leaveAll employers

New Jersey (2013)ldquoSecurity and Financial Empowerment ActrdquoSR 2177 PL 2013

20 daysyear of unpaid leave Employers with25+ employees

New Mexico (2009)ldquoPromoting Financial Independence for Victimsof Domestic Abuse ActrdquoStatute sect 50-4A-1-8

Up to 14 daysyear of unpaid leave to obtain arestraining order attend court and seek legalassistance All employers

North Carolina (2004)General Statute sect 50B-55 amp sect 95-270(a)

Reasonable leave to obtain a restraining orderApplies to all employers

Oregon (2007)ldquoDomestic Violence Harassment Sexual Assaultor Stalking ProtectionsrdquoRevised Statute sectsect 659A270-290

Reasonable unpaid leave Employers with 6+employees

Pennsylvania (2009)Code sectsect 9-1103 amp 9-3200

4 to 8 weeksyear of unpaid leave Benefits varyby employer size

Rhode Island (2010)General Laws sect 12-28-10

Unspecified unpaid leave to obtain restrainingorder Prohibits discrimination All employers

Washington (2008)Domestic Violence Leave LawRevised Code sect4976

Unpaid job protected reasonable leave

Note aIf not otherwise specified leave is to seek legal assistance relocate or seek medical or IPVservices

Table IUS states withemploymentprotected leave lawsfor IPV

112

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

county (postings attachments to pay envelope e-mail announcements in meetings)Interested supervisors and employees contacted the research team who confirmedeligibility (18 years or older county employeesupervisor past year IPV experiencesupervising employee with past year IPV experience) and scheduled a private in-personor phone meeting at participantrsquos convenience time and location (eg church roomlibrary) outside work time The interviews were offered over a period of two years asthe parent study was being implemented

Interview protocol and procedureThe study team developed a short semi-structured interview protocol with fivequestions on IPV leave knowledge usage experience opinion and workplace supportto guide the interview ldquoHave you takensupervised a worker who has taken leave fromwork to deal with issues related to domestic violencerdquo ldquoDo you know that Oregon has aleave law for survivors of domestic violencerdquo ldquoIf you or a worker you supervise haveused it Can you describe your experience in taking the leave lawrdquo ldquoWe are interestedin what you think about the lawrdquo ldquoWe are interested in what you think the workplacecan do to help learn about and use the leave if neededrdquo

Before the interview started research staff collected oral consent permission todigitally audiotape the interview and a short demographic questionnaire (13 questions)The interviews took on average 38 min (range 18-68 min) Participants werereimbursed $30 for their time and expertise

Research assistants were trained to end the interview if participant showedpsychological distress locate local resources assess for immediate danger and followsafety procedures and scripts (Glass et al 2009) The study was approved by JohnsHopkins University and Oregon Health and Science University Institutional ReviewBoards (IRB)

Analytic processThe digitally recorded interviews were transcribed by research team members andno identifiers such as names were used on the study transcript Following StraussrsquoGrounded Theory approach to discover concepts and relationships in raw data(Strauss and Corbin 1990 Denzin and Lincoln 2011) a thematic analysis (Gibsonand Brown 2009) was performed Each transcript was read several times for deeperlevel of contextualization first for global understanding second to identify datarelevant to the protective leave and survivorrsquos health safety and employment thirdto perform inductive coding and categorization lead by participantsrsquo perspectivesand experiences and fourth to group and compare transcripts (eg employee vssupervisors) and identify patterns and possible relationships These pieces of datawere combined into meaningful units known as themes The transcripts wereuploaded into NVivo 7 (QSR International Doncaster Australia) for final analysisTrustworthiness and authenticity of qualitative data analysis was demonstratedby ensuring credibility (ldquovalidityrdquo) and confirmability (ldquoobjectivityrdquo) throughtriangulation and peer debriefing with team members of different expertise (Tobinand Begley 2004) Dependability was ensured by having a logical traceable andclearly documented audit trail Our primary approach was to analyze the interviewtranscripts and present the results qualitatively with individualized quotesHowever we also used a quantitative approach to compare visually the survivor andsupervisor groupsrsquo perspectives and experiences

113

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ResultsParticipant demographicsOut of 27 participants 17 participants (63 percent all women) were county employeeswith past year IPV The remaining ten participants (37 percent nine women and oneman) were county supervisors of employees with past year IPV The average age ofparticipants was 445 years (Table II)

Emerging themesThe interviews revealed four themes covering the impacts of IPV on survivorrsquosemployment situation and the usability of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law effects that IPV canhave on survivor IPV leave law knowledge and usage available IPV workplaceresources and supervisor support and IPV leave law dissemination andimplementation

Theme 1 IPV effects on survivorrsquos work health safety and family

We take our arguments with our spouses and our children and financial struggle [hellip] I meanthey all follow us in one shape or another whether or not they are at the forefront of our heador that or we are able to put them at the you know back of our head They still go with usand I think especially a recent victim of domestic violence thatrsquos gonna be something thatrsquosgonna be so encompassing and so overwhelming that there would just be no way for thatperson to focus legitimately at the job at hand (supervisor)

Employees Supervisors Total

Participants 17 10 27Different counties 9 5 11Female 17 9 26Age 408 years

(SD 1035)507 years(SD 785)

445 years(SD 1052)

Years of education(if 16+ taken as 16)

145 years(SD 146)

152 years(SD 114)

148 years(SD 137)

Duration at Current Position 53 years(SD 472)

113 years(SD 687)

75 years(SD 621)

No of employees supervising na 11(SD 1315)

RaceethnicityCaucasian 13 10 23Native American 1 0 1Hispanic 3 0 3

County Departmenta

Computeraccounting 3 0 3Health 5 3 8Justice 3 2 5Administration 5 5 10

EmploymentFull-time 11 9 20Part-time 6 1 7Note aOne employee did not answer the question

Table IIParticipantdemographics

114

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The majority of participants (78 percent) named at least one effect of IPV on theirhealth safety and family and almost all participants (96 percent) reported that IPV hasan effect on the workplace

Yeah and being in the situation Irsquom in itrsquos real itrsquos real volatile and I think itrsquos affected myhealth a lot so Irsquove missed a lot of work just because of being so worn down and and gettingsick itrsquos just kinda [hellip] I donrsquot know it just wears you down (employee)

The most frequently named effects on health safety and family included psychologicalhealth effects (59 percent of participants - being visibly ldquorattledrdquo ldquoworn downrdquoldquonervousrdquo ldquogrouchyrdquo ldquostressedrdquo ldquohystericalrdquo) effects on children and family(26 percent ndash abuserrsquos threat to talk bad about their mother to the children worriesabout reported child welfare and abuse) fear for safety (22 percent ndash being afraid ofabuser life threatening situations etc) physical effects (22 percent ndash visible marksblack eye) and mental illness (19 percent ndash depression anxiety)

She is involved with the child welfare system because of failure to protect she is not justhealing from her domestic violence from a man she is in love with her husband her soulmate she also has lost her children her daughter because of not protecting her becauseallowing the husband to stay in the home after hitting her (supervisor)

The most frequently named effects of IPV on work were time off (82 percent ndash takingleave due to IPV including comp time personal time vacation or sick time or IPV stateleave) and performance issues (56 percent ndash due to lack of concentration distractionemotional stress)

I thought I was ok you know tense and I didnrsquot think I was all that cranky or anything out ofthe unusual however when I had an evaluation a couple of months ago my superiors thoughtthat I was doing way too many disciplinary write-ups I was doing more than anybody else inthat period of time that it had affected me [hellip] negatively at work that it was an issue andyou know really came down on me a little bit for it (employee)

Further effects included stalking at work (26 percentndash abuser harassing through callsor appearances at the workplace) and safety at work (22 percent)

He um is very erratic and unstable and um he came to the workplace looking for her inviolation of her restraining order and um my co-worker tried to downplay things and keepkeep really calm [hellip] um but my boss got very angry with her because he decided that her ex-husband at this point was a threat to all of our safety and so he actually considered firing herum because of her mentally ill ex-husbandrsquos behavior (supervisor)

To go to work when you are dealing with something at home like that itrsquos horrible becauseyou canrsquot do your job I was in the position I was a program officer in my last job at the countyand Irsquoll Irsquom responsible to making sure inmates follow order I am responsible and I have to bea strong person and they could tell that something was wrong with me They could see it Andthat put my life in danger (employee)

Other reported effects were related to job position (15 percent ndash getting reprimandedlosing job) co-workers (11 percent ndash getting distracted due to talking about problems)and getting to work (7 percent ndash abuser keeping her from sleeping not fixing the car)

Theme 2 IPV leave law knowledge and usage

I didnrsquot know that I had those kind of options at work so I didnrsquot know that it would beappropriate for me to talk about it (employee)

115

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Most participants (74 percent) did not know about Oregonrsquos IPV leave law at time of theinterviews Seven participants reported knowledge of the law learned from theirsupervisors job position (eg mental health counselor) county intranet or policy Threeparticipants (11 percent) had used or were using the IPV leave In all 11 out of 17employees (65 percent) reported that they would have used or would use the IPV leaveif needed now that they are aware of it

Almost all participants (94 percent) considered the IPV leave law useful withbenefits of providing time off and job protection and it may even ldquodesensitizerdquo andeducate the workplace regarding IPV Some participants mentioned that the law mightnot be useful as it is unpaid One employee reported a negative opinion due toconfidentiality concerns when disclosing IPV in a small community

The most frequently mentioned reasons to use the IPV leave law were for legalmatters (74 percent ndash meeting with an attorney getting a restraining order going tocourt) finding safe housing (63 percent ndash moving finding shelter) counseling(59 percent) and taking time for rest and recovery (47 percent)

I think itrsquos really good to for I think that one of the things that the law speaks very clearlyabout is this is a this is a true step forward for not blaming the victim for realizing that itrsquosnot you know itrsquos not necessarily your fault if you end up in some sort of a domestic violencesituation (supervisor)

The most frequently mentioned barriers to usage of the IPV leave were job security (81percent) lack of payment (74 percent) stigma of being a victim (67 percent) andconfidentiality (52 percent) Despite being a job protected leave participants were stillafraid of losing their job being ldquoreprimandedrdquo ldquodowngradedrdquo that it would affect theldquoannual reviewrdquo or that ldquoit might pop you up on screen as being somebody that theynow take a note ofrdquo

I donrsquot think anyone would fire someone for that They might come up with another reasonand kind of go around the issue without saying it out loud But that could be the reason theemployer says lsquowe canrsquot have this person around because they are going to be trouble so theyare always having problems at home so letrsquos just get rid of themrsquo kind of thing Like thatrsquoswhat they are thinking but they are not going to say it out loud to the employee (employee)

Several participants mentioned that unpaid leave would not be an option as it ldquoreallyimpacts their ability to pay their billsrdquo and might even ldquoaggravate a situation and makethe survivor less saferdquo if the husband finds out they are on unpaid leave Participantsmentioned that women tend to use the paid vacation or sick times for taking care of asick child or pregnancy and would not have them available in a crisis related to IPV

Stigma included feeling shame and embarrassment to be in an abusive situationParticipants were concerned that co-workers would not respect them if the IPV becameknown and it would be especially difficult to be seen as a ldquovictimrdquo in a professionalsetting as it may affect their career opportunities

If you are a professional itrsquos itrsquos embarrassing You donrsquot want anyone to know you donrsquot wantit to affect your career you donrsquot want your employer to think you are stupid you are any lesssmart than they are that you had a drama in your life so I probably wouldnrsquot use it (employee)

Further barriers of IPV leave usage included fear for safety (41 percent ndash being ldquovisiblerdquoat the workplace is safer) denial of IPV (22 percent of participants) workload(22 percent ndash concerned ldquonot just not getting own work done but upsetting and addingto the workload of othersrdquo things would need ldquoto be rescheduled last minute and thatrsquos

116

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

county (postings attachments to pay envelope e-mail announcements in meetings)Interested supervisors and employees contacted the research team who confirmedeligibility (18 years or older county employeesupervisor past year IPV experiencesupervising employee with past year IPV experience) and scheduled a private in-personor phone meeting at participantrsquos convenience time and location (eg church roomlibrary) outside work time The interviews were offered over a period of two years asthe parent study was being implemented

Interview protocol and procedureThe study team developed a short semi-structured interview protocol with fivequestions on IPV leave knowledge usage experience opinion and workplace supportto guide the interview ldquoHave you takensupervised a worker who has taken leave fromwork to deal with issues related to domestic violencerdquo ldquoDo you know that Oregon has aleave law for survivors of domestic violencerdquo ldquoIf you or a worker you supervise haveused it Can you describe your experience in taking the leave lawrdquo ldquoWe are interestedin what you think about the lawrdquo ldquoWe are interested in what you think the workplacecan do to help learn about and use the leave if neededrdquo

Before the interview started research staff collected oral consent permission todigitally audiotape the interview and a short demographic questionnaire (13 questions)The interviews took on average 38 min (range 18-68 min) Participants werereimbursed $30 for their time and expertise

Research assistants were trained to end the interview if participant showedpsychological distress locate local resources assess for immediate danger and followsafety procedures and scripts (Glass et al 2009) The study was approved by JohnsHopkins University and Oregon Health and Science University Institutional ReviewBoards (IRB)

Analytic processThe digitally recorded interviews were transcribed by research team members andno identifiers such as names were used on the study transcript Following StraussrsquoGrounded Theory approach to discover concepts and relationships in raw data(Strauss and Corbin 1990 Denzin and Lincoln 2011) a thematic analysis (Gibsonand Brown 2009) was performed Each transcript was read several times for deeperlevel of contextualization first for global understanding second to identify datarelevant to the protective leave and survivorrsquos health safety and employment thirdto perform inductive coding and categorization lead by participantsrsquo perspectivesand experiences and fourth to group and compare transcripts (eg employee vssupervisors) and identify patterns and possible relationships These pieces of datawere combined into meaningful units known as themes The transcripts wereuploaded into NVivo 7 (QSR International Doncaster Australia) for final analysisTrustworthiness and authenticity of qualitative data analysis was demonstratedby ensuring credibility (ldquovalidityrdquo) and confirmability (ldquoobjectivityrdquo) throughtriangulation and peer debriefing with team members of different expertise (Tobinand Begley 2004) Dependability was ensured by having a logical traceable andclearly documented audit trail Our primary approach was to analyze the interviewtranscripts and present the results qualitatively with individualized quotesHowever we also used a quantitative approach to compare visually the survivor andsupervisor groupsrsquo perspectives and experiences

113

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ResultsParticipant demographicsOut of 27 participants 17 participants (63 percent all women) were county employeeswith past year IPV The remaining ten participants (37 percent nine women and oneman) were county supervisors of employees with past year IPV The average age ofparticipants was 445 years (Table II)

Emerging themesThe interviews revealed four themes covering the impacts of IPV on survivorrsquosemployment situation and the usability of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law effects that IPV canhave on survivor IPV leave law knowledge and usage available IPV workplaceresources and supervisor support and IPV leave law dissemination andimplementation

Theme 1 IPV effects on survivorrsquos work health safety and family

We take our arguments with our spouses and our children and financial struggle [hellip] I meanthey all follow us in one shape or another whether or not they are at the forefront of our heador that or we are able to put them at the you know back of our head They still go with usand I think especially a recent victim of domestic violence thatrsquos gonna be something thatrsquosgonna be so encompassing and so overwhelming that there would just be no way for thatperson to focus legitimately at the job at hand (supervisor)

Employees Supervisors Total

Participants 17 10 27Different counties 9 5 11Female 17 9 26Age 408 years

(SD 1035)507 years(SD 785)

445 years(SD 1052)

Years of education(if 16+ taken as 16)

145 years(SD 146)

152 years(SD 114)

148 years(SD 137)

Duration at Current Position 53 years(SD 472)

113 years(SD 687)

75 years(SD 621)

No of employees supervising na 11(SD 1315)

RaceethnicityCaucasian 13 10 23Native American 1 0 1Hispanic 3 0 3

County Departmenta

Computeraccounting 3 0 3Health 5 3 8Justice 3 2 5Administration 5 5 10

EmploymentFull-time 11 9 20Part-time 6 1 7Note aOne employee did not answer the question

Table IIParticipantdemographics

114

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The majority of participants (78 percent) named at least one effect of IPV on theirhealth safety and family and almost all participants (96 percent) reported that IPV hasan effect on the workplace

Yeah and being in the situation Irsquom in itrsquos real itrsquos real volatile and I think itrsquos affected myhealth a lot so Irsquove missed a lot of work just because of being so worn down and and gettingsick itrsquos just kinda [hellip] I donrsquot know it just wears you down (employee)

The most frequently named effects on health safety and family included psychologicalhealth effects (59 percent of participants - being visibly ldquorattledrdquo ldquoworn downrdquoldquonervousrdquo ldquogrouchyrdquo ldquostressedrdquo ldquohystericalrdquo) effects on children and family(26 percent ndash abuserrsquos threat to talk bad about their mother to the children worriesabout reported child welfare and abuse) fear for safety (22 percent ndash being afraid ofabuser life threatening situations etc) physical effects (22 percent ndash visible marksblack eye) and mental illness (19 percent ndash depression anxiety)

She is involved with the child welfare system because of failure to protect she is not justhealing from her domestic violence from a man she is in love with her husband her soulmate she also has lost her children her daughter because of not protecting her becauseallowing the husband to stay in the home after hitting her (supervisor)

The most frequently named effects of IPV on work were time off (82 percent ndash takingleave due to IPV including comp time personal time vacation or sick time or IPV stateleave) and performance issues (56 percent ndash due to lack of concentration distractionemotional stress)

I thought I was ok you know tense and I didnrsquot think I was all that cranky or anything out ofthe unusual however when I had an evaluation a couple of months ago my superiors thoughtthat I was doing way too many disciplinary write-ups I was doing more than anybody else inthat period of time that it had affected me [hellip] negatively at work that it was an issue andyou know really came down on me a little bit for it (employee)

Further effects included stalking at work (26 percentndash abuser harassing through callsor appearances at the workplace) and safety at work (22 percent)

He um is very erratic and unstable and um he came to the workplace looking for her inviolation of her restraining order and um my co-worker tried to downplay things and keepkeep really calm [hellip] um but my boss got very angry with her because he decided that her ex-husband at this point was a threat to all of our safety and so he actually considered firing herum because of her mentally ill ex-husbandrsquos behavior (supervisor)

To go to work when you are dealing with something at home like that itrsquos horrible becauseyou canrsquot do your job I was in the position I was a program officer in my last job at the countyand Irsquoll Irsquom responsible to making sure inmates follow order I am responsible and I have to bea strong person and they could tell that something was wrong with me They could see it Andthat put my life in danger (employee)

Other reported effects were related to job position (15 percent ndash getting reprimandedlosing job) co-workers (11 percent ndash getting distracted due to talking about problems)and getting to work (7 percent ndash abuser keeping her from sleeping not fixing the car)

Theme 2 IPV leave law knowledge and usage

I didnrsquot know that I had those kind of options at work so I didnrsquot know that it would beappropriate for me to talk about it (employee)

115

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Most participants (74 percent) did not know about Oregonrsquos IPV leave law at time of theinterviews Seven participants reported knowledge of the law learned from theirsupervisors job position (eg mental health counselor) county intranet or policy Threeparticipants (11 percent) had used or were using the IPV leave In all 11 out of 17employees (65 percent) reported that they would have used or would use the IPV leaveif needed now that they are aware of it

Almost all participants (94 percent) considered the IPV leave law useful withbenefits of providing time off and job protection and it may even ldquodesensitizerdquo andeducate the workplace regarding IPV Some participants mentioned that the law mightnot be useful as it is unpaid One employee reported a negative opinion due toconfidentiality concerns when disclosing IPV in a small community

The most frequently mentioned reasons to use the IPV leave law were for legalmatters (74 percent ndash meeting with an attorney getting a restraining order going tocourt) finding safe housing (63 percent ndash moving finding shelter) counseling(59 percent) and taking time for rest and recovery (47 percent)

I think itrsquos really good to for I think that one of the things that the law speaks very clearlyabout is this is a this is a true step forward for not blaming the victim for realizing that itrsquosnot you know itrsquos not necessarily your fault if you end up in some sort of a domestic violencesituation (supervisor)

The most frequently mentioned barriers to usage of the IPV leave were job security (81percent) lack of payment (74 percent) stigma of being a victim (67 percent) andconfidentiality (52 percent) Despite being a job protected leave participants were stillafraid of losing their job being ldquoreprimandedrdquo ldquodowngradedrdquo that it would affect theldquoannual reviewrdquo or that ldquoit might pop you up on screen as being somebody that theynow take a note ofrdquo

I donrsquot think anyone would fire someone for that They might come up with another reasonand kind of go around the issue without saying it out loud But that could be the reason theemployer says lsquowe canrsquot have this person around because they are going to be trouble so theyare always having problems at home so letrsquos just get rid of themrsquo kind of thing Like thatrsquoswhat they are thinking but they are not going to say it out loud to the employee (employee)

Several participants mentioned that unpaid leave would not be an option as it ldquoreallyimpacts their ability to pay their billsrdquo and might even ldquoaggravate a situation and makethe survivor less saferdquo if the husband finds out they are on unpaid leave Participantsmentioned that women tend to use the paid vacation or sick times for taking care of asick child or pregnancy and would not have them available in a crisis related to IPV

Stigma included feeling shame and embarrassment to be in an abusive situationParticipants were concerned that co-workers would not respect them if the IPV becameknown and it would be especially difficult to be seen as a ldquovictimrdquo in a professionalsetting as it may affect their career opportunities

If you are a professional itrsquos itrsquos embarrassing You donrsquot want anyone to know you donrsquot wantit to affect your career you donrsquot want your employer to think you are stupid you are any lesssmart than they are that you had a drama in your life so I probably wouldnrsquot use it (employee)

Further barriers of IPV leave usage included fear for safety (41 percent ndash being ldquovisiblerdquoat the workplace is safer) denial of IPV (22 percent of participants) workload(22 percent ndash concerned ldquonot just not getting own work done but upsetting and addingto the workload of othersrdquo things would need ldquoto be rescheduled last minute and thatrsquos

116

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ResultsParticipant demographicsOut of 27 participants 17 participants (63 percent all women) were county employeeswith past year IPV The remaining ten participants (37 percent nine women and oneman) were county supervisors of employees with past year IPV The average age ofparticipants was 445 years (Table II)

Emerging themesThe interviews revealed four themes covering the impacts of IPV on survivorrsquosemployment situation and the usability of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law effects that IPV canhave on survivor IPV leave law knowledge and usage available IPV workplaceresources and supervisor support and IPV leave law dissemination andimplementation

Theme 1 IPV effects on survivorrsquos work health safety and family

We take our arguments with our spouses and our children and financial struggle [hellip] I meanthey all follow us in one shape or another whether or not they are at the forefront of our heador that or we are able to put them at the you know back of our head They still go with usand I think especially a recent victim of domestic violence thatrsquos gonna be something thatrsquosgonna be so encompassing and so overwhelming that there would just be no way for thatperson to focus legitimately at the job at hand (supervisor)

Employees Supervisors Total

Participants 17 10 27Different counties 9 5 11Female 17 9 26Age 408 years

(SD 1035)507 years(SD 785)

445 years(SD 1052)

Years of education(if 16+ taken as 16)

145 years(SD 146)

152 years(SD 114)

148 years(SD 137)

Duration at Current Position 53 years(SD 472)

113 years(SD 687)

75 years(SD 621)

No of employees supervising na 11(SD 1315)

RaceethnicityCaucasian 13 10 23Native American 1 0 1Hispanic 3 0 3

County Departmenta

Computeraccounting 3 0 3Health 5 3 8Justice 3 2 5Administration 5 5 10

EmploymentFull-time 11 9 20Part-time 6 1 7Note aOne employee did not answer the question

Table IIParticipantdemographics

114

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The majority of participants (78 percent) named at least one effect of IPV on theirhealth safety and family and almost all participants (96 percent) reported that IPV hasan effect on the workplace

Yeah and being in the situation Irsquom in itrsquos real itrsquos real volatile and I think itrsquos affected myhealth a lot so Irsquove missed a lot of work just because of being so worn down and and gettingsick itrsquos just kinda [hellip] I donrsquot know it just wears you down (employee)

The most frequently named effects on health safety and family included psychologicalhealth effects (59 percent of participants - being visibly ldquorattledrdquo ldquoworn downrdquoldquonervousrdquo ldquogrouchyrdquo ldquostressedrdquo ldquohystericalrdquo) effects on children and family(26 percent ndash abuserrsquos threat to talk bad about their mother to the children worriesabout reported child welfare and abuse) fear for safety (22 percent ndash being afraid ofabuser life threatening situations etc) physical effects (22 percent ndash visible marksblack eye) and mental illness (19 percent ndash depression anxiety)

She is involved with the child welfare system because of failure to protect she is not justhealing from her domestic violence from a man she is in love with her husband her soulmate she also has lost her children her daughter because of not protecting her becauseallowing the husband to stay in the home after hitting her (supervisor)

The most frequently named effects of IPV on work were time off (82 percent ndash takingleave due to IPV including comp time personal time vacation or sick time or IPV stateleave) and performance issues (56 percent ndash due to lack of concentration distractionemotional stress)

I thought I was ok you know tense and I didnrsquot think I was all that cranky or anything out ofthe unusual however when I had an evaluation a couple of months ago my superiors thoughtthat I was doing way too many disciplinary write-ups I was doing more than anybody else inthat period of time that it had affected me [hellip] negatively at work that it was an issue andyou know really came down on me a little bit for it (employee)

Further effects included stalking at work (26 percentndash abuser harassing through callsor appearances at the workplace) and safety at work (22 percent)

He um is very erratic and unstable and um he came to the workplace looking for her inviolation of her restraining order and um my co-worker tried to downplay things and keepkeep really calm [hellip] um but my boss got very angry with her because he decided that her ex-husband at this point was a threat to all of our safety and so he actually considered firing herum because of her mentally ill ex-husbandrsquos behavior (supervisor)

To go to work when you are dealing with something at home like that itrsquos horrible becauseyou canrsquot do your job I was in the position I was a program officer in my last job at the countyand Irsquoll Irsquom responsible to making sure inmates follow order I am responsible and I have to bea strong person and they could tell that something was wrong with me They could see it Andthat put my life in danger (employee)

Other reported effects were related to job position (15 percent ndash getting reprimandedlosing job) co-workers (11 percent ndash getting distracted due to talking about problems)and getting to work (7 percent ndash abuser keeping her from sleeping not fixing the car)

Theme 2 IPV leave law knowledge and usage

I didnrsquot know that I had those kind of options at work so I didnrsquot know that it would beappropriate for me to talk about it (employee)

115

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Most participants (74 percent) did not know about Oregonrsquos IPV leave law at time of theinterviews Seven participants reported knowledge of the law learned from theirsupervisors job position (eg mental health counselor) county intranet or policy Threeparticipants (11 percent) had used or were using the IPV leave In all 11 out of 17employees (65 percent) reported that they would have used or would use the IPV leaveif needed now that they are aware of it

Almost all participants (94 percent) considered the IPV leave law useful withbenefits of providing time off and job protection and it may even ldquodesensitizerdquo andeducate the workplace regarding IPV Some participants mentioned that the law mightnot be useful as it is unpaid One employee reported a negative opinion due toconfidentiality concerns when disclosing IPV in a small community

The most frequently mentioned reasons to use the IPV leave law were for legalmatters (74 percent ndash meeting with an attorney getting a restraining order going tocourt) finding safe housing (63 percent ndash moving finding shelter) counseling(59 percent) and taking time for rest and recovery (47 percent)

I think itrsquos really good to for I think that one of the things that the law speaks very clearlyabout is this is a this is a true step forward for not blaming the victim for realizing that itrsquosnot you know itrsquos not necessarily your fault if you end up in some sort of a domestic violencesituation (supervisor)

The most frequently mentioned barriers to usage of the IPV leave were job security (81percent) lack of payment (74 percent) stigma of being a victim (67 percent) andconfidentiality (52 percent) Despite being a job protected leave participants were stillafraid of losing their job being ldquoreprimandedrdquo ldquodowngradedrdquo that it would affect theldquoannual reviewrdquo or that ldquoit might pop you up on screen as being somebody that theynow take a note ofrdquo

I donrsquot think anyone would fire someone for that They might come up with another reasonand kind of go around the issue without saying it out loud But that could be the reason theemployer says lsquowe canrsquot have this person around because they are going to be trouble so theyare always having problems at home so letrsquos just get rid of themrsquo kind of thing Like thatrsquoswhat they are thinking but they are not going to say it out loud to the employee (employee)

Several participants mentioned that unpaid leave would not be an option as it ldquoreallyimpacts their ability to pay their billsrdquo and might even ldquoaggravate a situation and makethe survivor less saferdquo if the husband finds out they are on unpaid leave Participantsmentioned that women tend to use the paid vacation or sick times for taking care of asick child or pregnancy and would not have them available in a crisis related to IPV

Stigma included feeling shame and embarrassment to be in an abusive situationParticipants were concerned that co-workers would not respect them if the IPV becameknown and it would be especially difficult to be seen as a ldquovictimrdquo in a professionalsetting as it may affect their career opportunities

If you are a professional itrsquos itrsquos embarrassing You donrsquot want anyone to know you donrsquot wantit to affect your career you donrsquot want your employer to think you are stupid you are any lesssmart than they are that you had a drama in your life so I probably wouldnrsquot use it (employee)

Further barriers of IPV leave usage included fear for safety (41 percent ndash being ldquovisiblerdquoat the workplace is safer) denial of IPV (22 percent of participants) workload(22 percent ndash concerned ldquonot just not getting own work done but upsetting and addingto the workload of othersrdquo things would need ldquoto be rescheduled last minute and thatrsquos

116

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The majority of participants (78 percent) named at least one effect of IPV on theirhealth safety and family and almost all participants (96 percent) reported that IPV hasan effect on the workplace

Yeah and being in the situation Irsquom in itrsquos real itrsquos real volatile and I think itrsquos affected myhealth a lot so Irsquove missed a lot of work just because of being so worn down and and gettingsick itrsquos just kinda [hellip] I donrsquot know it just wears you down (employee)

The most frequently named effects on health safety and family included psychologicalhealth effects (59 percent of participants - being visibly ldquorattledrdquo ldquoworn downrdquoldquonervousrdquo ldquogrouchyrdquo ldquostressedrdquo ldquohystericalrdquo) effects on children and family(26 percent ndash abuserrsquos threat to talk bad about their mother to the children worriesabout reported child welfare and abuse) fear for safety (22 percent ndash being afraid ofabuser life threatening situations etc) physical effects (22 percent ndash visible marksblack eye) and mental illness (19 percent ndash depression anxiety)

She is involved with the child welfare system because of failure to protect she is not justhealing from her domestic violence from a man she is in love with her husband her soulmate she also has lost her children her daughter because of not protecting her becauseallowing the husband to stay in the home after hitting her (supervisor)

The most frequently named effects of IPV on work were time off (82 percent ndash takingleave due to IPV including comp time personal time vacation or sick time or IPV stateleave) and performance issues (56 percent ndash due to lack of concentration distractionemotional stress)

I thought I was ok you know tense and I didnrsquot think I was all that cranky or anything out ofthe unusual however when I had an evaluation a couple of months ago my superiors thoughtthat I was doing way too many disciplinary write-ups I was doing more than anybody else inthat period of time that it had affected me [hellip] negatively at work that it was an issue andyou know really came down on me a little bit for it (employee)

Further effects included stalking at work (26 percentndash abuser harassing through callsor appearances at the workplace) and safety at work (22 percent)

He um is very erratic and unstable and um he came to the workplace looking for her inviolation of her restraining order and um my co-worker tried to downplay things and keepkeep really calm [hellip] um but my boss got very angry with her because he decided that her ex-husband at this point was a threat to all of our safety and so he actually considered firing herum because of her mentally ill ex-husbandrsquos behavior (supervisor)

To go to work when you are dealing with something at home like that itrsquos horrible becauseyou canrsquot do your job I was in the position I was a program officer in my last job at the countyand Irsquoll Irsquom responsible to making sure inmates follow order I am responsible and I have to bea strong person and they could tell that something was wrong with me They could see it Andthat put my life in danger (employee)

Other reported effects were related to job position (15 percent ndash getting reprimandedlosing job) co-workers (11 percent ndash getting distracted due to talking about problems)and getting to work (7 percent ndash abuser keeping her from sleeping not fixing the car)

Theme 2 IPV leave law knowledge and usage

I didnrsquot know that I had those kind of options at work so I didnrsquot know that it would beappropriate for me to talk about it (employee)

115

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Most participants (74 percent) did not know about Oregonrsquos IPV leave law at time of theinterviews Seven participants reported knowledge of the law learned from theirsupervisors job position (eg mental health counselor) county intranet or policy Threeparticipants (11 percent) had used or were using the IPV leave In all 11 out of 17employees (65 percent) reported that they would have used or would use the IPV leaveif needed now that they are aware of it

Almost all participants (94 percent) considered the IPV leave law useful withbenefits of providing time off and job protection and it may even ldquodesensitizerdquo andeducate the workplace regarding IPV Some participants mentioned that the law mightnot be useful as it is unpaid One employee reported a negative opinion due toconfidentiality concerns when disclosing IPV in a small community

The most frequently mentioned reasons to use the IPV leave law were for legalmatters (74 percent ndash meeting with an attorney getting a restraining order going tocourt) finding safe housing (63 percent ndash moving finding shelter) counseling(59 percent) and taking time for rest and recovery (47 percent)

I think itrsquos really good to for I think that one of the things that the law speaks very clearlyabout is this is a this is a true step forward for not blaming the victim for realizing that itrsquosnot you know itrsquos not necessarily your fault if you end up in some sort of a domestic violencesituation (supervisor)

The most frequently mentioned barriers to usage of the IPV leave were job security (81percent) lack of payment (74 percent) stigma of being a victim (67 percent) andconfidentiality (52 percent) Despite being a job protected leave participants were stillafraid of losing their job being ldquoreprimandedrdquo ldquodowngradedrdquo that it would affect theldquoannual reviewrdquo or that ldquoit might pop you up on screen as being somebody that theynow take a note ofrdquo

I donrsquot think anyone would fire someone for that They might come up with another reasonand kind of go around the issue without saying it out loud But that could be the reason theemployer says lsquowe canrsquot have this person around because they are going to be trouble so theyare always having problems at home so letrsquos just get rid of themrsquo kind of thing Like thatrsquoswhat they are thinking but they are not going to say it out loud to the employee (employee)

Several participants mentioned that unpaid leave would not be an option as it ldquoreallyimpacts their ability to pay their billsrdquo and might even ldquoaggravate a situation and makethe survivor less saferdquo if the husband finds out they are on unpaid leave Participantsmentioned that women tend to use the paid vacation or sick times for taking care of asick child or pregnancy and would not have them available in a crisis related to IPV

Stigma included feeling shame and embarrassment to be in an abusive situationParticipants were concerned that co-workers would not respect them if the IPV becameknown and it would be especially difficult to be seen as a ldquovictimrdquo in a professionalsetting as it may affect their career opportunities

If you are a professional itrsquos itrsquos embarrassing You donrsquot want anyone to know you donrsquot wantit to affect your career you donrsquot want your employer to think you are stupid you are any lesssmart than they are that you had a drama in your life so I probably wouldnrsquot use it (employee)

Further barriers of IPV leave usage included fear for safety (41 percent ndash being ldquovisiblerdquoat the workplace is safer) denial of IPV (22 percent of participants) workload(22 percent ndash concerned ldquonot just not getting own work done but upsetting and addingto the workload of othersrdquo things would need ldquoto be rescheduled last minute and thatrsquos

116

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Most participants (74 percent) did not know about Oregonrsquos IPV leave law at time of theinterviews Seven participants reported knowledge of the law learned from theirsupervisors job position (eg mental health counselor) county intranet or policy Threeparticipants (11 percent) had used or were using the IPV leave In all 11 out of 17employees (65 percent) reported that they would have used or would use the IPV leaveif needed now that they are aware of it

Almost all participants (94 percent) considered the IPV leave law useful withbenefits of providing time off and job protection and it may even ldquodesensitizerdquo andeducate the workplace regarding IPV Some participants mentioned that the law mightnot be useful as it is unpaid One employee reported a negative opinion due toconfidentiality concerns when disclosing IPV in a small community

The most frequently mentioned reasons to use the IPV leave law were for legalmatters (74 percent ndash meeting with an attorney getting a restraining order going tocourt) finding safe housing (63 percent ndash moving finding shelter) counseling(59 percent) and taking time for rest and recovery (47 percent)

I think itrsquos really good to for I think that one of the things that the law speaks very clearlyabout is this is a this is a true step forward for not blaming the victim for realizing that itrsquosnot you know itrsquos not necessarily your fault if you end up in some sort of a domestic violencesituation (supervisor)

The most frequently mentioned barriers to usage of the IPV leave were job security (81percent) lack of payment (74 percent) stigma of being a victim (67 percent) andconfidentiality (52 percent) Despite being a job protected leave participants were stillafraid of losing their job being ldquoreprimandedrdquo ldquodowngradedrdquo that it would affect theldquoannual reviewrdquo or that ldquoit might pop you up on screen as being somebody that theynow take a note ofrdquo

I donrsquot think anyone would fire someone for that They might come up with another reasonand kind of go around the issue without saying it out loud But that could be the reason theemployer says lsquowe canrsquot have this person around because they are going to be trouble so theyare always having problems at home so letrsquos just get rid of themrsquo kind of thing Like thatrsquoswhat they are thinking but they are not going to say it out loud to the employee (employee)

Several participants mentioned that unpaid leave would not be an option as it ldquoreallyimpacts their ability to pay their billsrdquo and might even ldquoaggravate a situation and makethe survivor less saferdquo if the husband finds out they are on unpaid leave Participantsmentioned that women tend to use the paid vacation or sick times for taking care of asick child or pregnancy and would not have them available in a crisis related to IPV

Stigma included feeling shame and embarrassment to be in an abusive situationParticipants were concerned that co-workers would not respect them if the IPV becameknown and it would be especially difficult to be seen as a ldquovictimrdquo in a professionalsetting as it may affect their career opportunities

If you are a professional itrsquos itrsquos embarrassing You donrsquot want anyone to know you donrsquot wantit to affect your career you donrsquot want your employer to think you are stupid you are any lesssmart than they are that you had a drama in your life so I probably wouldnrsquot use it (employee)

Further barriers of IPV leave usage included fear for safety (41 percent ndash being ldquovisiblerdquoat the workplace is safer) denial of IPV (22 percent of participants) workload(22 percent ndash concerned ldquonot just not getting own work done but upsetting and addingto the workload of othersrdquo things would need ldquoto be rescheduled last minute and thatrsquos

116

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

frowned uponrdquo) and eligibility restrictions (7 percent) reported by part-time employeeswho were not eligible for the benefit due to eligibility restrictions at that time (working25 h per week for 180 days)

Theme 3 available IPV workplace resources and supervisor role and conflicts

It seems like that they focus on they say lsquoyou know what we got we gotta walk the walk Weare helping people get better and we need our employees to get betterrsquo And that is a reallyawesome way of thinking (employee)

A majority of participants (93 percent) reported receiving or providing supportivereactions to employeersquos disclosure of IPV including providing time off information onOregonrsquos IPV leave law financial help covering workload and follow-ups Supervisorshad an open door ldquomanipulated the schedulerdquo provided advice and resources andwere simply ldquoworriedrdquo Participants (26 percent) reported limits to the positive supportsuch as not being informative enough coming with certain expectations such asleaving the abuser or support that ldquofaded awayrdquo One employee felt she ldquowas goingfrom one really controlled situation to another where my choice werenrsquot my choicesrdquoOne supervisor mentioned that he would support the employee the first time but if shedid not solve the issue he would feel like she would ldquoendangerrdquo him and co-workersNegative reactions were reported by 52 percent of participants and includedunsupportive supervisor or HR reactions (ldquoquit bringing your problems to workrdquo)losing ldquoa lot of credibility a lot of respectrdquo co-workers treating the employeedifferently ldquoopenly hostilerdquo and lack of confidentiality

And I understand she really you know she [employeersquos supervisor] wanted she thought shewas protecting everybody by saying lsquookay you know here is how to use the panic button atthe counter if he [the abuser] comes inrsquo you know but when I came back from vacation myhusbandrsquos mug shots were posted all over everybodyrsquos cubicles and I was so offended that Iwent to them and ripped them down (employee)

Regarding supervisor support 44 percent of participants mentioned that the supervisorshould make the first approach it was the ldquoright and responsibility as the employer andsupervisorrdquo if they noticed something ldquoas a human being almost not just as a supervisoryou need to pull them aside and find out how you can help themrdquo and it might be moreldquobeneficial from the supervisor down to the employeerdquo Over one-third (37 percent) ofparticipants stated that only the employee should approach the supervisor otherwise theemployee ldquomight see it as judging or threateningrdquo and would feel that their performancewas not good enough And 11 percent of participants mentioned going immediately toHR as they did not want to disclose IPV to the supervisor Participants (55 percent)named several conflicts for the supervisor regarding IPV support including lack oftraining and knowledge on how to approach the subject and provide support (ldquohow tohandle a situation like thatrdquo) difficulties in being supportive and granting leave whilefacing workplace demands (ldquoI mean on half your staff itrsquos hard to functionrdquo ldquoI felt like thethe non-sensitive supervisor because I am saying okay the four of you go back to worknow shersquoll be finerdquo) difficulties of being a mandatory reporter when a child is involved(ldquodual relationshiprdquo) and keeping the IPV disclosure confidential but also ensuring safetyfor the co-workers if abuser shows up at the workplace

I think thatrsquos my biggest question about administering this leave law is um what does thatlook like I mean what you know if yoursquove got you know an employee population that isreluctant to report what does that look like I mean how you know how do you pull

117

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

somebody aside and say you know lsquoit looks like you may be in an abusive situation are youyou know how can I help Are you aware that therersquos a leave lawrsquo You know that sort ofthing (supervisor)

Theme 4 IPV leave law dissemination and barriers of implementation

Well at my previous employer once a year we would go over all the personnel policiesyou know we would sit down in a meeting and we would read through themespecially if there was something new or something that they wanted us tohave our attention you know directed at they would go through it in great detail(employee)

The most frequently suggested method of disseminating information on Oregonrsquos IPVleave law was workplace training on IPV (85 percent) including information on the lawand also general information about IPV (stages of IPV warning signs difficulties toleave the abusive situation) and information on supervisor support Some participants(30 percent) would train supervisors first others (37 percent) would make the trainingavailable for everyone ldquotarget the employeerdquo as ldquoit would be most beneficial foreveryonerdquo and ldquobecause sometimes supervisors know about it but that doesnrsquot meantheir staff knows about itrdquo Almost half of the participants (41 percent) would makethe training mandatory but some supervisors described that would ldquoreally strainrdquo thedepartment and employees might ldquoresent yourdquo Participants suggested a computer-based training format online seminars videos group discussions conversationssomething to read from half an hour info sessions to a day long seminar includinghumor and real life stories

I think that I think education I think all supervisors and managers in in the Statesneed to go through a domestic violence class so they can know and see um the thestages of abuse can identify someone in that and help them to be educated and concernedwith that instead of production production production Look at a person as a wholeand um and and care about them and help them through it But they need educationtoo (employee)

Another frequently suggested dissemination strategy was flyer and poster (78 percent)in break rooms lunchrooms next to the copy machines or in bathrooms As posterstend to ldquoblend inrdquo participants preferred little flyers attached to the paycheck to ensureprivacy and accessibility for field workers or part-time employees Other disseminationstrategies included mentioning it during the new hire orientation (52 percent) duringmeetings (52 percent) if the covered topics would allow it or advertising it throughmedia (44 percent of participants)

Maybe something that comes across their intranet or in an email from you know somebodyhigh up [hellip] just kinda coming across in an anonymous way that people can be looking at itwithout sitting next to their co-workers I really think it would need to be looked at privately(employee)

The most frequently named barriers for implementing the IPV law were theuneducated behavior of the supervisor (44 percent) the lack of awareness of the leave(41 percent) the unspecified time amount for the leave (37 percent) and difficultiesbecause of county size (19 percent) Supervisors and employees alike mentioned thatsupervisors might not know how to approach an employee in such a situation Somesupervisors may not be ldquocomfortable doing thatrdquo ldquosome have more personal skills than

118

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

othersrdquo Supervisors need ldquosome guidelines on how to handle such a situationrdquo andldquotraining on how to supportrdquo

But understand no one no victim is gonna use it if their employer goes lsquothis is a really stupidcrime and people are stupid if they are gonna get abusedrsquo I mean if you hear that come out oftheir mouth then you arenrsquot gonna say anything (employee)

Differences between survivor and supervisor groupTheme 1 (see Figure 1) while employees mentioned several different workplace effectssupervisors mainly named three (time off performance and job Position) Safety andstalking at work were more often mentioned by employees Even though supervisorsdid not report stalking by the abusive partner at work an effect on the workplace theyworried about the safety for all employees when the potentially dangerous abusershows up at work Employees additionally described that being emotionally ldquorattledrdquoby the violence may become dangerous if working in potentially volatile situationssuch as a corrections officer or mental health counselor

Theme 2 (see Figure 2) employees and supervisors named job security and the lackof payment as the top 2 barriers for usage however while employees name bothreasons equally often supervisors name job security more often Employees notedconsistently their concern about confidentiality as a barrier for using the IPV leaveldquopeople just canrsquot keep secretsrdquo there are ldquolayers of supervisionrdquo and it will not just stay

o

f Par

ticip

ants

8082

100

80

60

40

20

0

Employee Supervisor

Time off Performance Stalking atwork

Safety atwork

Job Position Co-Worker Getting towork

47

70

3529

20

10 10 100

12 12 12

Figure 1IPV effects on work

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Job security Payment ConfidentialityStigma Denial Work Load Eligiblility

76 7670 71

90

60 59

50

40 4035

30

12 12

0

18

Fearfor Safety

Figure 2Barriers for usingthe IPV leave law

119

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

with the supervisor HR or payroll would also need to be informed Keeping IPVconfidential in a small county was considered especially difficult Supervisors alsomention denial of the IPV being a barrier for usage

Theme 3 the majority of supervisors (70 percent supervisors) but less than half(47 percent) of employees reported that they were aware of IPV resources at theirworkplace (IPV posters flyers policies county web site available time off IPVtraining Employee Assistance program offering counseling) Few employees(6 percent) and about one-third (30 percent) of supervisors reported that theirworkplace had a workplace policy on IPV however many employees reported theyldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or are ldquonot aware ofrdquo an IPV policy Also especially supervisorsmentioned the conflicts (productivity vs safety) that they are facing in providingsupport (41 percent employees 80 percent supervisors)

Theme 4 (see Figures 3 and 4) as a possible dissemination strategy of the IPVleave law both groups mentioned training as the top strategy However especiallyemployees also name media including county department newsletter e-mails andcounty web sites as another top strategy

Regarding the barriers of implementation employeersquos top barriers were thebehavior of the supervisor and the lack of awareness Employees expressed the needto raise the awareness on the leave law (ldquoIt actually kind of made me angry that therehas been this law for so long and nobody knows about itrdquo ldquoI think thatrsquos too badbecause gosh what else donrsquot I knowrdquo) While supervisors agreed that their behavioris one major barrier they named time as the top barrier and were worried aboutpossible abuse of the leave and that there may be a ldquoloopholerdquo as the law does not

Employee Supervisor

o

f par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Training FlyerPoster MeetingOrientation Media Policy

29

65

5053

59

40

30

10

808290

76

Figure 3Disseminationstrategies of theIPV leave law

Employee Supervisor

o

f Par

ticip

ants

100

80

60

40

20

0Supervisor Awareness Time County Size

30

12

50

2930

474740

Figure 4Barriers forimplementing theIPV leave law

120

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

specify the allowed leave time They recommended a ldquobetter definitionrdquo clarifyingwho decides what ldquoreasonablerdquo is and having some kind of ldquoguidelinerdquo forimplementation in the workplace Supervisors (30 percent) also noted that smallercounties with limited IPV resources a different mentality toward change and anenvironment where ldquothings circle quite a bit fasterrdquo make it especially difficult forthe supervisor to be supportive and ensure confidentiality

DiscussionThis study evaluated the implementation and usage of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law fromtwo different points of views employees who are IPV survivors and supervisors of IPVsurvivors To our knowledge this is the first study to examine the implementation of aUS State IPV leave law including barriers of implementation and usage with importantimplications that should be addressed to improve utilization While IPV survivors andsupervisors agreed on major IPV effects (time off performance) and barriers of lawusage (job security payment) this study also revealed important different viewsregarding possible IPV effects at work (safety) barriers of usage (confidentialitydenial) workplace resources (availability of resources supervisor conflicts in support)and barriers of law implementation (undefined time unawareness) indicating thattraining for supervisors on IPV is needed to more effectively implement the law andsupport employees and the workplace

Employeesrsquo and supervisorsrsquo different views of work-related IPV effectsThe interviews revealed a general agreement that IPV has an effect on work healthsafety and family and that taking time off from work for IPV is the main work-relatedeffect However supervisorsrsquo perception of work-related IPV effects were morerestricted to effects related to their responsibilities at work and their role as asupervisor (eg time off performance job position) Employees on the other hand dueto their own experience as IPV survivors reported a larger variety of IPV effects theyhave to deal with in the workplace (eg getting to work safety at work stalking atwork) The IPV effect on ldquosafetyrdquo revealed the biggest difference between supervisorsand employees While employees named at least two different work-related safetyissues and one non-work-related supervisors rarely mentioned safety issuesSupervisorsrsquo primary safety concern was the abuser showing up at work andthreatening workers while employees also reported that the emotional distress theyexperienced could impact their performance and confidence making them less safe inthe work environment One employee also mentioned that taking unpaid leave could bea danger if the husband finds out that she is off work without pay They alsomentioned concerns related to their safety outside of work the abuser being dangeroushandling guns and taking drugs

Major barriers of law usage fear for job and lack of paymentSupervisor and employees agreed that fear of losing job remained the main barrier forusing the law Despite being a law aimed at protecting leave for survivors participantsstill feared that taking the leave would affect their career and that supervisors may lookdifferently at them not consider them a reliable worker reprimand them for takingtime off or find another reason to fire them Even though women make about 50 percentof the workforce a significantly smaller portion compared to men occupies higherpositions with better wages job flexibility and safety However especially in such a

121

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

position women resist seeking help for IPV to not be perceived as a victim (Kwesigaet al 2007)

Lack of payment while on leave was another top barrier of usage mentioned by bothsurvivors and supervisors alike Even though employees may take accrued paid leavetogether with the IPV leave participants stated that this is difficult for women as theyoften use their paid leave to care for a sick family member or pregnancy Also takingunpaid leave can endanger them at home if the husband notes the lack of paymentAdditionally women are often in a delicate situation of financial dependency on themale partner and leaving the abuser may result in the loss of needed financial supportfor the family therefore going on leave that is unpaid would increase concerns forproviding needed economic support (Adams et al 2012)

While confidentiality was another barrier especially important to employeesthe barrier of the IPV survivor being in denial of the seriousness of the situation wasmainly mentioned by supervisors

Supervisors overestimate employeesrsquo awareness of workplace IPV resourcesThis study also revealed that the awareness of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law enacted threeyears before the study started was very low Employees and supervisors weredisappointed and upset that they had not heard about the law and that there was onlyvery limited information available and called for a raise of awareness More thantwo-thirds of participating employees mentioned that they would have used the leaveor would use now that they are aware of its existence

Interestingly supervisors reported more often than employees that IPV resources areavailable at the workplace they may be over-optimistic in the existence of IPV resourcesor the employees are not aware of the existing resources or do not have access to themAbout 30 percent of supervisors vs 6 percent of employees reported that the workplacehad an IPV policy Most of the employees answered with ldquodonrsquot knowrdquo or ldquonot aware ofitrdquo These findings are consistent with the findings of the Corporate Alliance To EndPartner Violence (CAEPV) survey of 2007 where 72 percent of surveyed CEOs believedthat their company already offered sufficient IPV programs while only 47 percent oftheir employees reported knowing about the programs (CAEPV 2007)

Some participants also mentioned that living in a small county made addressingIPV and gaining knowledge of the law or support even more difficult Privacy andbeing labeled as a ldquovictimrdquo was a concern and prevented disclosure and IPV resourcesin general were more limited

Supervisors facing difficulties in providing effective supportSocial support through the workplace co-workers and especially the supervisor mayincrease well-being and health of the IPV survivor and might reduce negative outcomesof IPV (Perrin et al 2011) Our interviews revealed that most participants hadeither provided or experienced positive reactions at the workplace toward IPVdisclosure However about half of the participants also experienced negative reactionslimits to the support or strings attached This included a supervisor ignoringthe confidentiality between employee and supervisor and disclosing the IPV issueto all co-workers because of risk that the abuser might show up at work Somesupervisors stated that they do not want to have personal problems at work and someco-workers became ldquohostilerdquo because they had to take on more workload This showsthat some workplaces and supervisors struggle to provide the right kind of supportfor the situation

122

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

The supervisor is the link between the employee and the employer and has to meetwork demands but also be compassionate to the employee which puts himher in adifficult position The interviews exposed four major conflicts for the supervisor firstsupervisors are not trained in IPV support and might not know how to approach andsupport an employee in such a sensitive situation especially if the employee does notwant to disclose second supervisors have the responsibility to keep the workplaceproductive and it might be difficult to handle the workload while offering leave to theIPV survivor third supervisors may be mandatory reporters (eg child safety) andtherefore feel obligated to report the IPV which may result in the child being removedfrom the home and finally supervisors need to keep the employeersquos IPV disclosureprivate and confidential but also need to keep co-workers safe from an abuser thatmight show up at work

Understanding the hierarchy of supervisor support wanted by women experiencingIPV (from no support to active listening to offering help and resources) is a foundationfor providing effective support Women may desire different kinds of supportdepending on the stages of the abusive relationship from not ready to disclose to IPVdisclosure to leaving the abusive partner and actively seeking external support(Perrin et al 2011) As our interviews confirmed there is no uniform type of supportSome participants wanted the supervisor to approach while others mentioned itneeds to be the employeersquos first step a small minority would not even involve thesupervisor and go to HR Positive support (a match between wanted and receivedsupport) is important as negative support (mismatch ndash unwanted or lack of wantedsupport) can be more memorable and affect survivorrsquos well-being and the workplace(Perrin et al 2011 Samuel et al 2011 Rynolds and Perrin 2004 Katula 2012Yragui et al 2012)

Supervisors and employees alike request training to overcome barriersFor employees and supervisors alike unsupportive and untrained supervisorbehavior was the main barrier for effective IPV law dissemination However while foremployees the lack of awareness of the law was another major barrier supervisorsconsidered especially the undefined leave time and barriers due to a small county sizeas problematic The majority of participants (85 percent) mentioned that IPV trainingwould be necessary for effective dissemination and implementation of the law andexplicitly stated to have IPV training for supervisors providing education andguidelines on effective IPV support and helping them with their conflicting rolesTraining may address the implementation barriers by improving supervisorbehavior awareness and providing guidelines on how to deal with the time allowanceand IPV support in small counties Educating supervisors may also overcome severalof the barriers to use the leave including employeersquos fear for job stigma of being avictim confidentiality and the IPV survivor being in denial of the dangerousness ofthe situation Participants believed that training may provide guidelines anddesensitize the workplace consider the health and well-being of the employee andnot just the productivity and may reduce the fear of losing the job and the stigmarelated to IPV

Participants mentioned that next to training information on the IPV leave law couldalso be disseminated through flyers attached to the paycheck and employees especiallyfavored dissemination through media such as the intranet newsletter or e-mail withthe importance of receiving the information in private and making it accessible toeveryone also to part-time employees and field officers

123

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

ImplicationsWhat the workplace can doOur interviews have shown again that IPV is affecting the workplace Employees andsupervisors alike requested more dissemination and especially training on IPV and theleave law and training for supervisors on how to support employees manage roleconflicts and eliminate employeesrsquo fear for their job by using the leave the top barrier ofusage Other studies (CAEPV 2007 Family Violence Prevention Fund and VerizonWireless 2007) also confirm that employees request appropriate workplace supportprograms policies education and supervisor training on IPV (Katula 2012) Workplacesin smaller counties need to consider additional challenges due to the small county sizeand numerous restrictions in resources support and confidentiality and need to offermodified support systems This is especially important as previous studies have shownhigh rates of IPV in rural areas (Swanberg and Logan 2005)

What policymakers can doIn 2014 an amendment to the Oregon Leave Law was implemented requiringpostings of Oregonrsquos IPV leave law in the workplace and also eliminating eligibilityrestrictions for employees barriers that participants discussed in the studyRequired postings will help the workplace to disseminate the leave law and raisethe awareness

However the ongoing lack of payment while on leave was one of the top barriers ofusage Studies have shown that the lack of money is one of the reasons that forces IPVsurvivors to remain in an abusive relationship or return to the abuser (Adams et al2012) Participants suggested to add hours to the employeersquos sick time or to grant initialpaid leave as unpaid leave would ldquojust not be a benefitrdquo In other countries such asAustralia with no federal employment protection for IPV survivors and where IPV isalso experienced by about one-third of adult women in their lifetime one employer(The Surf Coast Shire Council) started to offer 20 days of paid leave for IPV in 2010 anddozens of employers have followed since In 2012 over 70000 Australian workers hadaccess to paid IPV leave one in every 14 workers (Schneider 2012)

Despite several attempts there has not been a uniform US federal response (Jacobs andRaghu 2010) Employees in identical IPV situations should not be treated differently andreceive different benefits and protections just because they live or work for a differentstate National or multi-national corporations need a federal and global solution

ConclusionIPV leave policy adoption is not always enough ineffective dissemination of the lawlimited guidelines for implementation and ineffective workplace support cannegatively affect the employee and employer (Ryan and Kossek 2008 Perrin et al2011) It has been shown once again that IPV can endanger the employee at home andat work In order for an IPV leave law to be usable it needs to take into considerationthe financial situation of the employee in such a situation and also possibleconsequences regarding the survivorrsquos job Participants call for a raise in IPVawareness and dissemination and suggest training on IPV including desensitizingthe workplace and teaching supervisors how to support and deal with role conflictswhen implementing the law These findings provide important recommendationsto policymakers authorities and advocates on development implementation andevaluation of laws adopted to support employed survivors of IPV

124

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

References

Adams AE Tolman RM Bybee D Sullivan CM and Kenedy AC (2012) ldquoThe impact ofintimate partner violence on low-income womenrsquos economic well-being the mediating roleof job stabilityrdquo Violence Against Women Vol 18 No 12 pp 1345-1367

Arias I and Corso P (2005) ldquoAverage cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of oppositegender a comparison of men and womenrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 20 No 4 pp 379-391

Black MC Basile KC Breiding MJ Smith SG Walters ML Merrick MT Chen J andStevens MR (2011) The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)2010 Summary Report National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers forDisease Control and Prevention Atlanta GA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003) Costs of Intimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Women in the United States CDC ndash National Center for Injury Prevention andControl Atlanta GA

Corporate Alliance To End Partner Violence (CAEPV) (2007) ldquoCorporate leaders and Americarsquosworkforce on domestic violence surveyrdquo Safe Horizon the Corporate Alliance to EndPartner Violence and Liz Claiborne Inc available at wwwcaepvorgaboutprogram_detailphprefIDfrac1434 (accessed March 13 2014)

Crowne SS Juon HS Ensminger M Burrell L McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011)ldquoConcurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employmentstabilityrdquoJournal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 6 pp 1282-1304

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 4th edSAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA

Employment Law Update (2011) ldquoBill would provide FMLA leave for Victims of DomesticViolencerdquo Employment Law Update Washington DC March 13 2014 available atwwwlittlercomdc-employment-law-updatebill-would-provide-fmla-leave-victims-domestic-violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless (2007) Fatherrsquos Day Poll 2007 ndashA SurveyAmong Men Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc Washington DC available at wwwcaepvorgmembercenterfilesfathers_day_poll_07pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Glass N Perrin N Hanson G Mankowski E Bloom T and Campbell J (2009) ldquoPatterns ofpartnersrsquo abusive behaviors as reported by Latina and non-Latina survivorsrdquo Journal ofCommunity Psychology Vol 37 No 2 pp 156-170

GovTrackus (2014) ldquoCongress ndash Bills (HR 3151112 Domestic Violence Leave Act s 631113Healthy Families Actrdquo HR 1229113 Security and Financial Empowerment Act) availableat wwwgovtrackuscongressbills (accessed March 13 2014)

Hayes MJ (2013) ldquoLeaving Maryland workers behind a comparison of state employee leavestatutesrdquo University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class Vol 9No 1 pp 19-31

Jackson M and Garvin P (2003) ldquoCoordinated community action model Minnesota CenterAgainst Violence and Abuserdquo Electronic Clearinghouse Deluth MN available at wwwmincavaumnedudocumentsccamccamhtml (accessed March 13 2014)

Jacobs LR and Raghu M (2010) ldquoThe need for a uniform federal response to the workplaceimpact of interpersonal violencerdquo The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Vol 11pp 593-617

Katula SL (2012) ldquoCreating a safe haven for employees who are victims of domestic violencerdquoNursing Forum Vol 47 No 4 pp 217-225

125

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Kossek E Pichler S Bodner T and Hammer L (2011) ldquoWorkplace social support and work-family conflict a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-familyspecific supervisor and organizational supportrdquo Personnel Psychology Vol 64 No 2pp 289-313

Kwesiga E Bell MP Pattie M and Moe AM (2007) ldquoExploring the literature on relationshipsbetween gender roles intimate partner violence occupational status and organizationalbenefitsrdquo Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2007 Vol 22 No 3 pp 312-326

LaVan H Lopez YP Katz M and Martin WM (2012) ldquoThe impact of domestic violence in theworkplacerdquo Employment Relations Today Vol 39 No 3 pp 51-63

Legal Momentum (2013) ldquoEmployment rights for victims of domestic or sexual violence statelaw guide Legal Momentum New York NY available at wwwlegalmomentumorgresourcesstate-law-guide-employment-rights-victims-domestic-or-sexual-violence(accessed March 13 2014)

Mattis H (2010) ldquoCaliforniarsquos survivors of domestic violence employment leave act the twenty-five employee minimum is not a good rule of thumbrdquo Santa Clara Law Review Vol 50No 4 pp 1319-1344

Oregon Laws (2007) ldquoOregon revised statutes 659A270 ndash leave required because of domesticviolence sexual assault or stalkingrdquo Oregon Laws available at wwworegonlawsorgors659A270 (accessed March 13 2014)

Perrin NA Yragui NL Hanson GC and Glass N (2011) ldquoPatterns of workplace supervisorsupport desired by abused womenrdquo Journal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 26 No 11pp 2264-2284

Piotrowski-Govreau JA (2007) ldquoThe Illinois victimsrsquo economic security and safety Act of 2003a comparative analysisrdquo Kochler amp Passarelli LLC Woodridge IL available at wwwk-pllccomnewsasp (accessed March 13 2014)

Plichta SB (2004) ldquoIntimate partner violence and physical health consequences policyand practice implicationsrdquo Journal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 19 No 11pp 1296-1323

Reeves C and OrsquoLeary-Kelly AM (2007) ldquoThe effects and costs of intimate partnerviolence for work organizationsrdquo Journal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 22 No 3pp 327-344

Rivara FP Anderson ML Fishman P Bonomi AE Reid RJ Carrell D and Thompson RS(2007) ldquoHealthcare utilization and costs for women with a history of intimate partnerviolencerdquo American Journal of Preventive Medicine Vol 32 No 2 pp 89-96

Runge R (2010) ldquoThe legal response to the employment needs of domestic violence victimsrdquoHuman Rights Vol 37 No 3 pp 13-17 available at wwwamericanbarorgpublicationshuman_rights_magazine_homehuman_rights_vol37_2010summer2010the_legal_response_to_the_employment_needs_of_domestic_violence_victims_an_updatehtml (accessedMarch 13 2014)

Ryan AM and Kossek EE (2008) ldquoWork-life policy implementation breaking down or creatingbarriers to inclusivenessrdquo Human Resource Management Vol 42 No 2 pp 295-310

Rynolds JS and Perrin NA (2004) ldquoMismatches in social support and psychosocial adjustmentto breast cancerrdquo Health Psychology Vol 23 No 4 pp 425-430

Saltzman LE Fanslow JL McMahon PM and Shelley GA (2002) Intimate Partner ViolenceSurveillance Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements version 10 Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and ControlAtlanta GA available at wwwcdcgovncipcpub-resipv_surveillanceIntimate20Partner20Violencepdf

126

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

Samuel LJ Tudor C Weinstein M Moss H and Glass N (2011) ldquoEmployersrsquo perception ofintimate partner violence among a diverse workforcerdquo Safety and Health at Work Vol 2No 3 pp 250-259

Schneider B (2012) ldquoAn escape from family violencerdquo The Canberra Times NationalSeptember 28 2014 available at wwwcanberratimescomaunationalan-escape-from-family-violence-20121026-28auuhtml

Strauss A and Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research Grounded Theory Procedures andTechniques Sage Newbury Park CA

Swanberg JE and Logan TK (2005) ldquoDomestic violence and employment a qualitative studyrdquoJournal of Occupational Health Psychology Vol 10 No 1 pp 3-17

Swanberg JE Macke C and Logan TK (2006) ldquoIntimate partner violence women and workcoping on the jobrdquo Violence and Victims Vol 21 No 5 pp 561-578

Swanberg JE Macke C and Logan TK (2007) ldquoWorking women making it work intimatepartner violence employment and workplace supportrdquo Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceVol 22 No 3 pp 292-311

Swanberg JE Ojha MU and Macke C (2012) ldquoState employment protection statutes forvictims of domestic violence public policyrsquos response to domestic violence as anemployment matterrdquo Journal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 27 No 3 pp 587-619

Tobin GA and Begley CM (2004) ldquoMethodological rigour within a qualitative frameworkrdquoJournal of Advanced Nursing Vol 48 No 4 pp 388-396

Tolman RM (2011) Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Economic Well-Being Center forFinancial Security Research Brief 2011 Madison WI pp 1-6

US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006) Survey of Workplace ViolencePrevention (Report No USDL 06-1860) US Department of Labor Bureau of LaborStatistics Washington DC available at wwwblsgoviifoshwcosnr0026pdf

US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) ldquoInjuries illnesses and fatalitiesrdquoCensus of Fatal Occupational Injuries Charts 1992-2011 (revised data) available at wwwblsgoviifoshwccfoicfch0010pdf (accessed March 13 2014)

Warshaw C Brashler B and Gil J (2009) ldquoMental health consequences of intimate partnerviolencerdquo in Mitchell C and Anglin D (Eds) Intimate Partner Violence A Health BasedPerspective Oxford University Press New York NY pp 147-171

World Health Organization (2013) ldquoGlobal and regional estimates of violence against womenprevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexualviolencerdquo World Health Organization March 13 2014 available at httpappswhointirisbitstream106658523919789241564625_engpdf

Yragui NL Mankowski ES Perrin NA and Glass NE (2012) ldquoDimensions of support amongabused women in the workplacerdquo American Journal of Community Psychology Vol 49Nos 1-2 pp 31-42

Zink T and Sill M (2004) ldquoIntimate partner violence and job instabilityrdquo Journal of AmericanMedical Womenrsquos Association Vol 59 No 1 pp 32-35

Further reading

Strauss A and Corbin J (1998) ldquoGrounded theory methodology an overviewrdquo in Denzin Nand Lincoln Y (Eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry Sage Thousand Oaks CApp 158-183

127

Workplacedomesticviolence

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)

About the authorsNaima Laharnar MPsy received her Master in Psychology focussing on Clinical and also onIndustrial and Organizational Psychology from the University of Tuebingen in GermanyShe has been working in different research fields including spatial orientation in virtual realitydirect marketing and neuropsychology She also volunteered in the Social Services andCounselling departments of the William Temple House in Portland Since 2009 she has beenworking for the Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences at the Oregon Health andScience University as a Project Manager on statewide research studies regarding workplaceviolence trainings including De-escalation training for caregivers and Domestic Violence at theworkplace training for supervisors with the overall goal to increase awareness of these topics andimprove workplace support

Dr Nancy Perrin PhD is a Senior Investigator and the Director of Biostatistics at the Centerfor Health Research in Portland Oregon Her focus is on research design and statistical analysesfor studies conducted in natural settings She has collaborated on several studies focussed oninterventions for domestic violence

Dr Ginger Hanson PhD is a Senior Research Associate at the Kaiser Permanente NorthwestCenter for Health Research Her research interests include quantitative research methodsoccupation health psychology workplace violence supervisor support and work-life integrationDr Hanson received her PhD in Systems Science Psychology from the Portland State Universityin 2011 Her Masterrsquos Degree in Applied IndustrialOrganizational Psychology is also from thePortland State University She has taken part in several research studies aimed at understandingworkplace aggressionviolence and how it can be prevented

Dr W Kent Anger PhD in Experimental Psychology from the University of Maine is theAssociate Director for Applied Research at the Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciencesand the Director of the Oregon Healthy Workforce Center both at the Oregon Health amp ScienceUniversity The primary focus of Dr Angerrsquos research is on the development and validation ofbehavioral test methods to study human neurotoxic disorders in international populations withvery limited to extensive education the use of those tests to identify and characterize neurotoxiceffects following occupationalenvironmental exposures to chemicals and to identify improvedbiomarkers the development of behaviorally based computer training technology to teach thebroadest range of populations (with very limited to extensive education) in the workplace andapply training technologies to prevent health and safety hazards teach job skills improvewell-being and wellness at the workplace improve work-family balance and reduce the impact ofdomestic violence on the workplace (intervention effectiveness)

Dr Nancy Glass PhD is a Professor Johns Hopkins School of Nursing and the AssociateDirector Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health Dr Glass conducts clinical and community-based interventions with diverse populations across multiple domestic and global settings She isPI of five federally funded multidisciplinary studies to test employment economic empowermentand safety interventions to improve the health safety and economic stability of survivors ofgender-based violence (GBV) youth and their families Dr Glass is further a PI of a UNICEFfunded trial to determine the effectiveness of a GBV primary prevention and response programon safety for women and girls in conflict affected countries (Somalia and South Sudan) and aco-investigator on a Department of State Bureau of Population Refugee and Migration (BPRM)funded partnership with UNHCR to develop and test a screening tool to identify survivors ofGBV in displaced and refugee populations in Ethiopia Uganda and Colombia Dr Nancy Glass isthe corresponding author and can be contacted at nglass1jhuedu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article please visit our websitewwwemeraldgrouppublishingcomlicensingreprintshtmOr contact us for further details permissionsemeraldinsightcom

128

IJWHM82

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

s N

aim

a L

ahar

nar

At 0

821

07

June

201

5 (P

T)