Transit
WMATA takes action to fight sexual harassment
Just 2 weeks after advocates and members of the public testified about sexual harassment to a DC Council oversight hearing, WMATA has taken concrete steps to address the problem.
Image from WMATA.
WMATA officials invited representatives from Collective Action for Safe Spaces (CASS)/Holla Back DC! to a meeting on the issue. We had low expectations going into the meeting because in the preceding days, WMATA released statements like, "one person's harassment is another person's flirting" and gave the impression that they thought sexual offenses weren't a big deal.
Directly after the hearing, a top WMATA official talked to us in the hallway and said that the First Amendment protects remarks including verbal sexual harassment. We anticipated having to spend time explaining how sexual harassment was a problem and why they should care about it. But we didn't.
Instead, CASS co-founder Chai Shenoy and board members Ben Merrion and I listened to, and were pleasantly surprised by, what they had to say.
In the 2 weeks since the hearing, WMATA had formed an internal task force consisting of about 10 people, including communications director Lynn Bowersox, spokesperson Dan Stessel, government relations director Regina Sullivan, and police chief Michael Taborn. They invited us to join the task force as well.
We were pleased to hear they wanted to implement all of our recommendations. They were eager for more feedback from us. They also were sincere, polite, and appreciative for bringing this issue to their attention and offering suggestions.
Our first recommendation was for WMATA to do a better job tracking sexual harassment incidents and to allow people to report verbal sexual harassment. In response, they launched both a new email address (harassment@wmata.com) and an online portal where people can easily report incidents. You can also continue to call Metro Transit Police at 202-962-2121.
For the first time, they are including verbal harassment on the list of crimes people can report, and they are encouraging people to submit photos of their harassers if they can take one safely. They will create quarterly reports detailing incidents. Once WMATA has a better sense of the amount, type, and locations of incidents, they will be better able to perform targeted prevention.
Our second recommendation was a public service announcement campaign to inform people how and what they can report. To implement this recommendation, WMATA turned to their transit counterparts in Boston, a city which has a successful anti-sexual harassment PSA campaign.
We learned that Boston is willing to let DC adapt their campaign as soon as they want. WMATA provided us with copies of the campaign, and over this past weekend we went through the different PSA options and offered feedback. WMATA hopes to roll out the campaign as early as the first week of April, in the spirit of Sexual Assault Awareness Month.
Our third recommendation was better training for employees so that when people report incidents, employees respond appropriately. WMATA officials plan to draft training materials soon and will let CASS review it to provide feedback. And, on Friday, CEO Richard Sarles wrote in his regular newsletter to the 11,000 employees at WMATA about the seriousness of sexual harassment and assault on the Metro.
We know government agencies, including WMATA, are notoriously slow at changing and responding to complaints, and it is both surprising and commendable to see them move so quickly on implementing changes. We also know they took action so fast thanks to the outpouring of stories and supportive comments from people who emailed, tweeted, blogged, and wrote comments on articles, including the article here about the Metro oversight hearing.
I want to thank everyone who spoke out about this on and off-line. You helped make this happen.
WMATA wants more feedback and constructive suggestions about what else they can do. Several WMATA staff members will join CASS's "The REAL Metro Forum" event on Thursday, March 22, 5:30 pm at AAUW, 1111 16th Street NW. Members of the public are welcome to attend this free event, which is one of 8 events occurring in DC (PDF) for International Anti-Street Harassment Week.
So please come, voice your opinion, and be part of the exciting and fast-moving efforts to end sexual harassment on the Metro system.
 | Holly Kearl is the founder of Stop Street Harassment and author of Stop Street Harassment: Making Public Places Safe and Welcoming for Women (Praeger, 2010).   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
That isn't the diminsh the eve-teasing that is going on in WMATA, but as far as I can see none of the concrete steps here involve WMATA employees harrasing other employees, or if you want to stretch it, WMATA employees harrasing customers.
by charlie on Mar 12, 2012 10:58 am • link • report
by Gavin on Mar 12, 2012 11:40 am • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Mar 12, 2012 11:41 am • link • report
I was one of several women who testified at the WMATA hearing, and we are NOT talking about idle flirtation. Two stories involved public masturbation and/or public exposure, which are both crimes. One story involved a customer being repeatedly harassed by a Metro bus driver on his route. She was so shaken that she completely changed her routine to avoid his bus. One woman spoke about being groped by a man (who was almost certainly high) while entering a metro station, reporting it to the Station Manager, and being laughed at. She later learned that her assailant was arrested half a block away for attempted rape.
Of course not all of these events could have been prevented by WMATA personnel, but they should be trained about how to respond to complaints, rather than ignoring them.
Women are being harassed sexually while using WMATA transit. Describing it with a cutesy euphemism diminishes the problem in the minds of the public. Public Sexual Harassment is an accurate description of what is going on. Also, fascinating to me that you feel the best response to this issue is to argue about semantics.
by Kes on Mar 12, 2012 11:45 am • link • report
@Mperkins; I agree with your analysis. But the recomondations don't have anything to do with that particular problem or issue.
Not sure what the right term in, but there should be a distinction between WMATA employees and female customers, and customers vs. customers.
by charlie on Mar 12, 2012 11:54 am • link • report
This misses the point. Yes, the legal definition of sexual harassment is in the workplace. Outside of the workplace, sexually harassing speech would have to meet the definition of "verbal assault" to be a crime. Verbal assault requires something more than words such as pointing to someone's crotch after making a lewd suggestion.
But, the reason legal definitions miss the point is that asking WMATA employees and customers to simply avoid breaking the law is much too low a standard. Even bars and nightclubs will kick you out for something less than breaking the law. There should be a sexual harassment policy at WMATA and violators of the policy should be banned from the WMATA system as either employees or customers. The bans could start from temporary and escalate to permanent depending on severity and frequency.
by Falls Church on Mar 12, 2012 12:01 pm • link • report
by Kes on Mar 12, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report
Why?
And no, "eve-teasing" is not a term of art; look it up.
by Miriam on Mar 12, 2012 12:17 pm • link • report
I'd be curious on the statistics how much is on MetroRail vs. the MetroBus.
by charlie on Mar 12, 2012 12:18 pm • link • report
Unless that distinction is "WMATA should dismiss employees for harassment but has no power over its customers' employment", I don't see why.
(Sadly, I believe that even if WMATA were really prepared to take this issue seriously, it would still not be able to dismiss an employee for harassment.)
Incidentally, I'd never heard the term "Eve teasing" before, so I looked it up. Admittedly, Wikipedia is not an ideal source, but if its description is accurate the use of the term in this context is inappropriate: Eve teasing is a euphemism used in India and sometimes Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal for public sexual harassment or molestation of women by men, with use of the word "Eve" being a reference to the biblical Eve, the first woman. It implies that the woman is in some way responsible for the behaviour of the perpetrators of this act... Some voluntary organisations have suggested that the expression be replaced by a more appropriate term. According to them, considering the semantic roots of the term in Indian English, Eve teasing refers to the temptress nature of Eve, placing responsibility on the woman as a tease. Not the phrase we want here, I think.
by cminus on Mar 12, 2012 12:47 pm • link • report
by Phil on Mar 12, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report
The solutions proposed here (tracking, PSA, training) seem mostly designed to solve the problem of customer/customer. There is some overlap. I can see why WMATA doesn't want to address employer/customer issue -- union and potenital liability come to mind.
If you want male WMATA employees to stop acting like cads (another term of art, by the by) you've got one set of solutions. If you want to start to identify how much of a problem female WMATA customers feel threatened by other customers the measures proposed seem like a logical step.
by charlie on Mar 12, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report
I agree that the PSA will likely be ineffective and the other recommendations are more about measuring the size of the problem (an important first step) rather than solving it.
It's not just bars/bouncers that you could use as an analogy. Pretty much every public facing business operates similarly and WMATA should be run more like a business. If anyone tried the kind of behavior described above at Six Flags or Kings Dominion or Disney World, they would certainly receive a lifetime ban.
Of course, WMATA isn't the same as Kings Dominion, so some extra accommodations to ensure fairness are needed. That's where a Code of Conduct (probably more accurate wording than Sexual Harassment Policy) would come into play. Not only would it define unallowable behavior, it would establish some kind of quasi-judicial process for adjudicating violations and assessing appropriate penalties. I bet WMATA could get the Code/Policy crafted Pro Bono by any number of this city's numerous lawyers.
by Falls Church on Mar 12, 2012 1:30 pm • link • report
Why do you assume that?
1)WMATA employees have far more exposure to WMATA PSAs (and the msg that sexual comments are inappropriate) than do WMATA users.
2)The PSAs will include info on how and where to report incidences. This affects WMATA employees directly.
3)"Training" is specifically targeted to WMATA employees behavior, both in how to handle reports and in the message that this behavior is not acceptable for them to perpetrate.
4)"Tracking" directly involves WMATA employees record keeping.
The 3 actions you describe, PSAs, training and tracking, directly involve WMATA employees.
by Tina on Mar 12, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report
Employees can and should be fired for verbal assaults that make a reasonable woman apprehensive. WMATA is liable for their behavior. If WMATA is failing to do all in its power to stop verbal assaults of passengers by its employees, then, WMATA is vulnerable to civil suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Metro could probably eject passengers for verbal abuse, at least if it occurred within earshot of a well-trained employee. As a common carrier, WMATA is also responsible for protecting its passengers from reasonably forseeable threats to their safety, including both verbal assualts and physical assaults. The 1st amendment rights of a passenger on a crowded train are not as great as (for example) someone on the street or writing a blog post. In International Society for Krishna Consciousness v Lee and other cases, the Supreme Court upheld restrictions that prevented religious devotees from face-to-face solicitations in airports, county fairs etc. The captive audience doctrine also allows Metro to restrict threatening communications when one is not free to walk away.
by Jim T on Mar 12, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
Also, re "term of art" -- you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
by Miriam on Mar 12, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
by MLD on Mar 12, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report
Here's a question I want to pose twice: Could a local jurisdiction ban a resident from using the sidewalk if that resident makes lewd, but legal, comments about another?
There's a lot to unpack here that sounds great at first but is worth some scrutiny.
First, WMATA is different from King Dominion or Disney World for many small reasons and one big one: WMATA is a government. It can arrest you and throw you in jail. It is also subject to all sorts of constraints that don't bind Disney. Disney can (and does) censor speech. WMATA cannot. (I'm deliberately omitting a large discussion about content-neutral speech restrictions)
Now, WMATA's status as a governmental entity does come with a lot of cool powers that Disney doesn't have. Disney has Disney jail, WMATA has real jail. Still this is a crucial difference.
The bar/club analogy is, in my opinion, weak. Private establishments have tons of restrictions. But WMATA is more like a county government that owns the sidewalks.
So again: Could a government ban a resident from using the sidewalk if that resident makes lewd, but legal, comments about others?
You may think the answer is (or should be) "yes." I'm not so sure; I lean weakly toward "no" just out of general conservatism. But unpacking this issue is really important.
Next, there's the idea that WMATA should "be run more like a business." I think this is an idea that sounds great on the surface, but is very misleading when you think about it.
Do you want WMATA to set a revenue-maximizing fare level? Do you want them to turn a profit? Do you want subsidies for the poor or elderly? Do you want access for all? Do you want them to have to hold public hearings before raising fares? Do you want them to have Metro Access at all? The list goes on, but you get the point.
WMATA isn't a business and shouldn't be broadly compared to one, either. Pretty much everyone here agrees that Metro should ben managed better, but better does not equal "like a business." There's more to say on this issue (governments have taxing power, WMATA doesn't, for example), but this is already really long. Hope that provokes some thinking.
by WRD on Mar 12, 2012 3:39 pm • link • report
Good law is about drawing lines.
by charlie on Mar 12, 2012 3:45 pm • link • report
Where might one come across this mythical creature?
by dcd on Mar 12, 2012 3:46 pm • link • report
First, WMATA is NOT a private common carrier. Second, I hope you see the difference here. In your example, the passenger is removed pursuant to Federal laws and regulations governing conduct. Presumably abusive or threatening language. I'm sort of filling in your example here because you were very light on the details.
Further, WMATA does have the ability to remove people from its premises! Remember the bag search controversy? That's just one example, they can throw you off for violating all sorts of rules. But is that a blanket ban? Is that analogous to the conduct in question? We need more facts to address these issues because it could come down either way.
And airlines exist in a special, weird regulatory world. I don't think airline examples generally would be applicable to a public transit system.
by WRD on Mar 12, 2012 3:54 pm • link • report
In terms of your filter, no, you go that wrong. The point I am making is airlines have chosen to draw the line at "terrorist" very low; so low that any little lady for Topeka who has never seen a brown man before can get a get to land and remove said inncocent "terrorist." Mot intelligent people can agree that isn't a good line.
In terms of where WMATA should draw that line, I have no idea, but I woudl suggest based on past experience they aren't going to do a good job on it.
by charlie on Mar 12, 2012 4:01 pm • link • report
For instance, say customer A harasses customer B. B complains to a station manager. Assuming A has not left the station already (either via train or turnstile) can he be thrown out right there? Can he be arrested? Does law enforcement need some confirmation of B's story to take action? Can he be banned for some period of time if he is a repeat offender? What's the line between legal and illegal speech? Does harassment absent of some sort of threat even illegal?
by Steven Yates on Mar 12, 2012 4:27 pm • link • report
First off, I'd say that the sidewalk is different. You have a right to walk on the sidewalk. Riding metro is a privilege. Second, if the person on the sidewalk is aggressively panhandling, then yes, you could fine and potentially jail that person. Of course, that requires a panhandling law, so one solution to WMATA's situation is to make the behavior in question specifically illegal.
You may think the answer is (or should be) "yes." I'm not so sure; I lean weakly toward "no" just out of general conservatism. But unpacking this issue is really important.
Fair enough. Good analogy with sidewalks and it raises a good point.
that sounds great on the surface, but is very misleading when you think about it.
Do you want WMATA to set a revenue-maximizing fare level?
I want WMATA to pursue it's mission by using the same proven management principles and best practices that for-profit and non-profit organizations use (yes, non-profits use management principles and in fact, Yale's business school specializes in non-profit management).
WMATA's mission is not to maximize revenue or turn a profit but one of their missions is around quality/customer service and they would greatly benefit from thinking more like a competitive business than a government monopoly with a captive customer base.
by Falls Church on Mar 12, 2012 6:58 pm • link • report
How about this question. Could a school ban/expel a student for making lewd but legal comments to another student? I think the answer has got to be "yes" and going to school is more of a right than riding metro (which I'm still saying is a privilege, not a right...similar to going to a city swimming pool).
by Falls Church on Mar 12, 2012 7:08 pm • link • report
To the guy who suggested WMATA form it's own court system to deal with this? Seriously? The cost of that would be ridiculous, which is only problem one of about 2 billion with that idea.
By the way, "non-violent sexual touching assault" is specifically mentioned in DC law and is already a crime punishable by $1,000 fine and imprisonment of up to 180 days. Maybe we could just put that on a poster along with the number for the police (you know the guys who we are already paying to handle this).
As far as the comments though, it is not moral or legal to dictate to others what the can or can not say to you or anyone else. If you feelings are so easily hurt by words I suggest buying some nice noise canceling headphones or moving non-free country. The only exception to this being metro employees who should be fired for this crap. I'm not really comfortable with my tax dollars or fare money paying the salary of anyone engaging in this behavior.
So yeah, fire the metro employees, report anyone who gropes you to the police, and raise your kids right so they don't grow up to be one of these creeps. We do NOT however need any more laws, rules, or any of this other ridiculous nonsense.
by Doug on Mar 13, 2012 4:36 am • link • report
Regarding customers: The 1st Amendment provides less protection to customers on a bus or train than on on a sidewalk. When agencies are operating a common carrier, their power to restrict speech resembles that of other private companies that operate common carriers--and even a government agency can restrict certain speech to protect the privacy rights of a "captive audience."
Of course, the diminished 1st Amendment rights of WMATA patrons does not mean that WMATA has blanket authority to restrict content: It could not, for example, bar all conversations about WMATA's poor service. But WMATA only needs its restriction to be reasonably tailored to meet a subtantial objective (intermediate scrutiny). And let's not forget that even on the street, some forms of free speech are outlawed (e.g. "give me your money or I'll kill you" is assault with or without a real gun).
So it seems very likely that Metro could prohibit the types of speech that would constitute harassment by a non-supervisor in a work place, and deny entry to repeat offenders. That would not account for most of the annoying things that people may say; but it may well include suggestive comments combined with any touching.
by Jim T on Mar 13, 2012 8:12 am • link • report
"But WMATA only needs its restriction to be reasonably tailored to meet a subtantial objective (intermediate scrutiny)."
Excellent point...do we have a lawyer in our midst? The key portion here is "reasonably tailored." That is up for debate; contrast to "overbroad." I'd like to add that the restrictions would also have to be content-neutral.
I think we are all imagining WMATA to mean "underground train platforms" and Jim mentioned a "captive audience." This is an important part of the debate, but I brought up sidewalks for a reason. Remember, a huge amount of sidewalk space is within WMATA jurisdiction because of all the bus stops.
So should there be different rules for the train stations that are stricter than the bus stops (which, obviously, are functionally no different than the sidewalk)?
The school analogy is pretty bad, in my opinion. Students are, for the most part, minors. They don't have anywhere near the free speech rights enjoyed by non-students. I don't think it would be a good thing to impose school-like content restrictions on the subway system.
Would you be OK with Montgomery County enacting a code of conduct identical to this hypothetical WMATA rule that applies in all County parks, facilities, and other public places?
I want WMATA to pursue it's mission by using the same proven management principles and best practices that for-profit and non-profit organizations use
In principle, I agree. I love corporate America. It gives me a paycheck. But in practice, this is just impossible. WMATA should mimic certain aspects of the private sector. WMATA should envy and shamelessly copy ExxonMobil's amazing capital allocation abilities. I know what you mean about best-practices. But best practices for WMATA come from places like NYC's MTA or Chicago's CTA or the London Underground. Not the NYSE.
by WRD on Mar 13, 2012 10:09 am • link • report
I am glad to see WMATA reaching out to the MBTA; this is good practice for future reachouts on other issues in the customer service realm. I am glad to see the MBTA sharing their resources in return. As a transit user who knows my federal taxes flow to both agencies, this is how things should be.
There's a lot of commentary here on whether these solutions do enough to handle employee-on-customer harassment. In my opinion, in a world where realists can agree that even the best-intentioned managers would rather not look under this rock unless absolutely necessary, there is a bank-shot way to address this problem.
Simply put, as part of the employee training, it needs to be emphasized that employees are a key resource in holding up the public dignity of the system, which means encouraging employees, particularly male employees, to speak up when they see male customers harassing female customers.
When customers report that a WMATA employee has stood up for a female customer in this fashion, that employee (regardless of gender) should be recognized with a commendation of some type.
When the organizational culture validates this type of enforcement of healthy societal norms, it is only a matter of time before the WMATA employees who might have felt free to be crude or aggressive in the past will feel a chilling effect on those behaviors.
For now, these are good FIRST steps forward and WMATA should see how far improving a general climate for women by focusing on customer-driven harassment inadvertently improves the behavior of employees. If it does, then they will be a in a good spot because the policy will be achieving a desired effect without encouraging WMATA employees to tattle on each other.
If over time the new reporting system indicates that customer-on-customer harassment is declining but employee-on-customer harassment is not, obviously it will still need to be addressed, but that's a future step.
by CityBeautiful21 on Mar 13, 2012 12:07 pm • link • report
Sincerely,
Caroline Lukas
Metro Media Relations
by cllukas on Mar 13, 2012 6:27 pm • link • report
Add a Comment