Sanctuary Announces the New Co-Chair of the PBC

Sanctuary for Families’ PBC is excited to announce that, as of January 2019, Sharon Barbour, associate at Cohen & Gresser, LLP, is serving as Co-Chair of the PBC.

Sanctuary for Families’ PBC is excited to announce that, as of January 2019, Sharon Barbour, associate at Cohen & Gresser, LLP, is serving as Co-Chair along with Louisa Irving, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Bureau, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Co-Chair since 2018, who has generously offered to stay on for a second one-year term.

Sharon succeeds Mia White, Associate General Counsel at McKinsey & Company, who served as Co-Chair of the PBC from January 2016 to December 2017. We are very grateful for Mia’s outstanding dedication and leadership over the past three years.

About the PBC

The PBC was formed in 2003 as the Associate’s Committee, later changed to the Pro Bono Council and currently known as the PBC, with the goal of bringing together young professionals committed to supporting and promoting the work of Sanctuary through active community engagement, pro bono projects, and client-centered events. The PBC currently has approximately 35 active members. Each fall, the PBC hosts the Above and Beyond benefit, an event that supports the Legal Center by honoring the pro bono lawyers and other volunteers who have worked on behalf of Sanctuary’s clients during the past year. Last year’s Above & Beyond event raised nearly $200,000 in support of the Legal Center.

Introducing Sharon

Sharon’s passion for feminist jurisprudence brought her to Sanctuary early in her career. While at Cornell Law School, where she attended prior to transferring to NYU, Sharon came across an article by Dorchen Leidholdt, Director of Sanctuary’s Legal Center. Sharon says the article, which discussed the relationship between prostitution and trafficking, significantly changed her understanding of commercial sexual exploitation. It also prompted her to learn more about Leidholdt’s work and to pursue an internship at Sanctuary for Families.

In the summer of 2011, Sharon joined Sanctuary as a legal intern on the Community Law Project. Working under the supervision of former Senior Staff Attorney Brett Figlewski, she devoted her time and skills to assist survivors of domestic violence from ethnic and historically-marginalized ­groups – including LGBT, Asian, African and Latina communities. Sharon continued her work at Sanctuary throughout her first semester at NYU, demonstrating excellence in her work and genuine commitment to Sanctuary’s mission.

Upon graduating, Sharon became an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and joined the PBC shortly after. During her five years at this firm, she worked with William Gorin, Sanctuary’s Board President, and with board member Jennifer Kroman. Sharon recalls one of her most rewarding pro bono cases while at Cleary Gottlieb involved a Sanctuary client who had experienced decades of abuse and isolation. Working in collaboration with Sanctuary’s counselors and fellow attorneys, Sharon actively supported her client throughout the healing process. The client, feeling comfortable and empowered, eventually began her transition and now lives as a woman.

With substantial experience in the areas of litigation, cross-border investigations, and white-collar defense, Sharon now works as an associate at Cohen & Gresser since August 2018. She holds a B.A. in Philosophy from Washington University in St. Louis, where she graduated cum laude, and a J.D. from New York University. Sharon is also a member of the New York City Bar Association International Human Rights Committee and the Steering Committee of the LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York LGBTQ Youth Clinic.

Taking on a second leadership role at the PBC ­– a group she has been a member of since 2013 – speaks to how important it is for Sharon to devote her expertise to helping survivors of all forms of gender violence. Prior to assuming this position, Sharon served as Co-chair of the PBC’s LGBTQ Committee. She was integral in helping establish a Saturday walk-in legal clinic for LGBTQ youth at The Church of St. Luke in the Fields, with which she remains actively involved.

As the new Co-chair, Sharon hopes to continue the incredible work that Mia and Louisa have been doing since 2016 and 2018, respectively. In the coming year, she will focus on giving PBC members the opportunity to further engage with Sanctuary for Families by going to Albany to participate in advocacy efforts, drafting comments to be submitted by Sanctuary in rule-making processes, hosting a client or cultivation event, and contributing more time and funding when possible.

Please join us in welcoming Sharon as PBC Co-Chair!

Get Involved

The PBC welcomes all professionals committed to helping victims of gender-based violence who are interested in supporting and promoting the work of Sanctuary. Every other month, the PBC hosts full membership meetings on Wednesday evenings from 7:00 – 9:00 PM in Midtown.

Anyone interested in getting involved with Sanctuary and its pro bono work should attend a PBC meeting to see this dynamic group of professionals in action – and to get involved themselves!

Please contact PBCinfo@sffny.org to learn more about joining the PBC.

Learn more about our Pro Bono Program.

Sanctuary’s Comments on the Proposed Title IX Rule

The Proposed Rule makes survivors of sexual misconduct even more disadvantaged in seeking relief for the harm they have suffered than any other category of complainants in school disciplinary proceedings. Sanctuary urges the Department to withdraw the Proposed Rule in its entirety.

On November 16, 2018, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposed several changes to Title IX regulations introduced under the Obama administration. The proposal has been open for public comment over a 60-day period that ends on January 30, 2019.

Sanctuary for Families appreciates this opportunity to submit comments to the Department of Education. We thank Gibson Dunn for drafting Sanctuary’s official comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding sexual misconduct in educational programs. 

Background

During the past decade, rates of sexual violence have skyrocketed on college campuses across the country. More than one in five women undergraduates experience an attempted or completed sexual assault during college. The epidemic of sexual violence against women on campus led to widespread calls for more robust and fair procedures to govern how schools address complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus.  In 2011, the Department of Education issued guidance, known as the “Dear Colleague Letter,” that required schools to address sexual violence on campus and to implement procedures that would place the complainant and the accused on equal footing in Title IX proceedings.  The Dear Colleague Letter, which was implemented by colleges and universities across the country, was widely praised as striking the right balance between protecting the accused and facilitating the reporting and fair evaluation of complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus.

The Department rescinded the Dear Colleague Letter on September 22, 2017 and announced that it would engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to draft new Title IX regulations.  On November 29, 2018, the Department issued the Proposed Rule[1], which sets forth an extensive set of restrictions and requirements for schools in responding to complaints of sexual misconduct. The Department says that the Proposed Rule is intended to “promote the purpose of Title IX” by requiring schools to address sexual misconduct and to ensure that investigations of sexual misconduct are “fair and impartial” and that “due process protections are in place for individuals accused of sexual harassment.”

Our Comments on the Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule is nothing short of a wholesale effort to eviscerate Title IX as a mechanism to address sexual misconduct on campus. The Department’s arguments to the contrary are not credible.  The Proposed Rule singles out sexual misconduct—the one type of misconduct on campus that disproportionately impacts females students—and rigs Title IX proceedings in favor of the accused by creating barriers to reporting, limiting what sexual misconduct schools can address, and requiring schools to adopt procedures that put complainants at a significant disadvantage and all but guarantee that the accused prevail. The Proposed Rule would also conflict with and consequently preempt existing state laws that seek to do the opposite: require schools to address sexual misconduct on campus and protect survivors. In short, the Proposed Rule makes survivors of sexual misconduct even more disadvantaged in seeking relief for the harm they have suffered than any other category of complainants in school disciplinary proceedings.

First, the Proposed Rule represents a dramatic departure from prior guidance and existing civil rights laws by limiting the circumstances under which schools may address complaints of sexual misconduct.  Under the Proposed Rule, a school may only address sexual misconduct under Title IX if it meets a narrow definition of “sexual harassment,” occurs within defined geographic areas, and is reported to the correct school employee.  If all of these conditions are not met, then schools are allowed—and in many cases, required—to ignore the report, no matter how serious the sexual misconduct.  By narrowing the definition of “sexual harassment” and limiting the circumstances in which a school may respond to complaints of sexual misconduct pursuant to Title IX, the Proposed Rule enables perpetrators to engage in sexual assault and sexual harassment with impunity.

Second, for the narrow range of sexual misconduct that schools can address, the Proposed Rule mandates that schools implement procedures that favor the accused and that will discourage reporting of sexual misconduct on campus.  This is particularly troubling, given that sexual misconduct on campus is already widely under-reported.  The Proposed Rule requires survivors to satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden while providing significant advantages to the accused—most notably, a presumption of no misconduct, the ability to subject the complainant to cross-examination by an advisor of his choice, and more expansive appeal rights than those provided to the complainant.  Although the Proposed Rule states that such procedures are necessary to ensure that Title IX proceedings are “fair and impartial,” these procedures, in fact, only rig the proceedings in favor of the accused and subject survivors to re-traumatizing investigatory processes and heightened and unnecessary procedural hurdles.

Third, the Proposed Rule would preempt state laws that provide greater protections for survivors.  The Proposed Rule’s broad restrictions on the types of sexual misconduct complaints that schools may address and requirement that schools implement procedures that favor the accused would preempt state laws that currently mandate schools to address a wider range of sexual misconduct on campus and to implement procedures in disciplinary proceedings that place the complainant and accused on equal footing.  As a result, the Proposed Rule serves to not only prohibit schools from using Title IX to address many complaints of sexual misconduct but also guarantees that state laws protecting students from campus sexual violence cannot be enforced.

Taken together, these provisions, if enacted, will fundamentally impair the rights of survivors in favor of protecting the accused.  On its face, the Proposal seeks primarily to protect the reputation and interests of the accused—by shielding a broad range of sexual misconduct from the reach of Title IX, all but guaranteeing that the accused prevail in Title IX proceedings, and preempting state laws that provide protections to survivors.  What is clearly not of concern in the Proposal is the growing epidemic of sexual violence on campus.  The Proposed Rule also ignores the long-lasting, pernicious effects of sexual violence on student survivors:  survivors commonly struggle with depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and anxiety attacks, and frequently face trauma-induced educational problems, such as declines in academic performance, loss of scholarship funds, delayed degree completion, and transferring schools.

The Proposed Rule—and its slavish protection of the interests of the accused—is premised on a myth that men on campus are the victims of a wave of false reports filed by women.  The data disproves this myth.  Studies of false reporting of sexual assault cases generally place the rate between 2% and 10%. The reality is that there is an epidemic of sexual violence on campus and incidents of sexual misconduct in schools are widely under-reported.  If enacted, the Proposed Rule would allow this very real epidemic to worsen, putting even more women on campus at risk of being sexually assaulted, and would undermine the abilities of schools to take effective action to address sexual violence on campus and hold perpetrators accountable. Sanctuary urges the Department to withdraw the Proposed Rule in its entirety.

 


   [1]   The Proposed Rule refers to “sexual harassment,” which it defines as “an employee of the [school] conditioning the provision of an aid, benefit, or service of the recipient on an individual’s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the [school’s] education program or activity; or sexual assault.”  Because the Proposed Rule’s definition of “sexual harassment” also includes sexual assault, Sanctuary will use the term “sexual misconduct” in these comments to encompass both sexual harassment and sexual assault.

 

 

Our Statement: The “Remain in Mexico” Policy Leaves Survivors More Vulnerable to Violence

The rollout of this cruel policy is further endangering the lives of countless gender violence survivors, among others, who have fled violence in their countries of origin and is causing chaos within our overburdened and broken immigration system.

Lori Adams is the Director of the Immigration Intervention Project at Sanctuary for Families.

Sanctuary for Families urges Congress to intervene to stop the Trump Administration from implementing its “Remain in Mexico” policy. The rollout of this cruel policy is further endangering the lives of countless gender violence survivors, among others, who have fled violence in their countries of origin and is causing chaos within our dysfunctional immigration system.

According to the plan, which DHS began to implement on January 25th, most refugees who reach the U.S.-Mexico border seeking protection in the United States will be required to stay in Mexico while they wait for their first hearing in a U.S. immigration court. 

The Impact

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen calls this a  “humanitarian approach” to address the crisis at the border, but there can be no doubt that the most vulnerable families will suffer under these new protocols. Refugees from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala often face violence and persecution so severe that it leaves them with no choice but to embark on a treacherous journey through Mexico to the U.S. Many of them are women and children fleeing gender-based harm. By requiring these families who have already proven “credible fear” to remain in Mexico while they await their immigration court date, we are putting families at risk of further violence.

The stated policy includes an exception for Mexican nationals, unaccompanied children, and refugees who can demonstrate that they are more likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico. In practice, however, it will be nearly impossible for migrants who have only been in Mexico for a short time to articulate a greater-than-50% likelihood of persecution or torture, simply due to the fact that such a determination requires knowledge of conditions throughout the country.

Chaos in the Courts

According to DHS, the “Remain in Mexico” policy will be implemented first at the San Ysidro port of entry which connects Tijuana, Mexico to San Diego, CA. Rolling out this new policy at one of the busiest land border crossings in the world would be a logistical nightmare under normal circumstances but the Trump Administration’s decision to do so following the conclusion of the longest government shutdown in our country’s history is certain to cause chaos. Immigration courts across the country have been closed for the last month, including the non-detained court in San Diego. The result in San Diego is a backlog that has ballooned to over 800,000 pending immigration cases.

Beyond the case backlog, the “Remain in Mexico” policy will only add to the chaos at the Tijuana-San Ysidro border itself. Refugees will likely miss their court dates in the United States due solely to the logistical hurdles of transporting them across an international border and getting them to a courthouse in the United States in time for their hearings.

Congress Must Act

There is a crisis in the U.S. immigration system, but it is not the crisis that the Trump Administration has described in the context of his administration’s recent border proposals. Congress should demand an immediate halt to the “Remain in Mexico” policy and the “Migrant Protection Protocols” that followed. These policies violate our international and domestic law obligations to protect those who flee to our border seeking protection. The United States must return to the rule of law to ensure that we remain a safe haven for survivors of gender-based harm and others who flee to the U.S. for protection because they have no other options.

Sanctuary is Taking Action

Sanctuary for Families is a leading provider of immigration legal services for survivors of gender-based harm. We are based in New York City where many refugees, survivors of trafficking and other vulnerable immigrants, receive our life-saving services every day.  Over the next two weeks, we will be sending two delegations of immigration attorneys to Tijuana where they will provide legal and humanitarian assistance to migrants, including survivors of gender-based harm, who will be disproportionally impacted by this new policy.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to receive updates from the border, and please consider donating if you would like to provide financial support to sustain this life-saving work.

Thank you for your support for Sanctuary for Families, and for the immigrant survivors of violence who rely on our services.

The Truth About Human Trafficking & the Wall

President Trump has made many misleading and uninformed claims as he advocates for a wall at the southern border. We thought you should know the truth about modern-day slavery.

Watch on CNN: Lori Cohen, Director of Sanctuary’s Anti-Trafficking Initiative, respond to President Trump’s statements: https://cnn.it/2TjrAZp 


Over the past weeks, President Trump has repeatedly brought up human trafficking as he argues in favor of building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The majority of his statements on the subject, however, have been either misleading or unfounded.

At Sanctuary for Families, we know from our clients’ experiences and from fellow anti-trafficking experts across the country that the reality of modern-day slavery is different from that described by the President. For this reason, we’re debunking five of the President’s most frequent claims about human trafficking:

1. Trump’s Claim: Human trafficking cannot be stopped without a steel barrier or concrete wall.

Many women and children attempting to cross the border are fleeing sexual violence and trafficking in their own countries, and seeking asylum in the U.S. — Shutting them out of our country makes them more vulnerable to exploitation.


2. Building a wall at the border will keep traffickers out of the United States.

Many U.S. citizens are involved in the sex trade and traffickers entering the U.S. through the southern border often do so lawfully.


3. Stricter immigration policies and tighter border security will stop human trafficking.

In the U.S., immigrants — particularly those who are undocumented — are at a much higher risk of exploitation than nonimmigrants.

By criminalizing immigrant communities, President Trump’s policies are pushing trafficking survivors deeper into the shadows and limiting law enforcement’s ability to investigate trafficking-related crimes.


4. Undocumented immigrants are criminals and bring violence to our communities.

Studies have shown that undocumented immigrants are considerably less likely to commit crimes compared to U.S.-born citizens.

In reality, most undocumented people crossing the southern border are fleeing horrific violence, including gender violence and sex trafficking, in their home countries.


5. Trafficking victims are immigrants from other countries who have been brought here unlawfully.

A very large number of victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation in this country are U.S. citizens and never cross any borders at all.


Building the wall will not stop human trafficking. If President Trump really wanted to protect trafficking victims, he would listen to experts, push for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and increase the number of available T visas.