- Share This Post
- submit
- 47
-
Sparkle (0)
Editor's Update: Marriott says, "It was a mistake to suggest that the victim of this tragic incident was responsible for the vicious crime against her." This story was updated on BlogHer with Marriott's response early Wednesday morning and with additional updates in the comment section August 20. You may read the update at BlogHer here.
You are also invited to read Marriott's official statement in the update's comments section and information about the court detail. Marriott International withdrew its "special defense on August 17 and on August 18 issued its statement of regret.
--Beginning of original post--
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just spent time addressing violence against women in the Congo, Africa, expressing disdain for a misogynistic culture. Perhaps next, in her spare time, she should have a talk with attorneys in America who represent Marriott International. The lawyers are defending that corporation against a female guest's lawsuit by blaming her for her rape.
Marriott never struck me as the kind of company that would blame a mother who was raped on its property in front of her children for her own assault, that would accuse her of being careless and placing her children in danger because a rapist attacked her. Indeed, on Marriott's Social Responsibility & Community Engagement page the slogan is "Spirit to Serve Our Communities."
And here is the quote at the top of its Business and Ethics page:
"We need to stand together to ensure that the travel and tourism industry is always a positive force for good in the world. -- J.W. Marriott, Jr., Chairman and CEO
I first learned about this story in email. It seems that the woman was in the parking garage of The Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa in Connecticut, when she was raped. Here's how this story's being reported by The Advocate of Stamford:
STAMFORD -- A downtown hotel being sued by a woman raped at gunpoint in its parking garage is claiming she was careless, negligent and "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities," according to court documents.
... On Oct. 10, 2006, (Danbury, Conn., Gary) Fricker stuck a handgun in the back of the then 40-year-old woman and forced her and her children, then 3 and 5, into their minivan as they left the hotel, according to court documents.
She let him go through her wallet and told him he could take it, but Fricker demanded she take off her clothes. Fricker sexually assaulted the woman for several minutes, pointing the gun at her and her children and threatening to sexually assault one of her children.
When another car pulled up, the woman screamed, and Fricker fled. Police arrested Fricker near White Plains, N.Y., three days later, and he immediately confessed, police have said.
Fricker, a transient carpenter, had been arrested 20 times before and was wanted in Florida on an arson case, police have said.(The Advocate)
According to the story, Fricker, 56, after pleading guilty, received 20 years. Six months later in May 2008, the victim sued Marriott corporation. And now, this company that's built an image of family values for more than 80 years has attorneys who argue an archaic view of rape, telling women, "It's your fault you were assaulted unless you can prove you locked all your doors and watched where you were going."
How is this any different from the old, misognynistic accusation "If you didn't wear that short, red dress, Ms. Slut, you wouldn't have been raped"?
The Advocate's article is detailed, explaining why the company's attorneys would make such a play, something about "a list of special defenses" that allows "defendants in civil suits to argue they are not responsible for damages even if the plaintiff's story is true." You can read about special defenses if you like, but I'm done. I don't care what the Marriott's "defense" is for its indefensible covering of its ass on this one.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the woman's lawsuit because I haven't processed that part of the story yet. What I'm saying is that the Marriott has slapped all women in the face with its reprehensible rhetoric in hopes of saving itself from paying damages. Did its attorneys think this story would not reach us? Do they not know the spending power of women who, in my opinion, should cross the Marriott off their lists for family hotels, stop using the Marriott for business trips, and influence their spouses
