A Civil Cause of Action for Survivors of Gender-Motivated Violence
The New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-1101 et seq., gives survivors of gender-motivated violence a direct civil cause of action against the people who attacked them — and, in many cases, against the institutions that enabled the attack. For workplace cases involving sexual assault or other gender-based physical conduct, the GMVA reaches places where Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and even the New York City Human Rights Law no longer can.
What the GMVA Covers
The GMVA defines a “crime of violence motivated by gender” to include any crime of violence — including sexual assault, sexual battery, forcible touching, and other physical conduct — committed because of the victim’s gender or on the basis of gender. The claim is independent of any criminal prosecution. There does not need to have been a criminal charge, a conviction, or even a police report for a civil GMVA claim to proceed.
In workplace contexts, the GMVA most often applies to:
- Sexual assault by a supervisor, executive, owner, partner, or rainmaker.
- Forcible touching or groping during business travel, client dinners, after-hours work events, or in private offices.
- Coerced sexual contact tied to threats or implicit promises about employment, pay, promotion, references, or continued work.
- Patterns of gender-motivated physical conduct that the employer or institution knew about or should have known about and failed to stop.
The 2022 Lookback Amendment
In 2022, the New York City Council amended the GMVA to revive otherwise time-barred claims. Survivors whose claims would have been considered too old under the prior statute of limitations were given a window in which to file. The amendment meaningfully expanded who can still bring a case — particularly survivors of workplace sexual assault that occurred years or decades earlier, before they were ready or able to come forward.
The GMVA’s standard limitations period is seven years from the date of the act — and nine years where the perpetrator concealed their identity. For survivors whose claims fell outside that window before the 2022 amendment, the lookback was the path forward.
Claims Against Institutional Defendants
The GMVA’s civil cause of action is not limited to the person who committed the act. Where an employer, school, religious organization, or other institution knew or reasonably should have known about gender-motivated violence and failed to act, the institution can face liability under the GMVA’s institutional-defendant provisions. This is particularly important in workplace cases, where the conduct often occurs against the backdrop of complaints that were dismissed, investigations that went nowhere, or HR processes that protected the perpetrator instead of the survivor.
Why the GMVA Matters for Workplace Cases
Many survivors of workplace sexual violence never filed a claim at the time. Some needed the job. Some were not believed. Some were told the conduct did not “rise to the level” of a legal claim. Some left the company and tried to move on. The short statutes of limitations under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL closed many of those claims long before survivors were ready to act.
The GMVA changed that. For the right facts, it offers a direct route to civil accountability years — sometimes decades — after the conduct occurred. It allows survivors to pursue the individual responsible, and where appropriate, the employer or institution that allowed the conduct to continue.
Related Fingerhut Law Pages
Sexual Harassment, Workplace Sexual Assault, Hostile Work Environment, Retaliation for Protected Activity, LGBTQ+ Discrimination.
Contact Fingerhut Law
If you experienced gender-motivated violence at work — including years or decades ago — contact Fingerhut Law for a confidential consultation about a possible claim under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act.
Attorney Advertising Disclaimer: This article is attorney advertising and is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.