THREAD.

I see this argument a lot - that a sexual harassment/assault civil suit for money damages is somehow less credible than a criminal case. I've handled cases involving both (and I've litigated more than fifty sexual harassment/assault cases), so let's look at this. https://twitter.com/AgentRachelLuba/status/1357194892099813377

There are many reasons a plaintiff chooses to pursue a civil suit. First of all, remember that the decision whether or not charges are filed rests not with the complaining witness, but with the prosecutor. "Pressing charges" is a misnomer.

2/

Moreover, prosecutorial discretion means that a prosecutor is not obligated to bring charges in every case. The reasons a prosecutor may decide not to pursue criminal charges range from insufficient evidence to an overworked department.

3/

In the American system of justice, a prosecutor can simply decide not to bring charges for any reason, even if the prosecutor believes there is sufficient evidence to convict. And believe me - it happens all the time.

Now, a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty -

4/

but that's for purposes of a criminal proceeding. In other words, a decision to not press charges is *not*, and *can never be*, admissible in a civil proceeding as evidence of guilt or innocence.

5/

So where the prosecutor elects not to press charges, a civil suit is the plaintiff's only recourse. Moreover, a civil suit need not only seek damages. There are other reasons to bring a suit. For instance, a civil suit does not allow a defendant to refuse to testify.

6/

A defendant can still invoke their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but they must submit to a deposition and they can be called to testify at trial. In other words, a civil suit can be a powerful tool for seeking evidence that can be used

7/

in a later criminal proceeding. Discovery in a civil suit is farther reaching than in criminal proceedings, and there are stiff penalties for non-compliance. Civil suits can also request injunctions, orders requiring the defendant to stop harassing/assaulting the plaintiff.

8/

So if the prosecutor elected not to pursue charges because of a lack of evidence, a civil suit can be a very good way of obtaining the evidence that prosecutor needs.

There are also many plaintiffs who believe that the carceral state is morally wrong.

9/

They do not wish to compound the wrong done to them by wronging another. There is also the well-documented reality of mistreatment and abuse of sexual assault victims by police and mishandling of rape kits. Simply put, many attorneys believe it is safer for their clients

10/

to NOT go to the police, especially clients who are women of color.

But let's get deeper.

Sexual harassment and assault cause real, lifelong trauma and injuries which are generally not covered by health insurance. They still need to be treated, and doing that costs money.

11/

It is THOSE costs that civil suits for sexual assault and harassment seek. If a person is seeking "a lot of money" in a sexual assault case, that doesn't mean they're looking for a payday. It means that the assault they suffered is so egregious that the care needed

12/

to recover is *that* expensive. That's one of the reasons for discovery - the doctors, caregivers, and other treaters and their bills and cost projections are disclosed in discovery and introduced as evidence at trial.

13/

There are also statutes in some states which recognize the unique trauma caused by sexual assault and apply "multipliers" to those numbers, intended to punish the defendant for wrongful conduct. That's called "punitive damages".

14/

There's also this myth that you can sue for anything and get money. Nope! In order to prove your case for sexual assault, depending on the state, you have to prove your case either by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.

15/

A "preponderance of the evidence" means that you must prove to a judge and/or jury that it is MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that the assault happened. "Clear and convincing evidence" is harder - it means that you must prove basically that the defendant's denial is not credible.

16/

But what about the motion to dismiss that Luba said was being filed? Well, here's the thing about motions to dismiss. For procedural purposes, in every state, filing a motion to dismiss concedes the truth of the facts of the complaint for purposes of the motion.

17/

In other words, a motion to dismiss in an assault case *admits the assault occurs for purposes of the motion*, but asserts some defense or pleading defect which says that the case cannot be presented. If you want to deny the assault occurred, you file an answer.

18/

Now, it's entirely possible that there is such a pleading defect here, or some other affirmative defense which would defeat the claim. But filing a motion to dismiss doesn't say that the assault didn't happen; it's actually, procedurally, the opposite.

19/

Now, I don't know what happened with Puig, and neither do you. But - and this is the key takeaway - civil suits for sexual assault and harassment ARE credible. They are an important part of our legal system. And hopefully, now you understand why.

20/20