Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee hears support for bill to protect sexual‑assault survivors from retaliatory lawsuits
Loading...
Summary
Proponents told the committee HB 465 would shift burdens in retaliatory civil suits against survivors, requiring plaintiffs to prove bad faith or actual malice; advocates said it would reduce chilling effects and align Maryland with other states.
Delegate Emry (Embry) introduced House Bill 465 as a measure to reduce retaliatory civil suits that can silence survivors of sexual assault. Sponsor testimony described the bill as requiring plaintiffs who sue survivors for statements about assaults to prove they acted with "actual malice" or intentionally and recklessly disclosed false information.
Lisa Jordan of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault said the bill would "reduce the burden on survivors and keep the courthouse doors open at the same time," explaining that the current law often forces survivors to prove the truth of their allegation in civil court after reporting. Jody Kavanaugh (Sexual Assault Legal Institute) gave detailed examples where survivors who pursued Title IX or internal processes later faced costly civil suits seeking to intimidate and silence them.
Elizabeth Tang of the National Women's Law Center, testifying online, explained the bill's legal mechanics: it does not bar plaintiffs from suing, but requires the plaintiff to prove actual malice or bad faith to succeed and makes fee‑shifting available to disincentivize meritless suits. "If they lose, they have to pay reasonable fees," Tang said, a provision proponents said would discourage strategic litigation meant to punish survivors.
Committee members asked for details about how the statutory language interacts with existing anti‑SLAPP protections and employer reporting exceptions; witnesses suggested tweaks to clarify "actual malice" vs. "intentional or reckless disclosure." Several speakers noted other states have adopted similar protections and that the bill tracks model practices.
The hearing closed without a committee vote; supporters urged a favorable report, while questions remained about precise statutory language and interactions with nondisclosure agreements and institutional policies.
