Marriott Reverses on Blaming Rape Victim

Company Drops Legal Claim that Woman Was Partly at Fault for Being Raped in Conn. Hotel Garage

(AP)  The Marriott hotel chain on Monday abandoned its legal claim that a Connecticut woman raped at gunpoint in a hotel parking garage, in front of her young children, had been careless and was partly at fault.

The withdrawal followed days of backlash against Bethesda, Md.-based Marriott International Inc., which had claimed in its defense of a lawsuit by the woman that she had "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."

Her attacker is serving a 20-year prison term for the 2006 attack at the Stamford hotel.

The woman also accused Marriott in June of indirectly disclosing her and her children's identities by seeking subpoenas for her Pilates instructor, friends and tennis partners, a house cleaner, and a baby sitter.

"This was done to expose the identities of the Doe family in their community so as to intimidate them from pursuing this case, pure and simple," attorneys Paul Slager and Ernest Teitell wrote in court papers.

Marriott attorney Donald Derrico said the company was trying to determine the effect of the crime on the victim and that subpoenas have not been issued. The hotel will decide whom to subpoena on a case-by-case basis, he said.

"Her name was never, ever, ever disclosed to anyone," Derrico said.

Marriott issued a statement Friday that it was "profoundly sorry that such a terrible thing happened to the victim of this violent crime" in its parking garage. The chain said the situation has "created a mistaken impression that Marriott lacks respect" for victims of violent crimes.

Critics said the blame-the-victim defense wasn't softened by the apology.

"I thought it was despicable, disgusting and all too common," said Jessica Mindlin, a national director for the Victim Rights Law Center in Boston. "It's like a second rape."

The defense claim was made before attorneys finished taking the victim's deposition, Derrico said, "so as not to waive a potential defense." He said that Marriott officials asked his law firm to withdraw the claim in July, but that his associate had not done so because his mother died.

"We're not accusing her of anything," Derrico said.

Court papers do not indicate how the hotel planned to argue that the woman was careless, and Derrico declined to elaborate.

Gary Fricker assaulted the 40-year-old woman in her minivan at the Marriott Hotel & Spa in October 2006 in Stamford in front of her children, both younger than 7. Fricker, 56, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, risk of injury to a minor and robbery.

Her attorney read a letter in court at the time in which she said frightening situations confront her every day.

"Right after the assault, I became a zombie," the woman wrote. "I couldn't eat, I couldn't sleep, I couldn't think, I couldn't drive a car, I couldn't hold a conversation. I shut myself inside the house, spent a lot of time in the shower, first to wash myself clean and then later to have a place to cry freely, and I jumped every time the telephone rang."

Her lawsuit contends the hotel failed to take adequate security precautions, monitor the parking lot and train employees in basic security techniques. The hotel also should have known about other sexual assaults before her rape, according to the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages.

The Associated Press generally does not name victims of sexual assault.

Women's advocates said Marriott's handling of the case is every rape victim's nightmare come true - and a major reason why rape remains one of the most underreported crimes, despite changes like shield laws that make a victim's sexual history irrelevant.

"The fear of being blamed for being raped is one of the most common reasons that victims of sexual assault don't come forward," said Nancy Kushins, executive director of Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services.

Defenses that blame the victim to some extent are not uncommon, as insurance companies try to minimize their losses. But Jim Nugent, chairman of the litigation section of the Connecticut Bar Association, said doing so in this case would be odd, given the especially horrific nature of a rape witnessed by the victim's children.

"It's just not going to sit well with a jury," Nugent said. "How in the world could this poor woman contribute to that?"

[mh_newton]

After reading this story. I am sure women, children, and handicapped people will stay away from Marriott International, Inc. (NYSE: MAR) and other hotel which is under the management of Marriott such as, JW Marriott, The Ritz-Carlton, Renaissance, Courtyard, Residence Inn, SpringHill Suites, Fairfield Inn, TownePlace Suites and Marriott ExecuStay.

[gunownerdan]

Rapists will always prefer DEFENSELESS VICTIMS.
The only person responsible for your own safety is you.
Self Defense....
A-HUMAN-RIGHT . com

[gunownerdan]

Rapists will always prefer DEFENSELESS VICTIMS.
The only person responsible for your own safety is you.
Self Defense....
A-HUMAN-RIGHT . com

[gunownerdan]

Rapists will always prefer DEFENSELESS VICTIMS.
The only person responsible for your own safety is you.
Self Defense....
A-HUMAN-RIGHT . com

[aChangeOfIdeas]

Marriott was insensitive with their claim that she was careless. I cannot remember the last time I was in a parking lot that had security and was 'monitored' for my safety. I can't see the argument that Marriott is in any way at fault here, unless the incident was caught on camera and watched by security 'live' without any attempt at help. Since it occurred inside her van, I imagine even if the camera was catching the crime, it might not have been obvious. The fault lies entirely on the rapist.

[Ms_enza]

Marriott -- where you are as at home in the parking garage as you are in the lobby.

[TJphoto]

Dear Marriott,
Your Corporate Greed outweighs your common sense & compassion 100:1 Don't worry, it's just one customer who won't be coming back.

[longtree-2009]

wonder what a hotel is required to do under the law to protect its customers. assume anyone is entitled to some kind of defense so wondering what did the hotel do that broke any law in attempting to defend itself. it does appear the hotel was insensitive but is that against the law. if there are no laws as to what a hotel should provide to protect its customers then legislatures should author such laws. laws as to a hotel's responsibilites, even their own developed protection policy, to customers should be provided customers when they check in at the desk. have stayed at numerous hotels while traveling on business and never assumed that hotels were responsible for personal safety. would be interesting to know what laws exist that stipulate a hotel is responsible for personal safety and to what degree, specifically.

[burneb]

Apparently "due care" for your safety and the safety of your family means NOT staying at a Marriott Hotel.

[hermitdave]

What is happiness? Can it buy money?

[indythoughts]

This is why people don't trust for profit companies to have the actual best interests of Americans in mind (healthcare, product safety, etc) They make individual decisons based on cost even though it can hurt the company as a whole or destroy indivudual lives. There has to be rules in place to force them to behave responsibly.