\u201cWhat? Don\u2019t believe her. She\u2019s crazy.\u201d And often, we don\u2019t. Women are frequently disbelieved just by virtue of being women, and \u201ccrazy\u201d is a convenient, gendered shorthand to further discredit\u2014regardless of whether or not the target of such \u201ccredibility discounting\u201d actually experiences mental illness. These women are not, however, uniformly disbelieved in all aspects of their lives: Credibility discounting is particularly potent for those women with mental illness reporting sexual violence, either because we suspect that they are lying or we simply do not trust their perception of events.<\/p>\n
This Note is the first analysis of credibility discounting at the juncture of gender, sexual violence, and mental illness. Credibility discounts operate throughout the course of litigation, from the decision whether to bring suit at all, the ability to win, and even to valuation of damages. Of course, not all claims of sexual violence have merit. But automatic assumptions that claims are false merely because of the accuser\u2019s identity are no more just than the opposite conclusion.<\/p>\n
Sexual harassment law in particular operates to discredit women living with mental illness. The \u201chostile environment\u201d determination, at first glance, appears cabined into objective and subjective inquiries. In practice, however, women\u2019s credibility is reflexively and pervasively discounted. Even though the objective standard is designed to be judged from the \u201cperspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff\u2019s position, considering \u2018all the circumstances,\u2019\u201d the relevant circumstances have not been effectively extended to mental illness. This Note proposes adoption of a contextualized reasonableness standard that consciously incorporates mental illness and recognizes that mental illness and reasonableness are not mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n