Dave Boucher and Anita Wadhwani

The Tennessean

Once allegations of rampant misconduct by Jeremy Durham were documented by a 48-page report released on Wednesday, lawmakers roundly condemned the Franklin representative, using language such as “repulsive” to express their outrage. His legislative mentor said Durham lied to him, and the state’s lieutenant governor said he’d like to “smack him in the mouth.”

Yet what is clear is that Durham’s behavior was widely known among lawmakers, staffers and legislative staffers for years.

They knew how he behaved.

They knew because they saw it. Or they were told.

And no one did anything to stop it.

The women knew. Some didn’t tell anyone. Some told their families. Some told their friends and coworkers.

In some cases, they told their bosses, including lobbyists and lawmakers. Several told some of the highest-ranking officials in the state.

All of the women were afraid of filing a formal complaint.

And nothing of consequence happened to Durham, until three women talked with The Tennessean and a story detailing inappropriate conduct was published.

Durham and his supporters have repeatedly noted that no formal complaints were ever filed against him. Some lawmakers, lobbyists and media members wrote off the issue altogether, saying it’s nothing new for the legislature.

But the women’s accounts contained in the attorney general's report make clear that they were intimidated, embarrassed and fearful of losing their jobs or gaining reputations as troublemakers. And they didn’t know where to turn for help.

Although bystander intervention is frequently associated with preventing sexual assault, it’s also a technique that can stop workplace harassment. A 2012 study from the Australian Human Rights Commission notes the benefits of how bystanders can respond to harassment in ways to help victims and prevent future incidents.

“Responses include reporting the problem on behalf of the target, supporting the target in making a complaint, offering advice to the target or confronting the harasser,” the report states.

“Bystanders may provide social guidance which can influence whether targets report the problem or make a formal legal claim. They may initiate a formal organizational response themselves, intervene during an incident or later confront the harasser.”

Lobbyists knew

Female lobbyists reported as early as 2013 they feared they would lose votes on the bills they were advocating if they rebuffed Durham’s advances. The attorney general, in his report, said they weren’t wrong.

“The lobbyist’s perception they could not complain about Rep. Durham’s inappropriate behavior is not without support,” the report said. “For example, a senior male lobbyist expressed his view during an interview that enduring a legislator’s sexual advances is merely part of a female lobbyist’s job.”

The same senior male lobbyist told investigators with the attorney general’s office that “she is a female lobbyist over there. She has to take this.”

He made that statement while sitting with the female lobbyist who had just reported Durham was “hitting on” her in 2014.

Another man identified as John Doe #15 said he witnessed Rep. Durham being “cozy with” and “hitting on” numerous female lobbyists, telling investigators that “the list of lobbyists he has seen Durham approach in this manner would include the whole lobbyist book.”

Related

John Doe #15 did not report the behaviors he witnessed to anyone.

Another former lobbyist, Jane Doe #1, said a male lawmaker agreed with her decision not to complain about Durham's conduct in 2013. The lawmaker “advised her to the effect that she should just keep quiet so people would not talk about her after she worked so hard to get her job.”

The people these women told — mainly men, but some women — gave different advice on how to handle Durham’s advances. Some told the women to block Durham’s cellphone number. Others said to stop socializing with him.

Some bosses told the women they didn’t have to lobby Durham any more. Some women told their bosses they did not want to be around him.

One lobbyist told investigators she would still meet with Durham but “her firm will not send her to meet alone” with him because of his behavior.

The female lobbyists who received what they felt were inappropriate communications or advances from Durham said they felt stuck. Their careers depend on having favorable support from legislators in order to successfully promote their clients' interests.

As House majority whip, Durham carried a more influential role at the statehouse than a rank-and-file member or most Democrats.

“As one Jane Doe #4 put it, lobbyists do not have clients without legislators,” the report said.

Staff members knew

Several women interviewed said they told legislative colleagues about instances in which Durham made them uncomfortable.

During the 2015 session, a 23-year-old intern told an internship administrator that Durham made her feel uncomfortable during a social reception.

Durham approached her several times, appearing more and more intoxicated each time, and finally she agreed to step onto the patio with him. “It became apparent he was trying to kiss her,” the report said. She reminded him he was married, but he said his marriage was not going well.

He told her they had a connection. Another intern stepped out onto the patio, and Durham quickly walked away.

Related

The report says 12 witnesses provided information relevant to this situation.

The internship administrator told the director of legislative administration about the incident, but didn’t reveal the intern’s name. Eventually, the intern decided she did not want to file a formal complaint. She told a friend she didn’t want Durham to do the same thing to someone else but “it’s a chapter of my life (sic) id like to remain closed,” the report states.

Director of Legislative Administration Connie Ridley made a record of the incident. Later that year, at the request of House Speaker Beth Harwell, Ridley spoke to Durham about what Harwell said was “appropriate behavior.”

“No one has filed any complaints, and that was the best I could do since no one has filed any complaints,” Harwell told The Tennessean in December.

In January, the day the House GOP caucus decided not to oust Durham as majority whip, Durham said he didn’t know what Ridley was referencing in her conversation.

The same week, possibly the same day, Durham approached a lobbyist at a reception, according to the attorney general’s report. Durham told her “You’re doing something different. Are you working out? Keep doing what you’re doing. It’s working for you.”

Lawmakers knew

The Tennessean reported in January that two women approached House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick during 2015 with concerns about Durham’s behavior.

Other lawmakers knew years earlier there were issues, according to the report.

An event from either December 2012 or December 2013 — accounts vary in the attorney general’s report — involves an interaction at a reception.

“Jane Doe #46 saw Jane Done #1 shaking her cellphone at Rep. John Doe #55, telling him about the texts she received from Rep. Durham, and saying, ‘(Rep. John Doe #55), you are going to have to fix this,’” the report states.

That same lawmaker was alerted by another staff member about inappropriate texts from Durham in late 2014, according to the report.

In a September 2014 incident, Durham got on an elevator at the same time a legislative assistant and the lawmaker she worked for were leaving the elevator. Durham “turned and said, ‘The young hot assistant is such a cliché,’ ” as the doors closed, according to the report.

Both the lawmaker and the assistant recounted the interaction in the report. There is no mention of any action the lawmaker took to notify others or report Durham’s behavior.

The assistant told investigators she “warns new interns in her office to stay away from” Durham.

Another lawmaker, identified as Rep. Jane Doe #65, said she initially socialized with Durham but stopped.

“She stated her relationship with Rep. Durham changed during the 2015 session due to her knowledge of inappropriate behavior by him which she did not want to be associated with,” the report states.

The report makes no mention of whether the lawmaker told anyone about Durham’s activity.

Rep. John Doe #13 told investigators he first heard about Durham sending inappropriate text messages in the “summer or fall of 2015.” In early January the lawmaker said he asked three female lobbyists about whether they had received inappropriate text messages from Durham.

They told him no but he questioned whether they lied to him, according to the report. Separately, two of the women told investigators they had received inappropriate text messages.

This embodied a larger trend highlighted by the attorney general: many of the women interviewed felt they couldn't go to other lawmakers about Durham's misconduct for fear it could put their jobs at risk.

Reach Dave Boucher at 615-259-8892 and on Twitter @Dave_Boucher1.Reach Anita Wadhwani at 615-259-8092 and on Twitter @AnitaWadhwani.