Kate Chisholm knew the man who sexually assaulted her — in fact, she'd worked alongside him for months.

After he drugged and attacked her, she told police immediately and reported it to her employer soon after, spurring officials to launch both an internal and criminal investigation.

But her southern Arizona employer was unwilling to put the man on leave as it reviewed the allegations last year, she said. It urged her to get a restraining order to keep him out of the building.

The problem: Chisholm wasn't related to or involved in a romantic relationship with the man, a requirement for those requesting protective orders under Arizona law.

"I was certainly unwilling to concede that the sexual assault could be legally referred to as a 'sexual encounter' instead of what it actually was, which was a violent crime of power and control," she said. She was also unwilling to quit.

Chisholm had to share a building with her attacker for at least eight months before reaching an arrangement where she could work remotely, she said.

But the loophole in Arizona law that made Chisholm feel she had no "viable legal option to protect myself" could soon be closed. Senate Bill 1250 — which would allow a victim of sexual violence to petition the court for an "injunction against harassment" that could act as a restraining order — passed the Senate unanimously Thursday and is headed to the House for consideration.

Survivors: Help us help ourselves

Sen. Victoria Steele, D-Tucson, was the first to sponsor SB 1250.

"When I learned that there was a bit of a gap in the law, I knew I had to do something," she told senators at a Judiciary Committee hearing last month. "As someone who’s worked with countless victims of sexual violence and domestic violence, this is something that has really been concerning for me."

Her proposal, which sought to resolve the issue by creating a new class of protective order specific to sexual assault, failed to advance.

But Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, revived the legislation through a strike-everything amendment that took a different approach. His version simply tweaks the existing law on injunctions against harassment.

Chisholm and other survivors who testified in support of the revised SB 1250 at the committee hearing indicated they didn't care what the bill looked like, as long as it gave victims a way to distance themselves from attackers.

"This bill will … help victims who fear for their safety and well-being after enduring a traumatic event, such as sexual violence, by giving us a plausible legal option and the space to continue on with our lives and to heal," Chisholm told senators.

The Republic is not disclosing details about her workplace or current location, given safety concerns.

Ron Blake, another survivor, testified that the legislation wouldn't only help women.

He told senators he'd been held down and attacked in his home years ago by three men. When he tried to get an order of protection against the two with whom he did not have a relationship,he ran into the same obstacle Chisholm did, he said.

Blake testified that he'd done "hundreds of hours of physical therapy, psychological therapy" to deal with the trauma of the attack, a process complicated by the fact that he still occasionally sees the men downtown.

"It’s very difficult, and you feel like you have no recourse," he said.

Opponents: Senators taking wrong approach

Though the legislation had bipartisan support in the Senate, it garnered some opposition in the community.

Dave Kopp with the Arizona Citizens Defense League said the group believes "sexual assault is one of the most heinous crimes there is and definitely should be treated seriously," but "throwing paper at people is not treating it seriously."

"The current injunction-against-harassment law is incredibly over-broad, and we’re adding to that issue right now," he told senators at the hearing, pointing to the legal definition of harassment.

State law indicates any "series of acts over any period of time" that "seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose" can qualify.

"We really believe that the restraining-order laws need to be more comprehensive, more delineated, so that minor things like 'I’m annoyed with you' are treated one way and serious things like sexual assault are treated a completely different way," Kopp said.

Reach the reporter at maria.polletta@arizonarepublic.com or 602-653-6807. Follow her on Twitter @mpolletta.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today.