Statute of limitations

A statute of limitations sets a time limit for bringing a legal claim. In the book, its significance is not merely procedural: a short deadline can close off a route to accountability before a person has found a viable way to report, gather support, or pursue a case. The evidence distinguishes the federal filing period for sexual-harassment complaints from the New York time limits that later affected criminal allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

Deadlines and the limits of civil remedies

In describing the legal landscape around workplace harassment, attorneys told Jodi Kantor that the federal statute of limitations for filing a complaint could be as short as 180 days. The book places that brief window among other weaknesses in federal sexual-harassment law: it excluded broad categories of workers, including freelancers and employees at workplaces with fewer than fifteen employees, and capped federal damages at $300,000. The deadline therefore formed one part of a system in which a person could face limited eligibility, little time to act, and potential compensation that might not cover lost earnings or make it possible to retain a lawyer.

Those constraints help explain why settlements could seem more certain than taking a case to court. The account does not suggest that the deadline alone determined any particular woman’s decision. Rather, it presents a short filing period alongside financial need, the desire for privacy, the prospect of stigma, and the punishing nature of litigation. For lawyers working on contingency, a lost case could mean no fee, another pressure favoring settlement over a risky, prolonged claim.

Different legal tracks, different consequences

The book separates civil sexual-harassment claims from criminal prosecution. When Weinstein appeared in court in 2018, he faced criminal charges based on allegations of forcible sexual offenses; sexual harassment itself was described as a civil offense and could not be tried in that criminal proceeding. The outcome of the criminal case remained uncertain, and the resolution of women’s civil lawsuits was also unclear.

Some of the most serious criminal allegations against Weinstein were not represented in the charges that day and would never reach court because they fell beyond New York’s statute of limitations. Other alleged victims had not chosen to cooperate with authorities. These were distinct barriers: the passage of time had legally foreclosed some allegations, while decisions about cooperation reflected other concerns. The account thus presents limitations periods as shaping not only when a claim may be filed, but which allegations can still enter a courtroom at all.

Time, evidence, and the possibility of speaking

Other episodes show the pressures surrounding older allegations without establishing that a particular limitations period decided their outcome. Zelda Perkins and Rowena Chiu consulted lawyers after leaving Miramax and were advised that they lacked physical evidence and had not contacted police in Venice. Their lawyers proposed a settlement rather than criminal proceedings. The women negotiated for changes they hoped might restrain Weinstein, but ultimately accepted settlements with extensive confidentiality restrictions. The evidence describes the obstacles and advice they faced; it does not identify a limitations deadline as the reason for that settlement.

Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation against Brett Kavanaugh likewise concerned an event from years earlier. The first Washington firms she contacted declined to take the matter, while attorney Lawrence Robbins listened to her account, considered its corroboration, and believed it deserved serious attention. The passage does not specify a statute-of-limitations ruling. Its relevance here is the contrast between the age of an allegation and the separate questions of legal representation, corroboration, and whether anyone would take the case.

Institutional silence and public knowledge

Time limits operated within a broader system that often kept information from public view. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had little enforcement authority, was required to settle when possible, and generally could not disclose which companies had accumulated the most charges. A prospective employee therefore could not use the agency’s record to learn an employer’s harassment history. The account connects that institutional secrecy to the difficulty of recognizing recurring misconduct, while distinguishing confidentiality from the separate legal effect of a limitations deadline.

Taken together, these examples give statutes of limitations a practical and narrative force. They define how long a legal route remains open, but they do not by themselves explain why an allegation was not brought, why a settlement was chosen, or whether a claim will be believed. The book’s account of the 2018 charges makes the irreversible consequence plain: some allegations could not be tried because the legally permitted time had passed, even as the broader questions of responsibility and accountability remained unsettled.