Maintaining employment while suffering from intimate partner violence (IPV) is extremely difficult given the direct and indirect ways abusers disrupt work. The current qualitative study seeks to strategically fill a gap in knowledge regarding survivors’ employment instability and gain insight toward creating more supportive workplaces for survivors. Women (N = 19) receiving services for IPV at a Midwest U.S. agency were interviewed about their experiences of employment instability, workplace disruptions (including via technology), and their perceptions of policies and practices that employers use to support employees experiencing abuse. Specifically, the study asks four research questions to address gaps in literature: (a) What are the employment instability experiences of survivors related to IPV, including attendance, hours, and job loss? (b) What are survivors’ experiences of workplace disruptions, including with technology? (c) What formal employer policies and practices related to IPV are survivors familiar with? and (d) What workplace supports do IPV survivors perceive to be helpful or harmful? Findings uniquely contribute to existing literature by revealing employment instability among mothers, highlighting the use of technology to disrupt survivors’ work, and determining existing policies and procedures that workplaces use to address IPV. Implications for advocates working with survivors as well as employer and state policymakers are discussed.

Mothers who experience intimate partner violence can be resilient in maintaining employment during periods of abuse. The current qualitative study examines mothers’ experiences of abusive workplace disruptions as well as helpful responses from workplaces. Two main research questions are addressed: 1. What ways do abusive partners use issues related to children to disrupt mothers’ employment? 2. How do workplaces respond to mothers experiencing IPV? How do mothers show resilience? Mothers (n = 18) receiving services for abuse explained that abusive partners disrupted their work through compromising or withholding childcare, manipulating them through children, and jeopardizing child safety during work hours. However, mothers showed resilience when coworkers extend housing, childcare, and genuine concern for their situations. Implications for researchers, practitioners, and employers of survivors are discussed.

Despite ethical responsibilities to dismantle systems of oppression, White supremacy ideologies and practices are still inundated in social work academe to the detriment of Black, Indigenous, Latino, and Persons of Color (BILPOC) communities and faculty dedicated to teaching the next generation of critical scholars, activists, and clinicians. Four themes are introduced to exemplify how the academy remains overpowered by the need to sustain the status quo of White power. In the first theme, social work’s long-standing history of omitting BILPOC experiences in curricula is discussed. The second theme characterizes social work’s legacy of omission via inaction to address unjust governmental practices at the U.S. Southern border, thereby perpetuating the cycle of White power. Cementing these positions, we shift the discussion to the inherent pressures within the academy that prizes productivity above all else, perpetuating the culture of White supremacy. In turn, spaces to engage in creative thinking and teaching to dismantle systems of oppressions are limited. Lastly, we discuss the increasing pressure to produce “eurocentric” rigorous scientific knowledge takes precedence at a time when we must place equity and fairness on equal footing. For each of these four themes, we offer suggestions for how to create spaces for racial reconciliation, healing, and equality.