Top Stories Updated 7:37 AM ET April 22, 1998
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Sex Harassment Case
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a sexual harassment case that may have important implications for Paula Jones's appeal trying to revive her lawsuit against President Clinton.
While the facts of the two cases contain some key differences, legal experts agreed the Jones appeal would be affected if the high court redefined what constitutes unlawful sexual harassment.
They said the greatest impact on the Jones case -- which was dismissed by a federal judge in Arkansas April 1 -- would occur if the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a sexual harassment cases need not show economic damage.
"I think it could have a very significant affect on the Jones case. It is an extremely important issue," University of Southern California law professor Erwin Chemerinsky said.
"There is a clear connection. The Supreme Court will resolve whether economic damage is a requirement for a sexual harassment lawsuit," he said.
In the Jones ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright acknowledged that Clinton's alleged conduct was "boorish and offensive."
But she said the decisive factor in dismissing the lawsuit was that Jones did not suffer any tangible economic damage as an Arkansas state employee.
Jones alleged that Clinton, then governor, exposed himself, asked her for oral sex at a hotel room in 1991 and then said he knew her immediate supervisor. Jones has interpreted the remark as a threat, but the judge said it was too ambiguous.
Clinton has denied all the allegations.
Jones last week in Dallas announced that she would appeal the judge's ruling, but her lawyers did not spell out the legal grounds.
Chemerinsky predicted the Jones appeal would be based on the economic injury issue and whether an alleged single act could be be sufficient for a sexual harassment lawsuit.
One difference in the Supreme Court case was that the plaintiff, Kimberly Ellerth, a former employee of Burlington Industries Inc., was subjected to a pattern of alleged unwelcomed sexual advances by her boss in 1993 and 1994.
Despite factual differences in the two cases, a top Justice Department lawyer acknowledged the ruling could affect the Jones appeal if the Supreme Court issued a broad new statement on sexual harassment law.
The Rutherford Institute, which has arranged for Jones's legal representation, said it has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the Ellerth case urging the justices to impose a "strict liability" standard for sexual harassment cases.
"If the Supreme Court adopts the strict liability standard, that's very beneficial for the Jones appeal," said John Whitehead, the head of the institute.
Under that standard, which the Justice Department has advocated, a plaintiff must only reasonably believe there has been a threat of adverse job consequences, rather than prove economic injury.
Whitehead and other legal experts said the Jones appeal would be bolstered if the justices upheld a U.S. appeals court ruling that Ellerth had a case based on the serious threat of job harm.
Conversely, her chances of success would be hurt if the court reversed the appeals court ruling, they said.
Ellerth, a merchandising assistant, claimed Vice President Theodore Slowik told her in a hotel lounge during a business trip in North Carolina, "You know, Kim, I could make your life very hard or very easy at Burlington."
She alleged he patted her on the rear at the annual company holiday party and told her her job would be a "whole heck of a lot easier" if she wore short skirts.
The justices will hear hour-long arguments Wednesday, with a ruling due in the case by the end of June. |
