|
The basis for inquiry is the workplace locale, and the question of whether or not coercion or inducements were involved. That is not irrelevant, but a broader inquiry would be. Was sex or the refusal of sex the basis upon which the job and its rewards depended (i.e., raises, bonuses, and promotions being given or denied on that basis)? Is there a pattern in one's dealings with employees of favoritism, and therefore a reasonable basis for the expectation of retaliation, based upon the bestowal or refusal to bestow sexual favors? Mr. President, did you have a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers, and subsequently get her a job in state government? Etc... It may be that the breadth of the inquiry about pattern is abusable, but it is distinguishable from a vague inquiry into one's sex life, and as such was allowed by the judge in the lawsuit, at which point it became Clinton's obligation to answer truthfully, or to decline to answer on 5th amendment grounds. |
